With an IMDB rating of 6.1, Cimarron is the lowest-rated Best Picture Oscar winner:
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?at=0&count=100&groups=oscar_b est_picture_winners&sort=user_rating
Not meant to be an indictment of Cimarron - I haven't seen it yet - but merely an interesting fact.
Like a bird on the wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried in my way to be free
I was just coming here to see if anybody else had noticed that. I guess something had to be the lowest.
shareI have now seen Cimarron, and it well deserves the title of Worst Best Picture Oscar winner. Is horrendously bad, and definitely worse than the movies which were previously top of my list of worst Best Picture winners (Braveheart, followed by The English Patient and Titanic).
Have now seen 66 of the 87 Best Picture winners. I doubt that anything in those remaining 21 could be as bad as Cimarron.
Like a bird on the wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried in my way to be free
It is awful and I'm very surprised that it won. Very curious what the other contenders that year for Best Picture were. Still, for the quality of some scenes and the camerawork (for its time), I'd have to give it a 7/10.
shareThese were the other contenders for Best Picture in 1931: East Lynne, The Front Page, Skippy and Trader Horn. Their IMDB ratings range from 6.4 to 7.1 (Cimarron is 6.0 at the moment).
You can see all the 1931 winners and nominees here: http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000003/1931?ref_=ttawd_ev_1
Of all the winners and nominees, the only other ones I've seen are The Dawn Patrol and The Public Enemy (the Jimmy Cagney classic). Both are great - rated 8.1 and 7.8 respectively on IMDB - and infinitely better than Cimarron.
Charlie Chaplin's masterpiece "City Lights" was released in 1931. Not sure whether it was eligible for the 1931 or 1932 awards, but it wasn't nominated in either year. That has a rating of 8.6 on IMDB (#35 on IMDB). The fact that is so highly regarded today yet didn't get a single Oscar nomination in its day probably shows how clueless the Academy were at recognising and rewarding true works of art in the 1930s.
Like a bird on the wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried in my way to be free
It was in the Award's infancy, though. Thankfully, they seem to have improved in their hit-to-miss ratio. I don't know if their recent moving from the 5 to possibly 10 per year quota will have any impact on their accuracy.
shareHaving seen all of the Best Picture winners (save The Great Ziegfeld and the new one by the end of the month) I would say that this is the second or third worst "Best Picture" winner. The other two films that I dislike just as much as this would be The Broadway Melody and Around the World in 80 Days.
shareCimarron is the 55th Oscar Winner I have watched and it is far from great... I give it a B- (5)
6 others I rank worse than Cimmaron with Out of Africa probably being the worst
West Side Story (poor acting, romance not believable), Lawrence of Arabia (scattered, boring story) & Out of Africa (total snooze fest) are all garbage I ranked a C- (2)
Around the World in 80 Days, The Hurt Locker & Unforgiven were probably not worth watching (outside of because Oscar winners) - I ranked a C+ (4)
I'm with you on everything except Out of Africa and Unforgiven. Unforgiven is an all time great. And while Out of Africa is not a great movie, given the other movies that came out in 1985 (there weren't any other "great" movies that year) it's Best Picture win was justified.
I agree Hurt Locker is right up there with the worst. Dumbfounding. I honestly believe voting that piece garbage Best Picture was Liberal Hollywood's attempt at looking "tough".
I saw it yesterday and rated it with a 7. I don't agree that it is the worst Oscar winner, The Broadway Melody is much worse, Cavalcade, The Greatest Show on Earth and Around the World in 80 Days also are, and I found The Hurt Locker much more boring.
Cimarron came at a difficult time, in the transition from silent to sound films, and there are things that haven't aged well, but they have some amazing scenes, specially at the beginning. The problem is some racial stereotypes and an abrupt ending
My travel blog http://panchoporelmundo.blogspot.com
I just watched it and it's not bad for it's time. The acting is hammy at times, the story melodramatic. But it's not unentertaining. There's something about the early talkies that makes me feel that I'm on the set watching them film it,. I think it's the lack of music and the stolid, unimaginative camera work. But it's a kind of pleasing feeling. As with Giant, there are some positive attitudes towards minorities you don't see much of in movies of the time.
Even the worst Best Picture winner isn't necessarily a bad film.
The past is a series of presents. The present is living history we are privileged to witness
Just watched it and I basically agree. There are a few other Best Pictures I liked less, and it's essentially on par with other dated winners from that era like Cavalcade and The Broadway Melody. It is quite cinematic for the era, with that opening rush sequence, and the production is elaborate throughout. It also benefits from a more cohesive story than the likes of Cavalcade and Broadway Melody, though the ambition and scope are inferior, as a result. The film is actually quite interesting in the first half; it's the last 45 minutes where the film loses its way and seems to ramble on and amount to little. The arc of Richard Dix's character is frustrating, but Irene Dunne's good work holds it together. And I don't think Dix is to blame, but rather the way his character was written.
Disregarding City Lights -- and maybe they felt they had sufficiently awarded Chaplin already for The Circus -- Cimarron is the most elaborate and cinematic of the nominees. The Front Page is the best-reviewed of the nominees, but it's very talky and dated. Its smart script gives it a stronger story than Cimarron, but even today, a film like The Front Page would win nothing more than a screenplay award at best. It's not your "Best Picture" type of film.
I just want to chime in here to give another vote for what I think is the worst. I have seen all of them, and...
Around the World in 80 Days
...is by far the worst. I'd rather watch the endless parade scene from The Greatest Show on Earth than the best moment from ATW80D. Truly awful. I can understand why it won. Others I dislike intensely are (in no order) Cimarron, The Great Ziegfield, The Greatest Show on Earth, Chicago, Braveheart. Those are the first to pop in my head, anyway. There are certainly others.
"Rampart: Squad 51."
IMO it wasn't that bad, actually there were several scenes I enjoyed. For me The Broadway Melody, Crash, Around the World in 80 Days and Driving Miss Daisy are worse than this one. Even though I don't consider Cimarron a great film, its just okay. 7/10.
shareSo, no one has seen "Crash?" Wow! That one takes the cake as the worst. Any other Best Picture film deserves a dozen statuettes compared to that one!
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood
I'd mercifully forgotten about Crash. Probably my least favorite. Around the World in 80 Days at least has a quaint charm. And I saw someone mention Lawrence of Arabia upthread? No wonder they're shutting these boards down!
share