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

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".

On March 9, 1916, the Mexican revolutionary leader Pancho Villa, angry at American support for his rival, President Venustiano Carranza, ordered more than five hundred of his men to attack the border village of Columbus, New Mexico which was garrisoned by a detachment of the U.S. 13th Cavalry Regiment. The attackers seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, killed 14 soldiers and 10 residents, and took much ammunition and weaponry before retreating back into Mexico. President Wilson ordered a retaliatory invasion of Mexico, and General John Pershing led 10,000 men across the border in what has become known as the Mexican Punitive Expedition. The aim of the expedition, ultimately unsuccessful, was to capture Villa and bring him to justice.

"They Came to Cordura" is set during this now little-known episode from American history. The central character is an American officer, Major Tom Thorn, who takes part in an attack on a hacienda defended by Villa's men. Thorn has been designated his regiment's "awards officer", charged with nominating deserving soldiers for military decorations. After the enemy position has been captured, Thorn nominates five men for the Congressional Medal of Honor. This may seem a large number for what was only a minor skirmish, but the Army high command, foreseeing that America will soon be dragged into World War I, need plenty of well-publicised acts of heroism in order to stimulate recruitment. Thorn is ordered to lead these five back to the expedition's headquarters at Cordura, where they will await confirmation of their awards by Congress. He is also ordered to escort as a prisoner Adelaide Geary, the American-born owner of the hacienda, who is suspected of collaboration with the enemy.

What seems a relatively simple task turns into an arduous and dangerous one. The small party come under attack from Mexican rebels, are forced to abandon their horses and run short of supplies and water. Adelaide, knowing she is likely to be put on trial for treason, attempts to escape. The greatest threats to the group, however, come from internal dissensions. Although the five men may have displayed courage during the engagement at the hacienda, none of them are otherwise particularly admirable, and they start to show their true colours during the journey. Two of them, Sergeant Chawk and Corporal Trubee, are particularly despicable individuals, Chawk having originally joined the Army to escape a murder charge. During the journey he and Trubee attempt to rape Adelaide. Moreover, Trubee has discovered that Major Thorn has a secret of his own- that he was guilty of cowardice during the raid on Columbus- and uses this to blackmail him. When Thorn's guilty secret becomes more widely known, it undermines his authority over the group.

The film is essentially an examination of the question "What is courage?" (The word Cordura, significantly, is not only the name of a fictitious town, but also the Spanish for "courage"). Its central thesis is that one act of cowardice does not necessarily make a man a coward, just as one act of bravery does not necessarily make him a hero. Thorn is obsessed with proving that he is no coward and thus redeeming his lost honour, while the men under him seem equally obsessed with proving that they are no true heroes.

I have never understood what "Quinlan's Film Stars" meant when it said of Rita Hayworth that "her beauty faded with the decade" (meaning the 1940s),as she still seemed very glamorous in films from the early fifties, such as "Miss Sadie Thompson" and "Salome". Here, as Adelaide, she shows that she was still strikingly attractive even at the end of that decade. Unfortunately, this is really a male-dominated film, and the presence of a woman is needed largely as a plot device, to act as the cause of dissension among the men. There is therefore relatively little for Hayworth to do, although the presence of such a glamorous major star must have helped the film at the box office.

Gary Cooper, as Thorn, plays his part reasonably well, although I would agree with those who would have preferred a younger man in the role. Thorn is supposed to be a career officer who has never before seen active service; in 1916 any 58-year-old major would probably have fought in the Spanish-American War of 1898, and possibly in the Indian Wars as well. Probably the best acting performance comes from Van Heflin as the coarse, brutal Chawk.

The main problem with the film lies not with the acting but with the pace. Although it is a war film about the nature of heroism there is a good deal of talk and, apart from two brief sequences, not much in the way of action. The result is a rather static, slow-moving, talky film which at times seems more like the proceedings of a debating society than an exciting war film. 5/10