Just perfect...

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

The early Oscar Best Picture winners have a reputation for being some of the worst in the Academy's legacy, so maybe it's for that reason that I was pleasantly surprised by this epic that took home the prize in the Academy's fourth year. People scratch their heads now over what the Academy saw in this adaptation of an Edna Ferber novel that they liked enough to name it Best Picture of the 1930-31 award year, but is it really that difficult to see? "Cimarron" is a big film, big in themes, big in scope. It's creaky and antiquated, but it's consistent with the kind of movies the Academy would pick for its top prize over the succeeding decades.The first half of "Cimarron" is the best, following married couple Richard Dix and Irene Dunne as they move west as part of the land boom and establish themselves in a ramshackle town, one of hundreds that literally sprang up overnight. Dix has big dreams and isn't content to settle down for long. This conflicts with Dunne's desire to have a happy home. The land grab scene is pretty thrilling and technically accomplished for its time, and the early scenes set in the town are compelling as well, especially a scene set during church that ends with a congregant getting gunned down. Wild west indeed. The impressive set won art director Max Ree a deserved Oscar, for its sheer size alone if for nothing else.The second half of the movie runs out of steam, especially when Dix runs off and Dunne is left to run things, including their business, on her own. A climactic scene that ends the film tragically feels more soap opera than effective drama. This part of the film suffers from an inability of the filmmakers to approximate the realistic passing of time, so it all feels rushed.There were of course many more films that came out in the same year as "Cimarron" that are much better and more deserving of being remembered. But how often is the Best Picture Oscar winner ever the actual best film of its year? "Cimarron" is worth seeing as an early bit of Oscar history.It should be noted that the film set an early record for number of Oscar nominations, the first to be nominated for seven. It won three, adding Best Writing (Adaptation) to its awards for Best Picture and Best Art Direction. It was also nominated for Best Director (Wesley Ruggles), Best Actor (Dix), Best Actress (Dunne), and Best Cinematography.Grade: B

This movie is easily the worst Best Picture Oscar winner. It won in 1931, and I'm not sure why. Maybe because it was a talkie, and talking pictures were still fairly novel. Maybe because of how epic its historic time scale is. Maybe because it tells a story of the exploration and settlement of America that sparked something in 1930s audiences.Who knows. All I can say is that by modern standards it is incredibly bad.This is not because of the cinematic technology or anything like that. It has a dull story with hammy acting. Worst of all, it is blatantly racist. The black kid is merely there as a figure of fun, something to be made mocked and made fun of. Interesting that while large parts of the movie are very politically correct in the treatment and rights of native Americans, they undo all this good by portraying African-Americans so badly.I had already watched the 1960 remake before watching this, and that wasn't that great either. It retained the dull plot and hammy acting, but at least reduced the bigotry. I didn't realise the original could be that much worse, but it is...

Cimarron was an early talkie that made great strides in sound, allowing natural interaction between the cast and a more natural movement of the camera, allowing the filming of some truly spectacular scenes. The shots of the Oklahoma Land Rush stampede involve ground-breaking sound and cinematography that make it one of the most realistically shot scenes up to that time. Other well filmed scenes include those of Osage's dusty streets with the camera tracking the main characters as they walk along while hundreds of extras bustle about them, showing the life of a busy boom town shortly after the land rush. Unfortunately, this is pretty much where my praise of this film ends.This film stars Richard Dix as Yancey Cravat, a man who was born under a wandering star. Unfortunately, that didn't stop Yancey from taking a wife and having children, it just stopped him from taking any responsibility for that same wife and children. Through the years, Yancey chases one hair-brained scheme after another while his long-suffering wife Sabra (Irene Dunne) takes responsibility for the newspaper Yancey started but abandons time and again. Sometimes Yancey's adventures keep him home, other times they take him away for years at a time. The film focuses on Yancey's adventures, while the whole time I'm wondering what Sabra is up to. In modern times, her story is much more compelling and sympathetic than Yancey's.Richard Dix's performance is quite hammy by modern standards. You'll find yourself laughing in places that were not intended to be funny by the film's creators, and in spite of your laughter, you'll still find Yancey to be completely unlikeable. He would make a great politician in the 21st century - he is very apt at doing one thing, saying another, and still finding time for splendid oratory. Unfortunately, this film was my introduction to Dix. I didn't see another one of his films for a long time and, when I did, I was surprised to find out how good he was in his smaller non-Academy recognized performances.Remarkably, this film won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1931. Even more remarkably, Richard Dix was nominated for Best Actor for his performance in this film. Not remarkably, Irene Dunne was nominated for Best Actress for her performance, in spite of the lack of depth of the examination of her character in the film. Thus I'd say this film is worth it just to see the very good technical achievements it featured in sound and cinematography and Dunne's performance as the long suffering Sabra.

