There is a lot right with CIMARRON, but a lot wrong too. Now on DVD in a great transfer/wide screen/stereo sound, it's interesting viewing. Not having read the book I can't compare, but there are several plot doings that don't have any conclusions. The movie is an epic of sorts and would have run hours if everything came together. A bit illocgical at times. Main plot line is Glenn Ford and Maria Schell a newlyweds coming to settle in Oklahoma when free land is available. In the span of over 30 years there is much going happening both good and bad, just like in real life. If I hadn't seen Glenn Ford in so many films I would think his performance would be excellent, but he kind of mumbles and hems and hahs every other sentence in every film he's in. He acts very much like he did in TEASHOUSE OF THE AUGUST MOON just a few years earlier. Better direction was needed for his character. Maria Shell was quite wonderful in a difficult role and she's in almost every frame the last 1/4th of the movie. The support actors are all good to fair. Russ Tamblyn disappoints as the baddie. Anne Baxter does well in an ill-defined role. Looks like most of her performance ended up on the cutting room floor or wasn't even filmed. Too many conflicts go unresolved...but it's still an interesting film with much to admire, especially the the cinematography and music score. Worth a look.

My expectations were quite mixed for 'Cimarron'. Its biggest draw being the talent in front of and behind the camera, there are some fine actors here and Anthony Mann showed in the likes of 'Winchester 73' that he was a gifted director. Was everything he did great? No, but he did do a fair share of great work. At the same time, part of me was apprehensive seeing that it was a remake of the 1931 'Cimarron', which admittedly didn't do much for me and is one of my least favourite Best Picture winners.

1960's 'Cimarron' was neither great or terrible. Personally found it a very uneven film (frustratingly so), and for the reasons said already and a mixed bag. Hence the mixed feelings rating and conflicted review. It could have been much better and it is not hard to see why it wasn't and still isn't well received, but also it was not that bad and actually from personal opinion it's marginally better than the 1931 film major flaws (and there are many of those) and all.

Do agree that 'Cimarron' does start off really well. The photography is really beautiful to watch and shows that the story fares much better in colour. While the settings would have benefitted better from being real locations and not being studio sets, they still have a handsome grandeur about them. Franz Waxman's score is typically melodious and sweeping and the rousing credits song is one of three main things that stayed with me after watching.

The other two being the jaw-dropping land rush sequence, even those that didn't care for the film say that it was a remarkable sequence and they are right. It is the standout scene visually and is both tense and somewhat moving. And the superb performance of the always worth watching Glenn Ford, that is leagues better and much more natural and charismatic than the earlier interpretation of the same role of Richard Dix. Most of the rest of the cast also do well, especially Aline McMahon and Edgar Buchanan.

Not everybody in the cast comes off well. Russ Tamblyn, so good in 'West Side Story' and 'tom thumb', never really gelled in the setting and took me out of it, also felt the role was too big for him. Anne Baxter actually does very well and is poignant, the problem was the way her part was written which felt heavily truncated and incomplete. Worst is a hopeless and completely out of her depth Maria Schell, who really irritates from her wild over-acting and it was clear she had no idea what to do with her role.

'Cimarron' is badly let down by the second half, which is deadly (interminably even) dull and little more than very watery and overwrought soap-opera. The story starts off well, but it becomes far too slight and uneventful in the second half, and the sprawling nature of it makes it not always easy to follow completely. This contributed heavily towards the sluggishness, so by the end the film felt very overlong. Have no issue with long films, some very long films such as 'Ben-Hur', 'The Ten Commandments', 'Gone with the Wind' and 'Napoleon' are classics, but it's how it's executed as to whether it matters or not. It did here. The script is similarly leaden and the soap really gets too much, the flow was also quite awkward and disjointed. Mann's direction was solid initially but then became uncertain and plodding later on.

All in all, watchable but very uneven. 5/10

"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.