Avis des utilisateurs

This is in response to comments on 'They Came to Cordura' regarding its dramatic weakness and flawed camera work and editing.

The flaws may be real, but they might not be the fault of the filmmaker (writer-director Robert Rossen).

Reportly, the film was taken out of Rossen's hands by the studio and drastically cut and re-cut. The director's original version, about 1/2 hour longer, was apparently much better, making much more dramatic sense.

Further, the movie was shot in CinemaScope, and comments on its poor cinematography and editing are likely based on viewing a crude pan & scan video copy. Such artificial flaws are common with panned & scanned widescreen movies.

.

I have to agree that this is a film that is not as good as it should be. Robert Rossen is a fine director ("All The King's Men", "Alexander The Great", "The Hustler"), but he is not a popular one. His films do tackle weighty themes and characters, but too frequently he gets talky and loses his audience. Such a thing happens in "They Came To Cordura", where the theme of what is courage is overdeveloped. From what one of the earlier comments on this thread suggested Rossen's movie was half an hour longer than it is. Since many viewers lose their interest in the film at it's current length, why would a longer version improve matters?

In 1916, while World War I was occupying most people's attention, President Wilson was concerned with the continuous unsettled state of Mexico, then in the sixth year of it's Revolution. Initially he was delighted with the first head of the Revolution, Francisco Madero, who was trying to make the country a nation ruled by constitutional law. But in 1913, Madero was overthrown and murdered by the head of the Mexican army, General Huerta. Huerta had support by the then Ambassador to Mexico, a gentleman named Henry Wilson (no relation to the then President-elect), who openly cooperated in the assassination. After Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated, he replaced Henry, but the damage was done to Mexican-American relations. The new President was too ham handed to improve matters. In 1914 he had the Marines land at Vera Cruz after our flag had been insulted. Many lives were lost in this battle. Wilson worked to force Huerta out of his office. This brought him into considering someone to replace Huerta.

Why a puritanical prude like Woodrow Wilson thought of supporting Francisco "Pancho" Villa as the corrective to Huerta has never been adequately explained. Although the two men never met, it is inconceivable that Wilson would have found the hard drinking, bloody minded, and woman chasing Pancho as an ideal type to run Mexico. But he did, and for a year or so (until Huerta left Mexico) Villa was given arms and supplies from the U.S. This honeymoon lasted until a new figure arose - General Venusiano Carranza. Carranza (like Madero) wanted the adoption of a permanent national constitution to run the country. Wilson liked this (he did not notice that Carranza did not hesitate to feather his own nest while stressing the constitution. So in 1916 Wilson began aiding Carranza, and slowly ceased assisting Villa.

Villa was angered by this, and decided to teach the gringos a lesson. He raided the town of Columbus, New Mexico, killing about a dozen citizens. It was the first foreign invasion of American soil since the War of 1812, and would be the only invasion of the continental territory of the U.S. between 1814 and 09/11/2001. Wilson was furious, and demanded that President Carranza arrest the bandit/revolutionary. Wilson might as well have demanded that Carranza arrest the winds of Mexico. He had fought several battle against Villa, and knew that Pancho was no pushover. When Carranza gave some half-baked reason for not catching Pancho, Wilson decided to take the matter into his own hands: he sent troops into Mexico under General John J. Pershing to catch the bandit revolutionary. For a year or so Pershing tried to catch Villa, but the wily Pancho managed to keep escaping. Finally the U.S. troops were called back. Mexicans were incensed at American arrogance in invading their country (sound familiar?). The only good thing was that it enabled us to test our army out here, under if's future Expeditionary Commander's leadership, before we went into the European conflict.

Except, possibly, "The Three Amigos", this is the only commercially made film that is set in the Anti - Villa expedition of 1916 - 1917. As such it barely touches the reasons for the expedition. Instead it concentrates on Gary Cooper's assignment to find five men who should receive the U.S. Medal of Honor for gallantry and bravery in action. It is a cynical act by Washington, because 1) the purpose is public relations cosmetics for a botched armed intervention; and 2) Cooper's Major Thorn is actually given the assignment because he acted cowardly on the field of battle. For the Major to be given this quiet assignment is actual an insult - his own courage is being questioned.

