Cimarron

Thinking as I have, upon seeing the two versions (on consecutive days) depicting the fourth (from April 22, 1889) of the five Oklahoma land rushes, I have to reconsider my initial impression that the ... Thinking as I have, upon seeing the two versions (on consecutive days) depicting the fourth (from April 22, 1889) of the five Oklahoma land rushes, I have to reconsider my initial impression that the 1931 film was marginally better than this, Mann's 1960 version. I realize I'm not a member of the Glenn Ford Fan Club by any stretch of the imagination, but his co-stars are WAY better, and in Anthony Mann, you find a master of both the Western and the epic format (his later 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' is one of my favourite films from the 60's). A jar of beeswax could have out-acted Richard Dix's performance in the original (it's a dirty rotten shame HE even got nominated for Best Actor, in a year when MANY outstanding actors were overshadowed, not being so honoured), but I have to admit Ford was good, even if IMHO he didn't deserve the honour of being front-and-center of a 2 1/2 hour epic, and you can't beat what Maria Schell, Anne Baxter, Harry Morgan and Vic Morrow--just to name a select few--brought to the picture. Some scenes in the 1931 original still work better, but overall I believe this is one case in which the remake is better than the original. I further would insist that had Mann not been fired and replaced by Charles Walters, it would have been a minor masterpiece.