This is the oddball of the early Oscars. Considering their growing rise to popularity, I'm kinda surprised that we didn't see more Westerns taking home the Oscar for Best Picture. Heck, they wouldn't honor another one until Kevin Costner made Dances with Wolves in 1990 (but I'll get to that one much later). It kinda baffles me because; they were historical epics, they were big money-makers, and they were cheap and easy to make to boot. I say that had all the makings of a Best Picture winner.But then when you finally see it, you kinda understand why the Academy practically gave up on Westerns in general…with a few exceptions of course (I'll get to those when I get to those). This movie was just far too big for the filmmaker's own good that what he was trying to get at when making this movie just never fell through.The story actually isn't a story so much as it is the life of a restless Jack-of-all-trades, Yancey Cravat as he claims a spot of land during the Oklahoma Boom, and the rest of the film is the rest of his life afterward. This was definitely an interesting and ambitious turn in movies as it focused more on somebody's life rather than a coherent story. That, I have no problem with…if the character of Yancey was anything interesting, and he's not. He's completely boring and forgettable. Heck, he's not even a consistent character. The things he does in this film are spur-of-the-moment, and we don't get to know him enough as to why he would do any of these things. It's essentially a character-study where we do not even get so much of character so much as random personality quirks. And this wouldn't be too bad if the point of view was from other perspectives (like in Citizen Kane, a film I plan to cover down the road).But I guess that's a plus side to this movie; the point of view isn't always on Yancey. And when it isn't, it's on his wife, and what she has to go through when Yancey is away is quite interesting. In fact, this film should have been told entirely from her point of view instead; that way, we could have a very interesting dynamic. An ambitious husband that does whatever he wants and nobody understands why, and the wife he leaves behind. If the film stuck entirely from her POV, this film would have been a lot better, and we'd have a central character we could sympathize with.Not to mention that for an early talkie, the acting in this picture is passable. I don't recall any of the characters being unbearable or anything. In fact, the church scene where Yancey is preaching is actually pretty hilarious. And while my memory is a bit foggy regarding this, I'll give the film the benefit of the doubt; it's one of the few films that actually demonstrate what an actual Christian baptism is. Ain't that something? There are a few cheesy scenes and moments here and there too (as if anybody can fire bullets in the air rapidly and without dire consequences), but it's nitpicky at best, and I'll let Hollywood logic slide as they aren't all that bad. And while the plot is random to the point where we, the audience, will be left in the dark at times, I do think that area of the writing could have worked if done right…if it was entirely from the POV of the wife. That way, it would make total sense for us to not know what is going on, because the wife doesn't either (I say doesn't because that's actually true).I guess when it comes down to it, the film is only half-good; the half involving the wife. The half from Yancey's point of view, however, is far too scatterbrained to the point where we don't even care about him or what he's doing. I'm guessing that because Westerns were very popular because we got to cheer for our favorite heroes (no serious; they were the 1930's-1950's equivalent of today's Superhero movies), they decided to add Yancey's POV to attract that kind of crowd. But this is an example of a film where one must draw a fine line between art and popularity, and when it came to our established protagonist, they definitely crossed that line when making this movie. As an aspiring writer, I find it pretty insulting. But at the same time, I view it more as a cautionary tale; to be ready to identify that line and not to cross over into popularity if it meant jeopardizing the quality of my art.Overall, Yancey pretty much keeps this film from being good, but his wife at least preserves some dignity with this picture. Take it for what it's worth, I'll rate it a 5 Out of 10.