Soon he finds a battle going on and picks out his five men (Van Heflin, Richard Conte, Michael Callan, Tab Hunter, and Dick York). This gives him some problems with an old friend, Robert Keith, who planned the attack, and hoped it would lead to him getting the award (actually, Cooper was only impressed at how slapdash and badly planned the attack was, and cannot think of it's architect getting any type of award as a result). Keith ends his friendship with Cooper as a result.

Taking his five men with him, Cooper starts trying to get to know them. He soon discovers that the men are not interested in the medal, and (as they have a long trek to Cordura, where they have to go to finalize the awards), Cooper learns that the men are not very noble at all. To worsen things, they capture a hacienda owner who is American (Rita Hayworth), who gave assistance to Villa's men. The woman reawakens sexual tensions and rivalries between the five men, as well as Cooper.

The film ends with Cooper and the men coming to turns (after several nearly deadly confrontations) with their own views of the values of true courage and it's being honored. It is not a dull matter, but one questions a full two hour about it. Because of the covering of this dismal incident of the diplomatic history of the U.S. and Mexico, and the acting (all the leads are good), and Rossen's direction - it is worth a "7" out of "10".

Take Gary Cooper and Rita Hayworth, surround them with a core of actors who are still well-known today, add beautiful scenery, tackle a very interesting philosophical question. What's not to like? As it turns out, there's a lot not to like. Coop's role is to portray a world-weary, duty-bound officer, obsessed with heroism. Diappointingly, "wooden" would best describe his take on the role. Hayworth, as tequila-drinking, cigarette-smoking, comforter-of-America's-enemies is, at times, over the top. She's still got the sexy sizzle she's known for, but the sexual tension between her and the men isn't compelling. The supporting members of the cast are supposed to devolve from heroes to louts, but their hand is tipped so early in the movie, that their later actions are expected--not deplored. It's a dark western that would appear to be yin to "The Magnificent Seven"'s yang. Heroes become brutes--brutes become heroes. The later is a lot more entertaining and--a lot more satisfying.

The Pancho Villa Expedition—officially known in the United States as the Mexican Expedition and sometimes colloquially referred to as the Punitive Expedition—was a military operation conducted by the United States Army against the paramilitary forces of Mexican revolutionary Francisco "Pancho" Villa from 1916 to 1917 during the Mexican Revolution. The expedition was launched in retaliation for Villa's attack on the town of Columbus, New Mexico, and was the most remembered event of the Border War. The expeditions had one objective: to capture Villa dead or alive and put a stop to any future forays by his paramilitary forces on American soil.

After contact with the enemy, and after losing many men, five men were nominated for the Medal of Honor. Since the army needed living heroes to prepare the nation for its likely entry into WWI, Major Thomas Thorn (Gary Cooper), an awards officer, escorts the nominees, Lt. William Fowler (Tab Hunter), Sgt. John Chawk (Van Heflin), Cpl. Milo Trubee (Richard Conte), Pvt. Andrew Hetherington (Michael Callan), and Pvt. Renziehausen (Dick York), back to headquarters. This film is the story of that journey, and Thorn's exploration of the character of heroes.

Adelaide Geary (Rita Hayworth), an American woman who owns the ranch where the battle was fought, is sent back with them on charge of treason for aiding Villistas against American soldiers, even though she had no choice.

Although Hayworth and Cooper both gave impressive performances, Van Heflin was the standout as a brutish sergeant, especially since he was acting against type, having played decent men forced into heroism during his best-known films, Shane (1953) and 3:10 to Yuma (1957).

