Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

tomsview 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".

bsmith5552 I probably liked this film more than most, but I thought it had a great cast and a good story. The battle scenes are well staged and exciting to watch. The interplay between the various characters keeps the viewers interest throughout.The time is 1916 at the time of Pancho Villa where a U.S. army battalion has been sent into Mexico to "get Villa" who had previously led a raid onto American soil. Major Thomas Thorpe (Gary Cooper) is assigned the task of identifying American heroes to be recommended for the Congressional Medal of Honor. As American entry in WWI is immanent, the army needs American heroes to help in the recruitment of new recruits.A cavalry charge led by Col. Rogers (Robert Keith) on an enemy stronghold, results in the identification of four candidates: Lt. Fowler (Tab Hunter), Sgt. Chawk (Van Heflin), Cpl. Trubee (Richard Conte) and Pvt. Renzelhausen (Dick York) in addition to Pvt. Hetherington (Michael Callen) whom Thorpe had already identified. In addition American Adelaide Geary (Rita Hayworth) is arrested for aiding and abetting the enemy and "comforting" rebel leader Arreaga (Carlos Romero).Rogers, upset at not being commended for his victory by Thorpe orders him to escort the group alone to Army Headquarters in the town of Cordura. Along the way, they are attacked by Arreaga and are forced to give up their horses and walk the rest of the way. During the trek Thorpe is asked to withdraw his recommendations for medals for various reasons by each of the five men. And , Thorpe has a secret of his own. Gradually they become alienated from Thorpe and he is left alone to bring them in irregardless. Only Adelaide sticks by him. Also Hetherington becomes ill and the group is forced to carry him causing further tension. At last they reach the railway line and......................................................An obvious flaw in the casting has Cooper, who was in his late 50s, as Thorpe who would have been a much younger man however Coop gave a performance that reminded one of his Will Kane in "High Noon". Hayworth was also quite good as the "well travelled" Adelade. Van Heflin was never better as the bitter Chawk. The rest of the cast were equally as good including Hunter who was known more for his light comedies with the likes of Natalie Wood.

Reedmalloy In the opening scene of They Came to Cordura we are introduced to all the historical context in the script. First is an Army aviator grabbing a hot meal. Next a headquarters type mentions to the reporters that after winning a fight over Mexican government troops at Carrizal, a large group of Villistas under a couple of "generals" has taken refuge at a ranch called Ojos Azules. Gary Cooper's character Major Thorn enters the scene and we are given a hint of the scorn held for him due to his behavior during Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico. Colonel DeRose (Edward Platt) snubs his attempt at a handshake. The reporters are perplexed that a major is an "Awards officer" after being executive officer of the regiment commanded by a 63-year-old colonel. We find out that there was another battle the day before at Guerrero, and that his nomination of one of the participants for the Medal of Honor had been approved. Finally, Colonel DeRose reads a recent dispatch about the bombardment of Verdun in the real war dated "April 17, 1916." Working backwards from "April 17, 1916", pretty much all of this is in error in some context, but just like World War II films that depict every Marine as having seen action on "Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima," it is just name-dropping in an effort to sound authentic. Apparently either novelist Glendon Swarthout, director Robert Rossen, or both read a thing or two about the "Punitive Expedition," jotted down a few dates and names, and then set their book/movie in it. While the errors are nothing in themselves—not one person in a thousand knows the difference any more, and probably not too many more even in 1959—they do make the context of their theme of the nature of courage and cowardice ring hollow to me.I have the novel and wondered long ago why Swarthout chose the Punitive Expedition to begin with. It seemed a bit of a cop-out not to use his personal experiences in WWII as a basis, except that perhaps he was wary that, WWII being a recent conflict, many might not buy his premise that heroes in combat are the craven when it comes to needing "real" courage: i.e. dealing with "real life," while those who shun danger (in his case, those relieved from potential combat duties because they have such exceptional skills as "writing") are actually the real heroes. His story raises the question that since he depicts Thorn's assignment as an "awards officer" (despite being senior in grade) as a form of subtle punishment, maybe Swarthout perceived being assigned that duty himself as being for the same reason? Okay, maybe that's a tad cynical, except I defy anyone to determine that four out of any five recipients of the Medal of Honor were criminal brutes with no other redeeming characteristics. Don't yell at me—Swarthout and Rossen put forth the premise.So let's start there with our quick review of goofs. No Medals of Honor were awarded or even considered in the Punitive Expedition. In fact the expedition was remarkably free of medal awards until the Silver Star was created in 1932, post-awarded to a number of senior leaders of the expedition. Regiments didn't have executive officers in 1916—they had lieutenant colonels. The only "major" noteworthy at the battle in Columbus was Maj. Frank Tompkins, who collected a troop of cavalrymen during the fight and pursued a force ten times their size into Mexico.A battle occurred at Guerrero on March 29, a notable American success against Villistas led by a 63-year-old colonel. A mounted charge was even attempted by part of the 7th Cavalry but their mounts were worn out by an all-night 55-mile march through a mountain snowstorm. The Villistas fled anyway when they observed the approaching column—something they did in every engagement of that campaign. The Villistas never made a Cordura-like stand anywhere nor inflicted heavy casualties on haughty Americans foolish enough to charge fortified walls on horseback. A mounted charge against a high wall is so pointless (there is no shock power against a solid 12-foot obstruction) it's tantamount to a libel.There was a mounted charge at Ojos Azules on May 5, however, the last by a US Army unit until January 1942, but it was hastily improvised by two troops of the 11th Cavalry after their dawn advance into the ranch was detected. Unlike Cordura, it was a resounding American success with no casualties. The battle at Carrizal took place June 21, the last engagement of the campaign. It was not only an embarrassing bloody nose for the US Army but an actual defeat, when 400 Mexican government troops (not Villistas) repulsed an ill-conceived dismounted attempt by 90 Buffalo Soldiers of the 10th Cavalry to force their way through town after being told by both sides not to. Finally the aviator might be an anachronism, because the expedition had run out of flyable airplanes by April 20, but I guess that at least was plausible.Long story short, Swarthout and Rossen could have set this in World War I to make their point (well, maybe not with Rita Hayworth), but then nobody could make all those snide little innuendos about macho heroes and elderly superannuated colonels, could they? The cinematography is pretty to look at, so there's that.

