So much average

Good concept, poorly executed.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Good drama that had the potential to be one of the greats.The setup for this movie was interesting, and made you think there was a clear, focused message coming as some stage. The movie was set up to rail against religion as a business, how some people use religion for their own ends, and how easily people can be manipulated in the name of religion. There was also an opportunity to look at the influence of the media.However, from a point the movie lost focus. The snake-oil salesman turned out to have redeeming qualities, turns out religious organisations can do some good, the bs-printing newspaper printed the truth for once...It's as if the writer and director pulled their punches. Rather than a damning expose of certain religious organisations, it is a story of a man, a man with good and bad qualities. No particular message in the end, and very disappointing in that respect.Still made for an interesting story, just not anywhere near as brilliant as it could have been.Mesmerizing, powerful performance by Burt Lancaster in the lead role. There's a fine line between powerful acting and over-acting. Lancaster comes close on several occasions, but doesn't cross it. He well deserved his Best Actor Oscar.Solid support from Jean Simmons, Arthur Kennedy and Shirley Jones. Jones won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role as Lulu Bains. Not sure it was THAT good a performance, but she sure did look good delivering it...

Probably the most significant thing to know about this film is that the story is set in 1927. Given, too, that the film's production was 1960, we can say that "Elmer Gantry" does not reflect the current, 21st century, state of religious fundamentalism in America. The film is basically how Hollywood, in the late 1950s, viewed tent religion in the early part of the twentieth century.Given that the Production Code, with its moral censorship guidelines, was still in force when the film was made, the script is a sanitized version of the Sinclair Lewis novel. Hollywood thus tries to straddle the fence in its faith vs. no-faith theme, and render characters as merely flawed, not evil.Thus, vacuum salesman Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster) may be slimy, deceptive, hypocritical, scheming, and manipulative, but he can also recite lines from the Bible. To make him any more diabolical would have angered a majority of viewers in 1960. Similarly, Sister Sharon (Jean Simmons) may collect money from those who go to her revivals, but it's to pay the bills and all the logistics necessary for her ministry. Further, she seems so sincere and, seemingly, can render miracles.We can thus forgive Hollywood for taking this approach to the story in 1960. At that time, nobody could foresee how self-serving and hateful religious fundamentalism would become in politics in the latter part of the 20th century. After all, Sister Sharon talked a lot about "love", not hate.The film is quite grandiose, a big-scale production, well over two hours in duration. Scenes are lavish in scope, heavy on dialogue, and visually robust, no doubt a carryover from those big screen sword and sandal epics of the 1950s. As such, the story seems contrived. Performances, especially that of Burt Lancaster, seem exaggerated.As a big, splashy Hollywood production, "Elmer Gantry" is okay, except for its length, its contrived story, and its exaggerated performances. But it doesn't reflect modern religious fundamentalism. For that, a more realistic, and relevant, movie is "Marjoe" (1972), about a child evangelist. And "Marjoe" is not contrived at all; it's a true story.

... this one would have been one of the greatest ever, and would have better withstood the test of time. Story by Sinclair Lewis! Directed and adapted for the screen by Richard Brooks! Starring Burt Lancaster and Jean Simmons, both mega-stars. And -- get this -- a "supporting cast" that includes the likes of Patti Page, Shirley Jones and Dean Jagger. How can you go wrong? From my notes on a third viewing: 1. The adaption was major. Some literary experts felt the novel had been de-nuded. 2. The film has a backwards feel to it, that it, the earlier scenes where the characters are introduced feel more genuine than the contrived plot twists that come later. This is the sign of a project that ran away from the director. 3. Patti Page is seriously under-utilized (both as to voice and acting) and Dean Jagger always plays the same character, which can be both a benefit and a liability. 4. The key to this film is, was, and always will be Lancaster. Was this part written for him or did he adapt to the part? There is mystery indeed. Many if not all of the gestures and mannerisms attributed to Elmer are, coincidentally, the very same gestures and mannerisms that Burt was known for. Lancaster was one of the most physical actors of the period. He had hands the size of toasters. He was an ex-acrobat. Years before this film was made, he did a self-parody pirate film called the CRIMSON PIRATE. No one would have thought of giving him an Oscar for that film, but if you view the two side by side you will find that the gestures mannerisms and speech patterns are almost identical. 5. Lancaster was nearing 50 by the time this was made. To answer the question asked above, this reviewer does believe the part was written with him in mind; and moreover that Hollywood chose to honour him for his incredible body of work with the ultimate prize for this film. Nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong, but, in this context you see the film is no longer one of greatest films of all times (awards notwithstanding) but rather one of the most over-acted and over-written films of all time. Big difference. 6. Later in life, Burt, actually one of my favourite performers, learned to act using the principle "less is more." Have a look at Scorpio, done over a decade later.

Honestly, I don't know where to begin because there were a lot of things that I loved about watching this film Elmer Gantry (1960). There were so many great elements happening all at once especially the acting. Burt Lancaster did a splendid job and was a perfect choice for the leading role of Elmer Gantry because he featured lots of honest to goodness acting. His energy, enthusiasm, and charismatic appearance made Gantry such a cool character. His acting was most definitely my favorite aspect of the movie because his performance truly brought the movie to life. My rule for telling whether I watched a good movie or not is by seeing how often I notice the outlining of the screen that the movie is displayed on and I barely noticed it when watching Elmer Gantry because I was so into it. The director of the film, Richard Brooks, did a fine job with choosing the camera angles and transitioning. Take it from someone who loves everything about film and is trying to become a prominent film director when I say you can learn a lot from watching Mr.Brooks film. Brooks displayed professional frame balance practically throughout every scene. Overall, after watching Citizen Kane I kinda became bored of watching old-school films but Elmer Gantry has restored my enjoyment of old- school films once again. I just began enjoying older films a lot more than what is being produced today in the film world. I thought the script for Elmer Gantry was exceptional; I loved every quote in the movie especially, "One minute you're a howling banshee,the next, you're cold potatoes." Everyone should watch Elmer Gantry because it is simply a great movie.