I would like to add another comment from a little different viewpoint than what has been expressed at IMDb so far. A little film history first- this movie appeared in 1959 and was based on a book with the same title that had come out about a year earlier. Now, in this era (late 1950s) the Westerns ruled TV as well as the movies. It was the popular genre at the time. Also popular at the time were "war movies" that depicted United States troops in action in WWII. That war was pretty recent in memory then and had been quite popular and, of course, a lot of people still remembered our involvement and victory in the first fracas in 1917-1918. Now, how could an author tie in our military's achievements in the World Wars with the Old West? The World Wars were fought in Europe and Asia (Atlantic and Pacific for you Navy people) and neither had any real connection with the American West. The best that anybody could do to link up the two popular genres was to bring up the expedition in 1916 that sent the Army under General Pershing into the country of Mexico to hunt down or at least slow down the various Mexican rebel factions such as the one under Pancho Villa. This is the one time in history that, by any stretch of the imagination, the modern U.S. military was involved in a part of the "Old West". In this time, the "Old West" still lived in Mexico in 1916 plus the fact the U.S. military still used mounted calvary; though they were not going to take them to Europe the next year. However, the U.S. military did take General Pershing and Capts Douglas McArthur and George Patton to Europe the next year so yes, in a way the WWI (perhaps even the WWII) military did fight in the Old West due to this military expedition. Hence the linkage; and why this time and military action gets a disproportionate amount of attention in movies and TV to this date. The trouble with this premise of the Old West calvary in Mexico is that you have people acting in a way that is simply not believable for that era. The plot is very suspicious. You have five men who find they are going to be submitted for the Medal of Honor- an award that was quite well known even then. Perhaps one or even two of the men might not want the award and could conceivably threaten the nominating officer, but that is highly unlikely. Some men, in the past, have not wanted to be awarded the medal but usually because they sincerely felt they did not perform any action that any other man in their unit would not have done. And even when an individual truly did not want the medal, they never threaten the life of a superior officer. To have five men (one of them an officer) nominated for that most illustrious of medals, gang up on the nominating officer is simply so far fetched that only Hollywood could have even conceived of it. In real life, Captain McArthur was nominated for the medal for his actions in Mexico. He did not receive it due to some political reasons; nevertheless the fact remains that he did not threaten the nominating officer. This, by itself, destroys the entire believability of the character of "Lt William Fowler" in this movie. The rest of the characters are equally unbelievable in the context of the movie- the "act of cowardice" of Maj Thomas Thorn (sorry, but Gary Cooper was just a little too old to portray even a passed over Major) was hardly cowardice but simply proper tactics- take cover until you find out where the enemy fire is coming from. If you can't find it or do not have the proper weapon then stay put. Don't get killed unnecessarily. In fact, the proper response of Maj Thorn to Cpl Milo Trubee, when Trubee threatened to blackmail him, would have been something of the nature of "up yours Trubee" as Trubee hardly had anything to blackmail the Major with. Actually, this movie used the military only because of the high respect in society the military had in the 1950s (and does again today, in fact); hence the more dramatic juxtaposition. Now, having wrote all that- let me explain the true moral of this movie and why I like it so much. The military has high respect in society even though, by and large, the military performs duties that are dirty and hard work. In fact, military duty can be depressingly boring and monotonous. Now, in other parts of society there are people who are doing jobs that are at least equally dirty and hard, boring and monotonous. Unlike the military, those people generally do not get much respect from society. For some reason the upper class (and I am in that group) tends to ignore or turn their backs to the lower class workers. And, then, we wonder why this group of people will act belligerent and tough. Well, they may already be that way. Yet, I have seen decent people turn bad due to the disrespect given to them by others. I do not like to see that occur even though I cannot say that I myself have not been disrespectful in the past to people on the "fringe" of society. This movie, by using military personnel in a proxy manner, explores this deeper issue; basically, are there heroes or at least potential heroes amongst the people that we usually ignore? The thoughtful exploration of that question redeems the error in the movie that I previously mentioned. It is a good movie; I recommend that everybody watch it at least once when they are young as it explores the human psyche in much the same way that Major Thorn does.

This particular Western deals with human conflicts about courage and cowardice . On March 8, 1916, Pancho Villa and his army crossed the border, destroying the city of Columbus, the state of New Mexico. The U.S. government in retaliation launches a punitive operation, which only meets resistance at the ranch called ¨Guerrero¨ . An army officer (Gary Cooper), himself guilty of cowardice, is asked to recommended soldiers (Van Heflin , Richard Conte , Dick York , Michael Callan, Tab Hunter ) for the Congressional Medal of Honor during the Mexican Border Incursion of 1916 . Meanwhile , they meet on the way a suspicious lady (Rita Hayworth) with dark secrets .

