The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
Cimarron is supported by a strong performance from Irene Dunne, but uneven in basically every other regard, and riddled with potentially offensive stereotypes.
All Critics (19)
| Top Critics (5)
| Fresh (10)
| Rotten (9)
| DVD (1)
"Cimarron" is magnificent in scope, powerful in treatment, admirable in acting. But it is even more than all this. It is one of few talking picture productions which inspires rather than awes.
It is a long, full-bodied picture, paced so deftly that although it covers more than half a century of crowded, changing events, it never drags and is rarely jerky.
This is a spectacular western away from all others. It holds action, sentiment, sympathy, thrills and comedy -- and 100% clean.
A graphic and engrossing screen conception.
Critically lauded at the time of its release, Cimarron was beloved by most who saw it. Eight decades later, it is frequently cited on lists of the most undeserving Academy Award winners.
It is impossible, of course, in a short notice to give any real idea of so full and detailed a picture -- but Cimarron is emphatically a film which everyone looking for a good entertainment should see.
As a motion picture, this is fairly worthless, crippled by static direction, overblown performances and dull conflicts. But as a study of the American mindset at the time of both the story's setting and the film's production, it's a fascinating look back.
I can see the epic tragic scope that Cimarron was going for, and I can glean the dramatic irony inherent in the hugeness of it all, but it just doesn't work. It's a stiff, unengaging movie.
Get past the occasionally dated feel of Cimarron and you'll find a cracking yarn, one that does eventually make up for itself.
The first western to win an Oscar for Best Picture.
It holds up surprisingly well today.
Consistently dull, this old western tale is highlighted by an endearing debut performance by Irene Dunne.
A land rusher and his wife attempt to conquer the West.
I think one's judgement of this film rests with one's judgement of its main character. Some may see Yancey Cravat as a just, forward-thinking tough paragon of masculinity. However, I see him as a braggart, demeaning, and ludicrous prick. His heavy-handed treatment of his wife, his version of vigilante "justice," his proselytizing sermons, and his posturing nonsense wear on me to the point where I find it impossible to spend one moment in his presence. He's the type of person who so full of himself that there's nothing left for anyone else.
The plot of the film serves Yancey. Each turn of the story is meant to render him more fully masculine and more admirably heroic, but what is left when an audience finds themselves unconvinced of his "awesomeness?" Not a damn thing.
Overall, this guy is an asshole, and that makes the film an asshole too.
Okay, so this film is historically significant since it's the first western to win an Oscar (in general), and also for (somehow) snagging Best Picture. I think this is definitely a case of tastes changing. This was seen as a marvelously lavish and epic film in its time. Now it's a horribly dated, irrelevant and racist mess. I will give it credit for being an interesting look at the values of the society that it was produced in. Aside from that, there's not really much of a reason to see this unless you're an Oscar completist of die hard fan of 30s cinema.
The story (based on a historical novel) tells the sotry of a man and wife set against the backdrop of the early history and development of Oklahoma. It should be an adventurous story of progress and adventure but is instead a creaky, scattershot melodrama with racist overtones in its portrayal of ethnic minorities. At the time the film was considered progressive, and no one batted an eye over the content. Yeah...can't say the same for how it fares now. I've seen movies that were far more racist, but thpse also had other aspects that helped me forgive them or at least be more understanding. This film, aside from being lavishly staged, isn't really technically innovative or remarkable. The opening scenes are decent though. At least hte film contains one character who serves as a counterpoint to the dominant views and is sympathetic with or understanding of the minorities. That helps, but it's not enough. It's also boring and unengaging.
Well, that pretty much sums this one up. It's not terrible, but there's really isn't a reason to see this beyond what I've previously mentioned.
Creaky antique that somewhat inexplicably won the second best picture Oscar ever awarded. Taking into account that films had just started to talk perhaps that is part of the reason for the prize going to this exercise in overacted storytelling. Although today the picture is quite racist in the context of the time it might of even been considered progressive. The print is in pretty rough shape and Dix in particular is over the top, to be far most actors of the time hadn't learned yet how to modulate down their performances from the silents. Read the much better book instead.
The scene of the rush out west for cheap land with hundreds of extras in wagons, on horse back, and on foot is an amazing epic scene. The rest of the movie I thought was awful. Over the top performances and the lead actor going way too heavy on the makeup make this another embarrassing early talky.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.