Review Wanted: "Elmer Gantry"
03-12-01, 07:46 PM
#3
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: DUD Talk
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I've heard, the usual mixed bag from MGM. Overall, a pretty decent transfer, but the opening credits look fearsome, followed by about 15 minutes of barely audible sound. Probably identical to the laserdisc.
03-12-01, 11:22 PM
#4
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't seen the DVD, but Fred Hunter's review can be found here:
http://www.classicsondvd.com/elmer.htm
(He used to review classics and have a great camp column at DVDFile.)
--Heather
http://www.classicsondvd.com/elmer.htm
(He used to review classics and have a great camp column at DVDFile.)
--Heather
03-13-01, 03:51 PM
#5
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Saint Clair Shores, MI, USA
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks. Despite the less than rave reviews, I'll probably pick it up anyway. I'll post a review if I do.
By the way, Sykes (or anyone else who wants to chime in). What is your opinion of Burt Lancaster's performance in this film? I think it's great, but I'm probably a bit biased since I'm a huge Lancaster fan. Yes, he won an Oscar for it, but we all know that doesn't really mean anything. I've heard some say that his performance was over the top or that he was "hamming it up." I'm just curious about what everyone else thinks.
jim
By the way, Sykes (or anyone else who wants to chime in). What is your opinion of Burt Lancaster's performance in this film? I think it's great, but I'm probably a bit biased since I'm a huge Lancaster fan. Yes, he won an Oscar for it, but we all know that doesn't really mean anything. I've heard some say that his performance was over the top or that he was "hamming it up." I'm just curious about what everyone else thinks.
jim
03-13-01, 04:52 PM
#6
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: DUD Talk
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, Sykes (or anyone else who wants to chime in). What is your opinion of Burt Lancaster's performance in this film?
While never absent an overpowering screen prescence and vigorous athleticism, I have always felt that it took Burt a long time to learn how to be a great actor; crowding the majority of his finest work into the latter half of his career. Largely because of his refusal to take advice (although he always offered plenty), Burt's early performances cannot supress a faint impression of artificiality.
He took major strides forward with Sweet Smell of Success (1957), superbly embodying the despotic, complex J.J. Hunsecker. His Elmer Gantry (1960) is the quintessence of the dynamic, enthusiastic persona of his prime. Despite the naysayers, I feel the crackle and bravura he empowers Gantry with was the perfect approach to the snake-oil preacher (a childhood friend of his once said that he never saw the Lancaster he knew on the screen, until Elmer Gantry). By his later years--capped by Atlantic City--Burt had fully mastered the art of subtlety and understatement, and thereby, his profession. By his final screen turn in Field of Dreams, nobody--least of all Kevin Costner--stood a chance sharing the camera with him.
Hope for an improved revisiting to the title some years down the road!
03-14-01, 03:57 PM
#7
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Saint Clair Shores, MI, USA
Posts: 2,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sykes...
I agree completely.
I haven't seen "Atlantic City" in years, but I do agree that it's his best performance.
I love his early films. I think he excelled at playing masochist film noir "hero" in movies like "The Killers" and "Criss Cross", but it was his undeniable screen presence more than his acting which made him so memorable in these films. (I feel the first real hint that there was something more to him was in "Sorry, Wrong Number", where he is cast in a slighty different role than his earlier noir work.)
It wasn't until the late-50's - early 60's that he really developed into a fine actor. (In the early 50's, "From Here To Eternity" being a possible exception, he seemed to rely only on his charisma and athleticisim in movies like "The Flame And The Arrow" and "The Crimson Pirate"...two films that I enjoy, but remain under the category of "guilty pleasures.") I consider "Sweet Smell Of Success" to be his first truly great performance and his work with John Frankenheimer (more on that later) showed more range than I believe he has ever been given credit for.
I also feel that his performance in "Elmer Gantry", despite it's critics, is just what the role called for.
Back to the Frankenheimer films...