Coooper is pretty well as an Army major sent to find five men worthy of Medal of Honor and Rita Hayworth is attractive as a shady lady . Robert Rossen directed this unusual Western that explores human conflicts in an intelligent way as representative of this genre such as cowardice and bravery of the soldiers , but is paced with some flaws and gaps , including an unfairly adulterated final . A phrase of Rita Hayworth is developing the evolution of the movie : ¨The man who once was a coward not to say that it is all his life and the man who once was a brave does not mean that all his life living as such". Human conflicts designed by the screen-writers turn tiring , repetitive and somewhat artificial as well as the plot progresses . The search for the contrast between valor and cowardice and reflections on the protagonists results to be forced and unnatural , some discussions are inappropriate for its intended significance . Nice and emotive musical score by Elie Siegmaster with ordinary conductor Morris Stoloff . Colorful and evocative cinematography by magnificent cameraman Burnett Guffey and mostly filmed in Mexico where is set the action . The motion picture is professionally directed by Robert Rossen , though in ups and downs . Rossen was a prestigious writer and filmmaker , directing notorious actors and various successful titles of all kind genres as Noir film as ¨Body and soul¨ with John Garfield , ¨Johnny O'Clock¨ with Dick Powell ; Drama as ¨Mambo¨ with Silvana Mangano, ¨Brave Bulls¨ with Anthony Quinn, ¨Island in the sun¨ with James Mason , ¨Lilith¨ with Jean Seberg , Epic as ¨Alexander Magnus¨ with Richard Burton . His greatest hits were ¨The political¨ in which won Oscar for Broderick Crawford ¨and ¨The hustler¨ with Paul Newman .

The real events in which are based this film are the following : For a time Villa,who seemed in line for leadership of Mexico ,enjoyed the sympathetic interest of the US government who then dropped Villa and supported his rival,Carranza.Villa's resentment resulted in the vengeance raid on Columbus.Villa slapped the United States in the face by mounting a surprise raid on the town of Columbus,New Mexico,on 9 march 1916, killing eight American soldiers and ten civilians.In retaliation,President Woodrow Wilson sent General Pershing and a Punitive Expedition into Mexico in hot pursuit of Villa . General Pershing's column included the Seventh Cavalry and Apache scouts,chased Villa deep into Mexico,the Americans captured and killed several of Villa's lieutenants but failed to catch the guerrilla leader.Because of Mexican protests,Pershing's command returned to the US.Villa was assassinated in 1923 when gunman ambushed his car.

This tortuous drama is one of only a handful of films depicting America's skirmish with Mexico early last century. Although staged in CinemaScope against a spectacular mountainous backdrop, the real drama is mainly interior and most of the conflict between the officers rather than with the Mexicans.

Rita Hayworth in a very rare latino role gives possibly her best performance as a shady lady along for the ride.

Apart from "The Hustler" and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the over-rated "All the King's Men", Robert Rossen was never given his proper due, perhaps because his films straddled so many genres without ever finding a solid footing in any one. But he was certainly no jobbing director even if his voice was never as distinctive as a number of more highly acclaimed film-makers who worked during the same time. This large-scale, all-star 'contemporary' western, (it's set in 1916), is one of his most under-valued films. It's about heroism and cowardice and what makes a man choose one road or the other. In this case the men perform 'heroic' deeds but are deeply flawed as human beings. It's not a 'deep' movie but it is very well-crafted and Rossen certainly has a handle on the material.

The central premise, (six men, five of whom are to receive the Congressional Medal of Honour for bravery, and one woman, their prisoner, journey across some particularly wild terrain together), is the stuff of cliché but Rossen keeps us interested in their plight and the cast are top-notch. Hunter, never reckoned to be much of an actor, is surprisingly good as the arrogant young lieutenant while Rita Hayworth, never reckoned to be much of an actress, fails to rise to the occasion here as well. It's also beautifully photographed by Burnett Guffey, who was later to win an Oscar for "Bonnie and Clyde", and it showed Rossen was just as capable of handling a large-scale action picture as he was of handling something as 'interior' as "The Hustler" or "Lilith".

Is "They Came to Codura" (1959) as ill conceived and poorly executed as it appears to be, or is it an ambitious and well-intentioned western that falls short because it over-reaches? The problem is that so few films are ambitious that our brains go into a stall when a rare effort like this comes along; we don't know quite how to evaluate it.

Compounding this is the extensive trimming that the film received prior to its release; this cutting may not have hurt anything (what was taken out wouldn't have made things clearer or transformed the performances into believable characterizations) but it no doubt accounts for the overall disjointed feel of the story.