Wuchak The setting for this ambitious 1959 film is the 1916 U.S./Mexican border conflict. Entrance into WWI is imminent and Gary Cooper plays a major who escorts five men to the the New Mexican base town of Cordura (which means "courage"). The five men are candidates for the Medal of Honor; they've proved themselves courageous in battle and the government wants heroes to promote military recruitment. Cooper is chosen for the job to shame him since he acted cowardly in his last (only) battle. Along for the ride is Rita Hayworth, an alcoholic American expatriate charged with aiding the Mexicans.Cooper's character is in incredible agony throughout the picture. Courage is the one thing he believes he lacks and so he marvels at the trait, even if the person possessing it is a scumbag in every other way. He perceives courage as the noblest human quality, redeeming a person from all other flaws, no matter how bad. His past cowardice naturally compels him to over-compensate as the leader of the group, which doesn't win him any friends, if you know what I mean."They Came to Cordura" is a Western, I suppose, but it's more accurately a lost-in-the-desert/survival story (e.g. "The Flight of the Phoenix," "Sands of the Kalahari"). The entire film takes place in the desert wilderness. The group experiences hardships and set-backs on the journey. Four of the men become increasingly hostile toward the major, propelled by the authority-hating, rivalrous sergeant (Van Heflin).The film will appeal to anyone who, like me, is into lost-in-the-wilderness type stories. Unfortunately, although the screenplay and subject matter (What is courage?) are ambitious and highly thought-provoking, the execution is less than satisfactory. The dialogue/delivery is dated and the acting, at times, less than authentic. Still, the material is taken seriously by all involved.One highlight of the film is redhead Rita Hayworth. This is the first and only film I've ever seen her in. My only previous exposure to her was that famous WWII era photo of her in a nightgown with her hand in her hair. As far as I'm concerned that picture doesn't do her justice. She looks and is completely different than the image that picture conveys. At the time of filming she was almost 41 years old. Her character in the film compassionately relates to Cooper's character for reasons revealed in the story.I've heard that the film was originally a 2.5 hour piece; unfortunately it was taken out of the director's hands and about 30 or so minutes were cut. Director Robert Rossen was in the process of putting together a director's cut when he unexpectedly died in 1966.BOTTOM LINE: Yes, the film's reach exceeds its grasp and, yes, it is dated, but I really appreciate this film. I can see why some would give it a low rating while others consider a near-masterpiece. Cooper's torturous performance is potent and Rita Hayworth is splendid. The ending wherein Cooper endeavors to move a train cart or die trying is a moving image. The film does succeed in provoking the viewer to consider the nature of courage, despite its flaws.GRADE: C+