I was watching "Seven Days In May" last night, a great film with an amazing cast. (Lancaster, Douglas, March, Balsam, Gardner, and Edmund O'Brien in the best performance of his career) Not a single performance is off, and this prompted a conversation over whether this film could be made in this day and age and still be so good.
An obvious answer is no, because of changes in the political climate. Beyond that, I can't think of a modern cast that would handle those parts so well. (Of course, this could, in part, be due to different approaches to and different styles of acting that are preferred now.) The performances are the perfect exercise in restraint...especially those of Lancaster and Douglas. Can you imagine the amount of scenery-chewing if this film was made today? How over-the-top these characters would be played by modern actors? Can you imagine Jack Nicholson (He's the first that comes to mind...maybe because of his role in "A Few Good Men") playing the role of General Scott?
Okay, I've gotten off on a hude tangent here. Someone please pull me back in. I haven't really said what I want to say in a very convincing (or even comprehensible) way, but I hope that someone gets my points...if I have any.
jim
I agree completely.
I haven't seen "Atlantic City" in years, but I do agree that it's his best performance.
I love his early films. I think he excelled at playing masochist film noir "hero" in movies like "The Killers" and "Criss Cross", but it was his undeniable screen presence more than his acting which made him so memorable in these films. (I feel the first real hint that there was something more to him was in "Sorry, Wrong Number", where he is cast in a slighty different role than his earlier noir work.)
It wasn't until the late-50's - early 60's that he really developed into a fine actor. (In the early 50's, "From Here To Eternity" being a possible exception, he seemed to rely only on his charisma and athleticisim in movies like "The Flame And The Arrow" and "The Crimson Pirate"...two films that I enjoy, but remain under the category of "guilty pleasures.") I consider "Sweet Smell Of Success" to be his first truly great performance and his work with John Frankenheimer (more on that later) showed more range than I believe he has ever been given credit for.
I also feel that his performance in "Elmer Gantry", despite it's critics, is just what the role called for.
Back to the Frankenheimer films...
I was watching "Seven Days In May" last night, a great film with an amazing cast. (Lancaster, Douglas, March, Balsam, Gardner, and Edmund O'Brien in the best performance of his career) Not a single performance is off, and this prompted a conversation over whether this film could be made in this day and age and still be so good.
An obvious answer is no, because of changes in the political climate. Beyond that, I can't think of a modern cast that would handle those parts so well. (Of course, this could, in part, be due to different approaches to and different styles of acting that are preferred now.) The performances are the perfect exercise in restraint...especially those of Lancaster and Douglas. Can you imagine the amount of scenery-chewing if this film was made today? How over-the-top these characters would be played by modern actors? Can you imagine Jack Nicholson (He's the first that comes to mind...maybe because of his role in "A Few Good Men") playing the role of General Scott?
Okay, I've gotten off on a hude tangent here. Someone please pull me back in. I haven't really said what I want to say in a very convincing (or even comprehensible) way, but I hope that someone gets my points...if I have any.
jim
03-14-01, 07:51 PM
#8
That's a disappointing review, but I expect I'll get it soon anyway. Hopefully someone else will post a review too.
To answer your question about Lancaster's acting, he makes the movie! I saw this movie somewhat by accident probably about a year ago & I couldn't look away. This is the movie that made me a Burt Lancaster fan. Until then I had always put him in an unappealing '50s movie star category along with Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Rock Hudson, etc. In fact I had pretty much written off the entire period without really checking much out.
Now I make a point to watch or tape anything that I know he's in. I haven't seen many but Sweet Smell of Success & The Killers are my 2 other favorites so far.
To answer your question about Lancaster's acting, he makes the movie! I saw this movie somewhat by accident probably about a year ago & I couldn't look away. This is the movie that made me a Burt Lancaster fan. Until then I had always put him in an unappealing '50s movie star category along with Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Rock Hudson, etc. In fact I had pretty much written off the entire period without really checking much out.
Now I make a point to watch or tape anything that I know he's in. I haven't seen many but Sweet Smell of Success & The Killers are my 2 other favorites so far.