Finally there is Glendon Swarthout's source novel of the same title, an allegorical story of human redemption that does not translate well to the screen as most of it takes place inside the tortured mind of the protagonist. The screen play follows the novel almost too closely, keeping Swarthout's weakest elements while replacing his devastatingly ironic ending with a tame "Flight of the Phoenix" finale.

So if (for whatever reason) you are thinking about viewing "They Came to Codura" don't expect a typical viewing experience. And don't expect a masterpiece because the mixed description in the first paragraph is a pretty accurate assessment of the film.

That doesn't mean don't watch. The surface story is reasonably entertaining and the themes are extremely interesting even if they are so poorly articulated that they lose much of the power that they should have had.

Like the novel, the film is set in 1916 Mexico with the U.S. Cavalry dashing about in pursuit of Pancho Villa. Major Thomas Thorn (Gary Cooper) is in charge of escorting five prospective Medal of Honor winners back to the base at Cordura where their heroics can be utilized to fan a recruitment campaign for the looming U.S. entry into WWI.

Thorn carries a lot of personal baggage into this assignment. The son of a famous soldier he is deeply ashamed of the cowardice he exhibited during a recent battle. It is his duty to interview each soldier during the journey and to then write up the commendations. His past performance causes him to over-compensate as a leader and to soon alienate most of the men under his command; Lt. Fowler (Tab Hunter), Sgt. Chawk (Van Heflin), Pvt. Hetherington (Michael Callan), Cpl. Trubee (Richard Conte), and Pvt. Renziehausen (Dick York). Being dragged along with the group is a woman named Adelaide (Rita Hayworth), an American expatriate accused of aiding the Villa.

This is not exactly a strong cast, especially for a film that is more character study than action adventure. To be successful, an adaptation of a multi-character novel must go one of two ways with those characters; #1 assemble an extremely talented cast who can nonverbally communicate characterization or, #2 mold most of the characters into movie stereotypes and single out 2-3 for more extensive development (placing your strongest actors in those roles). This film's downfall is that it takes a third path, as none of the characters are predictable movie stereotypes (in fact all seven are extremely strange) and only Hayworth is able to give her character some degree of plausible dimensionality.

Neither the setting nor the story is important. This could have been set anywhere at anytime. What is important is the theme, the nature of courage-its randomness, its situational nature, and its lack of correlation with other character traits. The "heroes" are slowly revealed to be opportunists, bullies, deadbeats, and degenerates, but an isolated act of heroism was their redemption. And the coward ends up behaving like a hero.

A variety of explanations for the individual acts of bravery are illustrated-recklessness, momentary insanity, accident, hatred, fear of being considered a coward, and a need for redemption. The point being that going above and beyond the call of duty is not something that can be predicted or relied upon, and that except for the last reason does alter the basic nature of the hero.

Unfortunately none (ZERO) of these characters ring even remotely true and with the irony stripped out of the ending, the result is a total failure in effectively illustrating the theme. So you watch, and if you can suspend disbelief it is possible to understand what the film is trying to say. But this is hardly great cinema and the viewer ultimately thinks more about the missed opportunity than about the mysteries of battlefield courage and human redemption.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

On the night of March 18th, 1916, a large mounted force of Mexican rebels under Pancho Villa crossed the American border and attacked the town of Columbus, killing both civilians and soldiers. As a result of this action, the United States Army sent an expedition into Mexico with orders to capture Villa and disperse his forces. It was during this campaign that one man, a United States Army officer, was forced to come face to face with two of the great fundamental questions that affect mankind.

What is courage? What is cowardice? This is the story of his search for an answer.

That summary is the opening text from this oddly {to me} divisive picture from Robert Rossen and Ivan Moffat. Divisive because there are conflicts about it's technical aspects, its length {which cut is original?}, it's talky nature, and if it's splendid cast did the material justice? Well the dispute about the technical aspects being poor certainly don't stand up to the version I saw of the picture, lovely widescreen CinemaScope with Burnett Guffey's photography astutely and rightly oppressive as the story unfolds. As for its length, the version I viewed was two hours long, is this a restored cut or is there still another half hour of Rossen footage lurking somewhere? Either way, the complaint about there being gaps in the film are not evident in this two hour cut. All characters are fully fleshed and every minute of this picture was engrossing and perpetually watchable. The cast are also on fine form, Gary Cooper is perfectly cast as Maj. Thomas Thorn, the man who's moment of weakness hangs heavy round his neck like a curse. Van Heflin, Rita Hayworth, Dick York, Richard Conte and Tab Hunter all help to make this a fine character driven piece.

