KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

filmtechnz I am at a loss to understand why this has been panned by critics, and why it did not do better at the box office. Like other reviewers I found Glenn Ford's depiction of Yancey Cravat far better than that of Richard Dix, in the 1931 version. The land rush was brilliantly done, and the remainder of the cat, eg Harry Morgan, Russ Tamblyn, Anne Baxter and especially Maria Schell were excellent. The music by Franz Waxman was splendidly done, the cinematography brilliant, and the title song very catchy. Generally I am not (with one or two notable exceptions) a fan of westerns, however Cimarron should not be missed. It is a thoroughly enjoyable film.

grantss The original movie, made in 1930, won the Best Picture Oscar in 1931, and even though that movie is the lowest-rated Best Picture winner, I thought I watch the 1960 remake as a substitute.Turns out there's a reason why the original has such a low rating...Epic in its historic time span but mostly dull and badly done. Covers 25 years, from the first western settlement of Oklahoma in 1889 until the start of World War 1 in 1914. The historical aspect - the settlement of Oklahoma and its subsequent development - is interesting, but this has a small part in the movie. The main part - the Cravat family - is kind of so-so. The father, played by Glenn Ford, has good intentions but seems incredibly naive. The mother, played by Maria Schell, whines a lot and seems quite bigoted, yet is portrayed as a hero at the end.The whole thing just seems clumsy. Acting is quite hammy. Worst offenders are the guys who played the two gangsters who hid out in the school. Ridiculously over-the-top performances.Best performance comes from Anne Baxter, as Dixie. Convincing, and easy on the eyes...This said, it has its moments, so isn't all bad.

ToughXArmy Anthony Mann a good Director helms this western a remake of the great Irene Dunne hit Cimarron. The story is well known: The great land Rush opening up the Western United States.Maria Schell so beautiful was given a great promotion by MGM in a film that Elizabeth Taylor would have been perfect. Anne Baxter steals the movie and is wonderful. Great MGM production values.Glenn Ford was a very popular leading man in the mid 50's to early 60's making many fine films. I never was a big Glenn Ford fan and this film should have starred Steve McQueen or perhaps even George Peppard then a young MGM contract player.

jpdoherty CIMARRON (1960) was MGM's big Cinemascope/colour remake of RKO's 1930 epic production of Edna Ferber's classic story of the same name. From a screenplay by Arnold Schulman it was, I am loathe to say, unevenly directed by Anthony Mann.I am quite astonished - even aghast - that some reviewers on these pages elected to award this film a seven, eight, nine and in some cases a ten star rating? Some even hinted that it is Mann's most underrated western and could be his best work. "Cimarron" is nowhere near his best work! His best work is "El Cid" (1961) and his best western is "Winchester 73" with "The Naked Spur" coming a close second. "Cimarron " isn't even a good western! Not in the normal sense of what is regarded a good western like "Shane", "The Searchers" or "Last Train From Gun Hill". Even Ford's "The Sheepman" is a superior western to "Cimarron"! More lighthearted - sure but much more fun to watch!The first half of CIMARRON isn't at all bad and contains the best staging of the 1889 Oklahoma land rush ever put on the screen and in widescreen too (though in 1992 Ron Howard made a good fist of it in "Far & Away"). But let's face it the second half is relentlessly boring and just drags and drags! Firstly Anne Baxter, who has third billing after the leading lady Maria Schell, is written out of the film which I suppose isn't very noticeable since she didn't have a very important role in the picture anyway. But then Glenn Ford - the star of the movie - is also written out of the picture and only makes a brief and perfunctory reappearance just before the last reel. Then he's up and gone again never to be seen in the movie any more. With its star gone from the film the picture loses much of its balance and never regains the stature it had in the first half. Of course the story is the old chestnut of the mismatched couple who get hitched - she wants to play house and raise a family - while he wants to be charging up San Juan Hill, winning battles wherever they are and never seems to want to come home to his lovely wife. Well, to my mind any man who could leave the stunning Maria Schell - even for a long weekend - isn't playing with a full deck! Hmmm!Nope I'm sorry but I really don't think that "Cimarron" is all that great a movie! There are some great things in it! Besides the gorgeous Miss Schell there is the fine Cinemascope/Colour cinematography of Robert Surtees, the elaborate score by Franz Waxman (his Anthem like choral Main Title and his recurring main theme throughout plus his frenetic music for the land rush is outstanding) and the land rush itself is wonderfully exciting to see but there is nothing in the turgid second half that can persuade me to give this movie any more than a three star rating. Pity!!