Is Cimarron Worth Watching?
Answer: Yes, Cimarron is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Western movies.
It features a runtime of 147 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to general audiences.

Verdict:Cimarron is a confirmed FLOP based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 6.0/10, it has delivered a mixed experience for fans of the Western genre.
Answer: Yes, Cimarron is definitely worth watching if you enjoy Western movies.
It features a runtime of 147 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to general audiences.
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 1960, Cimarron emerges as a significant entry in the Western domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of The epic story of a family involved in the Oklahoma Land Rush of April 22, 1889. Unlike standard genre fare, Cimarron attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a conventional take on its central themes.
The success of any Western is often anchored by its ensemble, and Cimarron features a noteworthy lineup led by Glenn Ford . Supported by the likes of Maria Schell and Anne Baxter , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
In summary, our editorial assessment of Cimarron (1960) is mixed. With an audience rating of 6.0/10, it stands as a highly recommended experience for genre enthusiasts.
Quick Plot Summary: Cimarron is a Western film that presents a compelling narrative that engages viewers from start to finish. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
Ending Breakdown: Cimarron concludes its story with a mix of closure and open interpretation. The finale presents its approach to western resolution.
The conclusion addresses the core thematic questions, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
The final moments of Cimarron reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Worth Watching If You:
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Production Budget | $6.0M |
| Worldwide Gross | $11.0M |
| Trade Verdict | FINANCIAL DISAPPOINTMENT |
The estimated production budget for Cimarron is $6.0M. This figure covers principal photography, talent acquisitions, and visual effects. When accounting for global marketing and distribution, the break-even point is typically 2x the base production cost.










Amazon VideoAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 6/10, and global collection metrics, Cimarron stands as a challenging project for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 1960 cinematic year.
Cimarron has received mixed reviews with a 6/10 rating, making it a moderate success with the audience.
Cimarron is a mixed bag. It might be worth watching if you're a fan of Western movies, but read reviews first.
Cimarron may be available for rent or purchase on digital platforms like Apple TV, Google Play, or Amazon Prime Video. Specific streaming availability can vary by country.
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.
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.