Above all else it's the story that works the best, Thorn is carrying around a burden as he strives to take these heroes to safety and ensure they receive their medals of honour. But the perilous journey proves to alter each man's attributes, be it despicable or otherwise, something that to me personally makes this a thematically excellent picture, the kind we could do with more of in the modern era. It may well be cynical at times, but really that is no bad thing in my eyes, it's a cop out of sorts I know, but this film isn't for everyone. After a fine battle sequence has been and gone, the film shifts in tone and becomes a picture about the complexities of man and his own personal hang ups, the result of which left me very much rewarded. 8/10

Never viewed this film until recently and was completely surprised by the role Gary Cooper, (Maj. Thomas Thorn) played as a rather soft spoken Army Awards officer who was in charge of giving out Congressional Medals of Honor to a group of men. These men fought in the war of 1916 against Pancho Villa and Maj. Thorn rounded up all these men and one woman, Adelaide Geary, (Rita Hayworth) who befriended Pancho Villa's men at her ranch and was being brought back to Cordura for a trial. The story revolves around all these soldiers, Sgt. John Chawk, (Van Heflin), Cpl. Milo Trubee, (Richard Conti) and Lt. William Fowler, (Tab Hunter) who were all awarded this high military award. However, there is a great deal of trouble among the men as they find out about each others hidden past and dark secrets. The men lose their self-control with only one woman among them and there are many problems that occur through out the film. This is a very unusual Gary Cooper film with him being labeled as a coward and good for nothing.

They Came to Cordura is one of the very few films I've seen about our intervention in Mexico after Pancho Villa raided Columbus, New Mexico and shot the joint up. President Woodrow Wilson authorized our intervention under the command of John J. Pershing who went on to a more serious military intervention shortly.

It was a real comic opera affair. We fought a few skirmishes, chased Villa around halfheartedly, even the Mexican government under President Venustiano Carranza was against us even though Villa was very much against him. It was over with few casualties.

In the initial raid on Columbus in our story, Gary Cooper froze under fire and hid in a railroad ditch. Because his father was a big shot in the army and was killed there, Cooper's actions were covered up and he was given the non-combat assignment of awards officer.

So on a raid on Mexican sympathizer Rita Hayworth's ranch where some Villistas have taken cover, Cooper's job is to find worthy candidates for medals. He finds Van Heflin, Richard Conte, Tab Hunter, Michael Callan, and Dick York. His job is then to bring them back to the American base in Cordura.

The journey reveals the less than sterling character of these men of courage. Quite a bit happens on the way to Cordura, some of it a little too unbelievable for me.

This was one of Gary Cooper weakest films in his last years. He is horribly miscast, he's way too old for the part he's playing. He's 58 when this film is made and shows every bit of it. The film mentions his father being killed at Columbua, he must have been 80 if he was still on active duty. Someone like Montgomery Clift should have been in his role.

Director Robert Rossen doesn't have a tight grip on the rest of the cast, they all overact outrageously. Of course since the whole story is rather incredulous, what else were they to do.

For fans of Cooper and Hayworth only.

Angered by the US President Wilson's increasing support the rising Mexican political leader General Carranaza, the former US darling Francisco Villa sends his group of rebels to raid a town in New Mexico before coming back over the border. Enraged by the audacity of the man, Wilson orders his troops across the border to catch and/or kill Villa. Part of the group he sends is Major Thomas Thorn, who has been given the job of assessing the men for possible awards – a comfortable job given to him by Colonel Rogers, a friend of his father. Fascinated by the nature of heroes, Thorn finds himself given command of a small group of them when he refuses to put Rogers forward for a citation. Thorn is keen to get to know more of the men but, with a captured woman in tow, the men are not as simple as their proposed medals would suggest.

