Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

MartinHafer "Cimarron" is much like two films crammed together. The first half is exciting and enjoyable in many ways and the final portion is dull and seems to drag on forever...and then some! Rarely have I seen a film this different at the start and at the finish. As a result, it's a real mixed bag of a movie...worth seeing but it sure should have been a lot better.When the film begins, Cimarron Cravat (Glenn Ford) is back East to marry a recent immigrant, Sabra (Maria Schell). Her way of life is about to change radically, as she's moving from relative comfort to the wide open Oklahoma Territory in 1889. Cimarron wants to go there for the giant land grant but many things seem to get in the way of his and Sabra's plans. They don't get the land they wanted and soon Cimarron finds himself running a newspaper. He also finds himself a do-gooder--one of the only men willing to stand up to evil. And here is where you start to see cracks in their marriage. Cimarron has a very strong sense of right and wrong but his wife just wants stability and security at all costs. As the years pass, this gulf between them widens and ultimately they both go their separate ways. What's next for the duo?This Edna Ferber saga is basically the recent history of Oklahoma-- from territory to statehood--and all wrapped around the fictional story of the Cravats. At times exciting and interesting (such as when Cimarron repeatedly risks his life to stand up for the local Indians) and others long, long and long!!! And, rather depressing when all is said and done. The first half merits a 9 and the last a 2! Rarely have I ever seen a film this uneven.

SHAWFAN I saw this film recently for the first time. I could see the parallels to Ferber's other very famous work, Showboat, which likewise sweeps an epic camera across decades of development in American history. But what really struck me was reading the commentaries by other viewers. Some went to great lengths to summarize Anthony Mann and his directorial career. But despite the numerous titles of his other films which were listed and judged not a single commentator mentioned what just might be his greatest film of all, Devil's Doorway (1950) starring Robert Taylor as a dispossessed native American and war hero. Please go to that movie's IMDb website and read my and others' very admiring reviews of this classic film. I saw Mann's commenting in Cimarron too about race prejudice and legal chicanery and couldn't help but be struck by those echoes of his 1950 masterpiece.

tedg I did not see this when it was new. I remember thinking that it wasn't worth the effort then. It is less worth it now.Its device is its scope, both in time and size. There are not one but two land grabs. it spans 25 years and much attention is spent on the theatrics of the sets. It must have been a strange year for this to have done well. At least we can value it to the extent that its success for Columbia made the scope of Lawrence of Arabia possible for MGM.The story here is only there to support a celebration of settlers of Indian territories and to pull out a specific type which we are to admire as an ideal, an ideal American.He is a champion of justice and a man of action. His adherence to certain principles punishes him. He is a proponent of civil rights here coded as Indian rights. What's not to like?Well. He loves the adventure of the land. We get great vistas that anchor him in the place, a convention of Westerns since Ford. But he is not a man of the land, he is a city boy who likes adventure. That's this film's basic undoing of ideals.It's reflected in the parallel western convention of woman as place. This guy loves deeply but he just can't settle with a woman. We see two.When they meet, they talk of wives as mothers, companions and lovers. We are to admire that he does not need the first, is companion to nearly everyone and is deep in his love.The narrative power of this idea by itself would be weak in any package. It is even worse here because of the inept direction. We see this more sharply now because of the obsolete acting and staging styles.Ann Baxter is a pretty prostitute whose story of self is close to our hero. Though she has less screen time than the immigrant wife, we are to see her as genuine. It's really about her as the land, as the place, and why it isn't the blond wife.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

bkoganbing I've always liked the 1960 remake of the RKO classic Cimarron and have never understood why it gets panned by so many people the way it does. Director Anthony Mann who got fired towards the end of the film's production did a very good job with both the cast and the spectacle. The Oklahoma land rush scene was as thrillingly done as it was in the 1931 version.In fact truth be told, Glenn Ford did a better job as frontier renaissance man Yancey Cravat. Richard Dix though nominated for Best Actor in 1931 never did quite master the art of sound film and his star progressively sank lower and lower in Hollywood. Glenn is a strong heroic figure cursed with the fatal flaw of wanderlust.Truth also be told is that many different accents made up the western pioneer population. Maria Schell's German accent is most assuredly not out of place here and she holds her own with Irene Dunne's portrayal of Sabra Cravat.All the characters present in Edna Ferber's saga of the transforming of Oklahoma from territory to state made it from the first film. All of them meet during the Oklahoma land rush and while Glenn and Maria are the leads, the story of the film is what happens to all of them.One character is expanded considerably from the 1931 film. Edna May Oliver was Mrs. Wyatt who was a pioneer woman whose husband we never did meet. Here Mrs. Wyatt is played by Mercedes McCambridge who is married to Arthur O'Connell who is very important to the story. They're this hardscrabble share cropper family who get a real scrubby piece of land at the beginning of the land rush, mainly because O'Connell falls off the stagecoach right at the beginning of the land rush and Mercedes runs across the starting line and she claims the land right at the line.It turns out the land has oil and these people become the proverbial beggars on horseback. McCambridge remains unchanged by their sudden wealth, O'Connell is very much like that other nouveau rich oil millionaire that Edna Ferber created, Jett Rink. From people who the Cravats lent a hand to back in the day, O'Connell at least becomes an opponent.One character that was eliminated thank the Deity was the black kid Isiaih who hero worshiped Richard Dix in the 1931 version. In 1960 that kind of racial stereotype would not have been tolerated.The cast includes also such fine people as Anne Baxter, Edgar Buchanan, Russ Tamblyn, Vic Morrow, Aline McMahon, Robert Keith, Charles McGraw, all ably filling out parts from the original version. The land rush scene is every bit as good as the first time around.I'm at a loss as to why this film was panned the way it was. It's a very good western and fans of the genre will appreciate it.