FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

JohnHowardReid Fortunately, unlike the over-emphatic Richard Dix, Irene Dunne improves considerably as the film progresses. Her old age is much more convincing than her youth. (The many critics who complained so vociferously about her casting as a querulous Queen Victoria in Jean Negulesco's "The Mudlark" (1950) — before that film had even commenced shooting — had obviously never seen her performance in Cimarron). So much so in fact that few would argue her Best Actress nomination was undeserved.The support players, by and large, tend to take their cues from Edna May Oliver and Rosco (sic) Ates. Most are uniformly hammy. Only Stanley Fields can really get away with these scene-chewing mannerisms, though Edna May and Rosco certainly try hard enough.There are exceptions to the prevailing rule of amateurish dramatics, of course. Estelle Taylor, for one. She's really most convincing as the town trollop. And Nancy Dover — a fine actress who changed her name to Judith Barrett — is absolutely unforgettable as the rebellious Donna.It's George E. Stone, though, who figures in the movie's second most memorable sequence. Not to be outdone by Dunne, he acts his way through the movie in reverse. His early scenes are a masterly triumph, a lesson in how superlative acting can not only overcome tedious clichés but weave them into a characterization that wipes every other player off the screen.The scene in which Stone is gunned down by Stanley Fields is almost as great an audience-stirrer as the justly celebrated land rush with which the film opens. (Incidentally, it wasn't the Cherokee Strip that was opened on 22 April 1889 — that even bigger land rush is referred to later in the film, though, disappointingly, it isn't actually shown on camera — but two million acres of other Indian Oklahoma land). This is quite something. The trouble is that you just can't match a scene like that. Although we anticipate that the movie-makers are aware of this problem and have taken measures to keep an even more spectacular climax in reserve, most unhappily such a finale never eventuates. Indeed, the rest of the movie could be described — a bit unfairly, certainly — as just one long anti- climax.In addition to Best Picture, the movie carried off an award for Best Screenplay Adaptation. The story proceeds — no doubt following the novel — in a series of vignettes, each initiated by a sub-title announcing the year. Whilst certainly effective enough, this is an old-fashioned device that serves to give the whole movie an even more dated and musty museum air than was already the case — thanks to Richard Dix's histrionic mannerisms (a habit that he never wholly overcame, although he did eventually manage to tone his barnstorming down considerably) and his dialogue's tendency to evolve into speeches and declamations (doubtless also derived directly from the Ferber novel).On the other hand, few people would argue with Max Ree's prize for Best Art Direction. The sets, brilliantly reflecting the various passages of years, are an absolute marvel. Of course, Ree apparently had the resources of an almost unlimited budget. It would be impossible to duplicate such elaborate street scenes in a modern studio. Such staggering back-lot facilities are simply no longer available. True, miniatures and special effects could be employed, but to my mind the end result isn't quite the same as that achieved by using real people, real streetcars, real shop-fronts, etc. For once, critics and the public agreed. Both groups voted "Cimarron" the best film of the year. One wonders, if all the releases of that year were placed before our current crop of critics, plus a representative sample of picture-goers, if either or both would still vote the same way. I very much doubt it. A pity, because "Cimarron" has much to offer.

talisencrw I know this gets VERY maligned these days as one of the very worst winners ever of the Best Picture Oscar, especially considering 'The Front Page' was the definitive best of those nominated that year, at the 4th Academy Awards ceremony (and that great films such as 'City Lights', 'Morocco' and 'Frankenstein' didn't even get nominated), but if you can take away Richard Dix's horrible overacting (I can't believe he was even nominated for Best Actor that year!) and uneven, sometimes lethargic or indifferent pacing and direction, certain scenes really pack a wallop, I'm glad that I watched it, and it's certainly not the worst Best Picture Oscar-winner I have seen thus far (that would probably be 'Shakespeare in Love', if I recall correctly, but I would love to watch all of them, just to be sure), and in some ways, I even tend to prefer it to the 1960 remake by Anthony Mann, even though I adore films I have seen that he's directed (although I'm not the biggest Glenn Ford fan in the world, so that probably evens things out). Irene Dunne is a delight, as always.Though it certainly could have used a better editor (a good 30-40 minutes could have been sliced off, and no one would be the wiser), it certainly deserves at least one watch, especially if you're a history buff and want to see a decent depiction of how the Midwest was won.

jngr1 ORIGINAL REVIEW: I'm going to get this out of the way: While there is no excuse for the racism, I'm also not going to vilify this movie for it. The racism seems ridiculous today, but I'm sure the various "parody" movies of the past 15 years will look ridiculous 85 years from now. Even without it, though, it would still fall flat. It opens with the Oklahoma land rush, which is still an impressive spectacle (and my sole reason for going as high as a four rating here). If Wesley Ruggles had turned it into an ensemble movie about the various participants therein, it would have been on to something. But, we are left to follow the Cravat family as they- or, mostly, patriarch Yancey- search for a fortune. To their credit, they do find it, though Yancey is absent most of the time. I have MAJOR issues with the character of Yancey Cravat. It is not so much with Richard Dix, as he does what he can with it (as most of the actors do, especially Irene Dunne). We are asked to accept a man who willingly abandons his family time after time so he can keep chasing the next big thing. He leaves them for years at a time, yet everyone thinks nothing of it. The wife, Sabra, even keeps taking him back and keeps his name as editor of the town newspaper even though it is her hard work that was put into it. I don't play around with such matters, even in movies. If we are supposed to believe that Sabra becomes an independent woman over the course, why the hell does she keep taking Yancey back every time he decides to spend time with the family? If it weren't for the opening land rush, I would be one of those asking for a negative rating option. As is, I'm giving it a generous four.UPDATE: I would like to make an addendum regarding my rant about Yancey. I have since learned that the character as portrayed in the movie is actually faithful to Edna Ferber's novel. This only infuriates me even more. As a party to parental abandonment, I think it has no place for glorification in any media. That is essentially what both Edna Ferber and Wesley Ruggles did with their incarnations of "Cimarron". (I have no interest in the 1960 MGM remake for obvious reasons.) Such a portrayal today would rightly be vilified. This somehow managed to even take some of the luster out of that land rush scene and bumped my rating down to a three.

earlytalkie This film is a landmark of the early talkie cinema. A real epic based on Edna Ferber's dynamite novel, this film still looks modern today. Forget what you thought about static camera work and studio-bound sets. "Cimarron" starts out with it's famous Oklahoma land rush scene which, given the constraints of a narrow screen, black and white production is breathtaking and sprawling to see. Likewise, the shots depicting the growth of a frontier town has all the genuine look of the real thing. The acting of Richard Dix, as Yancy Cravat has been criticized by some as "melodramatic" and "overripe", but he was playing a larger than life character as being such, and he comes across well. Irene Dunne, who made her dramatic debut as Sabra Cravat, is convincing and sympathetic. One of the things I like about this movie is that the characters are neither all-good nor all-evil. There are human flaws in all of them which make them, well, more human. This in itself was a novelty in 1931, when talking pictures were themselves still a novelty. It would be easy to dismiss the character of Isaiah as a typical stereotyped black character, but although he supplys "comedy relief" early in the film, his action later on gives his portrayal a profound depth never seen in these old films. Likewise, the portrayal of the American Indian is given a dignity throughout the production. This is, technically, a Western, and yet it is truly so much more.