Despite pretty much ignoring the interesting history that serves as a backdrop to this film, this is actually still quite an interesting film that was a lot rawer than I expected it to be, given the period in which it was made. In the early stages it was too basic and I worried that the whole thing would be as clunky as Thorn's early questioning of some of his "heroes", but gradually it got better as it went on and simple lines such as hero and coward were eroded away. This is not to say it is brilliant because it most certainly is not but it is certainly interesting for what it tries to do. It doesn't help that the script really labours the surface but lacks the ability to go significantly deep to really make an impact. However even with this, it was still interesting enough to hold me and I did enjoy the solid if simplistic moral debate that it delivered.

Rossen and his cinematography do great work with the wide-open landscapes but the former must also carry the can for not bringing more emotion out of the script consistently. As a result the cast do well without really excelling – with nobody guiding them deeper, this is really what I could have expected. Cooper is as solid as usual with what I suppose was a brave role for him to take. He deals with it well but perhaps wasn't good enough to really convince in layers – although he is superficially good enough. Hayworth doesn't have that great a character and her delivery occasionally gets a bit too over-the-top when asked to deliver more emotionally charged material, she has impact but I was looking for more pain and fear. The support cast work well with what they have been given to do. Conte, Heflin, Keith and Hunter are among those giving solid turns in support of Cooper and the raw story.

Overall then this is not a great film but it is an interesting one. Despite being over 45 years old it is surprising raw and willing to turn away from the simple lines of courageous and cowardly towards something that is much realer and well conceived. It doesn't go deep enough but it is strong on the surface – could easily have been tighter and dropped 20-30 minutes from the running time but is still worth a look for what it does do well.

Glendon Swarthout's brutal, excellent novel receives a handsome, intelligent, and staid Hollywood adaptation---toned down and with a happier ending and less savage sense of irony. Robert Rossen isn't able to keep the film moving. His direction is heavy and without pace, almost formal---a mistake in a story where desperate people are pushed so hard they crack up. The screenplay is relatively faithful to the book but smooths off the rough edges, as expected in an early 60s Hollywood feature. What results is a digest of the book, with themes turned into talking points conveyed through on-the-nose dialogue, especially in the new material at the end.

As usual in his later roles Gary Cooper conveys pained dignity, but he's too old and difficult to accept as a coward. A 40-something Jimmy Stewart, with his reserves of neurosis, or Henry Fonda, whose rectitude could shade into unbending mania, would have been better choices. Rita Hayworth is perfect as the middle-aged woman of ill-repute, while Van Heflin is impressively scummy but not physically imposing enough as Sgt. Chawk. Tab Hunter convinces as a careerist Lieutenant but can't convey seediness. The other soldiers are one note and less vivid than in the book, which is more worth your time.

I first saw this film in 1959 at our local cinema in Sydney aged about 12. Even then I felt there was something odd about an officer accused of cowardice, Major Thomas Thorn played by a very serious Gary Cooper, who becomes the awards officer for the U.S. Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa in Mexico in 1916.

During a battle that is the reverse of the Alamo, Mexicans inside, Americans outside, Thorn observes acts of bravery (through binoculars from a distance) and recommends five men for the Medal of Honor. He is then detailed to take them to the town of Cordura. He also escorts an American woman accused of helping the enemy, Adelaide Geary, played by Rita Hayworth, still stunning at 40 with a glowing mane of red hair.

As they journey, Thorn is obsessed with the true meaning of courage and questions the men endlessly about their actions. He begins to see another side to the five heroes who seem either weak or criminally inclined.

John Wayne hated this movie, feeling that it had denigrated the Medal of Honor - he had a point. Other IMDb reviewers have pointed out historical inaccuracies including the fact that no Medal of Honor was awarded during the campaign.

The last two thirds of the movie sees the group wandering in the wilderness with Thorn the most determined and heroic of the men.

There were a lot of issues going on around this movie, which may have distracted director Robert Rossen from delivering a more appealing film. He had named names during the HUAC investigations, and questions about the true nature of courage and cowardice were no doubt playing on his mind.

Then again, maybe his biggest mistake was to start the film with its most spectacular sequence. A lot of filmmakers would be wary of doing that.

