Cimarron (1931)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Chris W

  
  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… More
  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.

• jay n

  
  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… More
  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.

• Matthew Y

  
  If not for the academy this would likely be forgotten and gone in cinema lore. It's not a terrible film (though I would put it as the weakest 1931 film that I've seen) and for the early sound era the scope of the film and the landmark plain settings and cinematography must… More
  If not for the academy this would likely be forgotten and gone in cinema lore. It's not a terrible film (though I would put it as the weakest 1931 film that I've seen) and for the early sound era the scope of the film and the landmark plain settings and cinematography must have been something to behold in it's day. The western genre had not yet materialized itself or it's standard themes and cliques so this was probably some early groundwork for the high morals and ethics male hero that would later dominated cinema in the 40's and 50's.

• Lord N

  
  I really disliked this one. It was a poorly made western film. I disliked the character of Yancey quite a bit. at some points it was downright racist. there is a scene where a gunfight is going on (It's a western after all) and Yancey's black servant goes out to save his… More
  I really disliked this one. It was a poorly made western film. I disliked the character of Yancey quite a bit. at some points it was downright racist. there is a scene where a gunfight is going on (It's a western after all) and Yancey's black servant goes out to save his kids. the servant gets shot. Yancey then kills all of the "bad guy's" and brings his children home. in the street the camera focuses on Yancey's servant whom in his final moments moans "master Yancey" and is completely ignored and isn't even talked about for the rest of the movie. I did like Irene Dunne's performance though. She did very well. but on the whole this movie really sucked. I wouldn't have given Best Picture to this. I'm not sure yet what I would have given it to though. Final Verdict: it bored me, was racist, and it had a poor plot and only halfway decent acting. I would give it to something else. Not sure what yet though.

• Lizzy B

  
  Wow, I don't have a clue why this won best picture... the editing was terrible and the whole thing was full of stereotypes and racism. I really like Irene Dunne in other movies, she's really cute... but this one she was a bitch and all the other characters were cliche and… More
  Wow, I don't have a clue why this won best picture... the editing was terrible and the whole thing was full of stereotypes and racism. I really like Irene Dunne in other movies, she's really cute... but this one she was a bitch and all the other characters were cliche and overdone. This was like an elementary school play with a lot of uncomfortable pauses for dramatic effect... I kind of didn't like it.