SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Claire Dunne One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

filmtechnz I am at a loss to understand why this has been panned by critics, and why it did not do better at the box office. Like other reviewers I found Glenn Ford's depiction of Yancey Cravat far better than that of Richard Dix, in the 1931 version. The land rush was brilliantly done, and the remainder of the cat, eg Harry Morgan, Russ Tamblyn, Anne Baxter and especially Maria Schell were excellent. The music by Franz Waxman was splendidly done, the cinematography brilliant, and the title song very catchy. Generally I am not (with one or two notable exceptions) a fan of westerns, however Cimarron should not be missed. It is a thoroughly enjoyable film.

disinterested_spectator Though the 1931 version of Edna Ferber's 1929 novel is not any good, yet we make allowances for it owing to the times in which the movie was made. It seems to be trying to say prejudice is bad, but makes its point with stereotypes of African Americans, Jews, and Native Americans, often set up to show how enlightened Yancey is and what a great guy he is for coming their rescue. Yancey is also supposed to be enlightened when it comes to women, hence his defense of Dixie Lee, but this is done at the expense of women like Sabra, making her out to be narrow minded. And so, we handicap the movie for when it was made, making allowances for both the style and content.But when watching the 1960 remake, we lose all patience. To take an extreme example for comparison, we are glad to have "Birth of a Nation" (1915) as a document revealing the racist attitudes of the times, and as such, we watch the movie with fascination. But that does not mean we want the movie remade today, even if we could do it better, so to speak, by making it with sound, in color, and in widescreen.Perhaps the land rush for the Unassigned Lands in Oklahoma in 1889 begged to be filmed in color and in Cinemascope, but that could have been depicted in an entirely different story. Placed within a remake of "Cimarron," however, it is simply wasted. Some of the misogyny is eliminated by simply eliminating Yancey's bigoted daughter and by eliminating the persecution and trial of Dixie Lee. The African American stereotype is avoided by eliminating the boy who sneaked away with Yancey and Sabra early in the 1931 movie. However, Sol Levy is still depicted as the stereotypical Jew who is a helpless victim, which allows Yancey to play the savior.In my review of the 1931 version, I said that Yancey Cravat is an irritating character played by a bad actor, Richard Dix. In this 1960 version, Yancey is played by a much better actor, Glenn Ford, but he is just as irritating as ever, if not more so. However, the 1960 version makes apologies for him by having Sabra tell him she never wants to see him again when he refuses to accept the appointment as governor, instead of simply having Yancey abandon her again the way he did in the 1931 version.The melodramatic death of Yancey in the oilfield is eliminated, with Yancey dying in the First World War instead. A more modestly sized statue of Yancey appears at the end of the 1960 version, though with Yancey still towering over the Native American he is helping up.

FightingWesterner I've seen movies that were so-so, left me feeling indifferent, or were completely boring. This one was maddeningly unsatisfying, as the first half was so good, bringing tears to my eyes, while the second half was absolutely awful.After an excellent start, including an incredible, well staged recreation of the Oklahoma land rush and a vivid account of life in a growing frontier community, Cimarron bogs down and never recovers.Glenn Ford is fantastic and likable as an extroverted dreamer, who despite many disappointments, tries to have a positive affect on the people around him, making for a very poignant hour or so, until it becomes way too apparent that the town portrayed in the movie is absolutely loaded with unpleasant characters and no matter what Ford does, his efforts always lead to terrible and unsatisfying conclusions, with no one in the film ever achieving true happiness or triumphing in any way!This eventually turns into a lame, schmaltzy soap-opera that meanders and becomes quite tedious, with Maria Schell as Ford's wife, becoming increasingly shrill, while Ford begins to drift in and out of the picture, finally disappearing for good.Instead, watch How The West Was Won, another multi-generational salute to the old west, that actually has a little triumph to go along with the tragedy or even the 1931 version of Cimmaron, which isn't that great, but is still preferable to this.

jpdoherty CIMARRON (1960) was MGM's big Cinemascope/colour remake of RKO's 1930 epic production of Edna Ferber's classic story of the same name. From a screenplay by Arnold Schulman it was, I am loathe to say, unevenly directed by Anthony Mann.I am quite astonished - even aghast - that some reviewers on these pages elected to award this film a seven, eight, nine and in some cases a ten star rating? Some even hinted that it is Mann's most underrated western and could be his best work. "Cimarron" is nowhere near his best work! His best work is "El Cid" (1961) and his best western is "Winchester 73" with "The Naked Spur" coming a close second. "Cimarron " isn't even a good western! Not in the normal sense of what is regarded a good western like "Shane", "The Searchers" or "Last Train From Gun Hill". Even Ford's "The Sheepman" is a superior western to "Cimarron"! More lighthearted - sure but much more fun to watch!The first half of CIMARRON isn't at all bad and contains the best staging of the 1889 Oklahoma land rush ever put on the screen and in widescreen too (though in 1992 Ron Howard made a good fist of it in "Far & Away"). But let's face it the second half is relentlessly boring and just drags and drags! Firstly Anne Baxter, who has third billing after the leading lady Maria Schell, is written out of the film which I suppose isn't very noticeable since she didn't have a very important role in the picture anyway. But then Glenn Ford - the star of the movie - is also written out of the picture and only makes a brief and perfunctory reappearance just before the last reel. Then he's up and gone again never to be seen in the movie any more. With its star gone from the film the picture loses much of its balance and never regains the stature it had in the first half. Of course the story is the old chestnut of the mismatched couple who get hitched - she wants to play house and raise a family - while he wants to be charging up San Juan Hill, winning battles wherever they are and never seems to want to come home to his lovely wife. Well, to my mind any man who could leave the stunning Maria Schell - even for a long weekend - isn't playing with a full deck! Hmmm!Nope I'm sorry but I really don't think that "Cimarron" is all that great a movie! There are some great things in it! Besides the gorgeous Miss Schell there is the fine Cinemascope/Colour cinematography of Robert Surtees, the elaborate score by Franz Waxman (his Anthem like choral Main Title and his recurring main theme throughout plus his frenetic music for the land rush is outstanding) and the land rush itself is wonderfully exciting to see but there is nothing in the turgid second half that can persuade me to give this movie any more than a three star rating. Pity!!