And it is spectacular. "They Came to Cordura" contains one of the best cavalry charges on film. Directed by second unit director James Curtis Havens with John Ford-like panache, it features a regiment of U.S. Cavalry emerging from the dust, followed by changes in formation before the remarkable scene as the horsemen form a "line of troopers boot to boot" and charge. Accompanied by Elie Siegmeister's forceful score, this is masterful cinema.

Unfortunately, "They Came to Cordura" is ultimately mangled by its message, and it was Darryl Zanuck who once said, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union".

In 1916, an army major leads a woman prisoner and a disagreeable group of soldiers through rugged terrain near the Mexican border. This is a standard Western that takes a while to get going and then goes on a bit too long, but is helped by a good cast. Cooper, who was ailing at the time and would make only two more films, is solid as a cowardly officer tasked with finding candidates for the Congressional Medal of Honor. Hayworth is quite alluring as an American accused of abetting Mexico against her country. The familiar cast includes Heflin and Conte as the villains, Keith as a colonel seeking glory, as well as future TV actors York and Platt. This was the only Western for Rossen, an uneven director.

A really good movie. Ultimately a redemption movie. Heroes can also be villains. A single act of cowardice or an act of courage does not mark the measure or the destiny of a man.

Also, confidence in people can change them and reform them.

The acting is superb throughout, and Gary Cooper captures wonderfully the gradual decline as he leads his motley crew on a trek to survival through the desert. An heroic performance to match the hero he portrays.

This is movie that deserves more acclaim than it has received.

In my book this is a must see. Great fare for Sunday afternoon on the couch!

What a disappointing film that gets increasingly boring over the entire two hours. The story, such as it is, is a murky attempt to examine the meaning of "courage". That may titillate philosophy majors, but they are already a pretentious and boring bunch to begin with. Gary Cooper was worn out, and at the end of his career, and Rita Hayworth was already a has-been.

In 1916, the American Army is hunting Pancho Villa down in Mexico. The awards officer Major Thomas Thorn (Gary Cooper) is assigned as observer in the battlefield to seek out heroes in the regiment of veteran Colonel Rogers (Robert Keith) during the attack to Ojos Azules villa to be nominated to the Medal of Honor with Pvt. Andrew Hetherington (Michael Callan) that is riding with him. The villa is owned by the American Adelaide Geary (Rita Hayworth), who welcomes Pancho Villa´s men after their raids. However, Colonel Rogers commands the attack and defeats them in Ojos Azules. Thorn identifies acts of heroism by Lt. Fowler (Tab Hunter), Sgt. Chawk (Van Heflin), Cpl. Trubee (Richard Conte) and Pvt. Renziehausen (Dick York) during the charge. When Colonel Rogers learns that was not nominated by Thorn for the Medal of Honor, he is furious with Thorn. Rogers unsuccessfully tries to change his position reminding Thorn that he was protected by him from an investigation of cowardice in respect to his father. Thorn rides with the five soldiers and Geary, who is accused of giving hospitality to Pancho Villa´s men to Candura. Along the difficulties of their journey, Thorn researches the feelings of the men during their heroic acts and learns that one heroic act does not turn men into heroes.

"They Came to Cordura" is a different Western, with a complex and confused lead character. Major Thomas Thron is a man haunted by a guilty complex since he was a coward in his first battle when he was a rookie soldier. He spends most of the story trying to understand heroism with a group of scums. It is not clear in the conclusion whether he learnt about human nature. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Heróis de Barro" ("Clay Heroes")

Gary Cooper leads an all-star cast in this Western with an interesting plot and unusual type of role for the big guy. He's in the Cavalry and is ordered to accompany a U. S. Army cavalry unit as it pursues Panco Villa. His purpose is to watch for, single out and recommend any men for heroic actions.

The story and film are complicated, and it's too long to keep one from getting itchy waiting for it to end. The cast all giver good performances. Cooper plays Major Thomas Thorn, Van Heflin plays Sgt. John Chawk, Tab Hunter plays Lt. William Fowler, Richard Conte plays Cpl. Milo Trubee, and Robert Keith play Col. Rogers. Rita Hayworth is Adelaide Geary whom the cavalry places under arrest for having aided the enemy. Some other top actors add to the story.

Here is a handful of men who want nothing to do with military medals that Maj Thorn wants to recommend for them. This film has more drama than feel of a Western. Some people may enjoy it, mostly for the cast. But most viewers may weary of the plodding story.