I saw this movie just yesterday and i thought it was excellent. it really deserved best picture of the year. so i thought, "hey, this must have gotten a high rating on imdb". i looked up cimarron and i was shocked to find that it was rated a 6.2!!!!!!!!!!! this movie is way underrated. what do u guys think?
shareI really liked it too. Out of all the Best Picture winners, this and Cavalcade (1933) are hardly seen or heard of today, and considered therefore considered "dated" mostly by people who haven't seen them.
Oscar Buzz's Favorite Best Picture: The Sound of Music (1965)
The film has aged quite badly and it's lacking the any sort of real dramatic fire to propel it forwards. Richard Dix's performance is hammy in the extreme and never quite convincing. In fact I suspect from what I've seen of his, he was never a very good actor to begin with. I'd be more inclined to believe that the only reason this film works as grand entertainment is due to the source material rather than what the filmmakers have actually brought to it. It's an incredible story satisfactorily told, nothing more.
Cinema is an old whore who knows how to give many kinds of pleasure.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I watched it last night for the first time and must say I was shocked on how well it aged actually, and how emotionally involved I got through the whole thing. Like the original poster, I was shocked to see it at a meager 6.2 rating. I know it was a big hit for me.
Few weeks ago I finished watching the whole Top 250, and now going through Oscar winners. I must say that, so far, the worst movie to ever win the Best Movie Academy Award in my opinion was "The Broadway Melody (1929)". What an irritating bore :-O
I must say that, so far, the worst movie to ever win the Best Movie Academy Award in my opinion was "The Broadway Melody (1929)". What an irritating bore :-O
Two of my favourite films: Both with Sadly underrated Actors. CAVALCADE seems to be especially scorned. It's sad, because we wouldn't be applauding programs like DOWNTON ABBEY, if they weren't inspired by memories of CAVALCADE. And who could Possibly be interested in something like CIMARRON? After all, the leading players are "old", and not "hot". No matter that actors like Dix and Dunne often spent upwards of TEN years learning their craft. It also takes real talent to act without benefit of airbrush makeup and CGI.
Personally, I'd like to see an honest, interesting story, with actors in their 50s, rather than be subjected to a 20 something whose 'talent' is in her silicone implants.
I do hope he won't upset Henry...
It's the lowest rating for a 'Best Picture Winner' on imdb.
shareI enjoyed it, perhaps because when watching it I viewed it from a "developmental" aspect. Apart from seeing Richard Dix and a promising Irene Dunne, I watched the film to be entertained by the progress in Oklahoma that takes place through the course of the film. It was also worth finding out whether Yancy would come back at the end or not... Overall it's mighty stuff! I enjoyed the film and will probably watch it again! :)
shareIt seems that the theme of the film meanders quite a bit. That sort of thing loses alot of people. For a while, you think it's a story about Yancy & his crusades to develop a community, but then it kind of morphs into a story about Sabra enduring his wanderlust & holding down the fort. It would have done better in our modern demands, I think, if it declared & stuck to a theme.
Movies: Now more than ever.
[deleted]
People like to talk about how out of touch the Academy is today, but in 1931 they were even worse. They voted this snoozefest best picture and didn't even nominate Chaplin's "City Lights," James Whales' "Frankenstein" or Josev Von Sternberg's "Morocco."
shareIt seems that the theme of the film meanders quite a bit. That sort of thing loses alot of people. For a while, you think it's a story about Yancy & his crusades to develop a community, but then it kind of morphs into a story about Sabra enduring his wanderlust & holding down the fort. It would have done better in our modern demands, I think, if it declared & stuck to a theme.
I found this film all over the place as far as theme. It was really well done, but the 80 years since its filming and today have not been kind.
But I must say I was very pleasantly surprised by it. I purposely didn't researcdh the film before I saw it, and expected a "Western," not a "family drama." The Oklahoma Land Rush sequence was excellent and so was most everything else -- has anyone ever been better at playing The Long-Suffering Wife than Irene Dunne? -- so the plot was not at all what I expected.
The extras on the DVD I watched we a lot of fun, btw.
--If they move, kill 'em!
I'm with you, I wasn't expecting much when I saw it, but I was gratefuly surprised. I think this was a poor year for films, the Great Depression had a great impact on cinematography, actually, its the only Best Picture winner which lost at the box office. I've seen the other nominees from this year and I think Cimarron is the best of them.
sharePeople for the most part are sheep. When it comes to cultural appraisal it is commonplace for things to make it into the 'canon' because some lofty critics decided its worth, and then it stays because few people have the courage and honesty to call it out.
Sometimes, by contrast, something like this movie has no champions, no one to give it a considered value and the snipers find it an easy target. Their loss.
People for the most part are sheep. When it comes to cultural appraisal it is commonplace for things to make it into the 'canon' because some lofty critics decided its worth, and then it stays because few people have the courage and honesty to call it out.
Sometimes, by contrast, something like this movie has no champions, no one to give it a considered value and the snipers find it an easy target. Their loss.