That was an excellent one.

Just what I expected

It is a performances centric movie

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

This had the potential for a major impact movie. The story, the psychological theme, and the talented performers could have led to an iconic American film. Unfortunately, it doesn't deliver. Why not? Gary Cooper is just too old (and a character with too many years of military experience) to be as bewildered and naive as the character he is playing. As others have noted, if the character is to be a naif, then a much younger performer would have been required. Further, a performer who had played iconic American heros does not seem right in the character of a bewildered "coward" Since Cooper is the character the audience is to identify with, and since all of the other male characters have serious personality deficits and Rita Hayworth is a cipher for most of the film, there is no one the audience can identify with. Thus, it is hard for a viewer to get involved.The ending is ridiculous. Say a few words and the despicable characters all turn into the heros they are supposed to be. Huh? Is this the way the book ends? The movie is just sloppy in a lot of noticeable ways. After a trek in the dessert, Rita Hayworth still has a pristine, alabaster complexion. While Cooper is dragging the railroad hand cart up the hill, struggling Christlike against a load he can't manage, the other characters, looking hale, healthy and energetic are just loitering around the set apparently waiting for directions. The trek through the dessert was not sufficiently arduous. Neither the performers, the background music, nor the story line convey more than a long uncomfortable walk.The tension in the plot lessens. Some scenes just had the quality of "let get this scene shot and get outta here and have a beer).Important themes get mentioned but not followed up: the ridiculous calvary charge, use of military decorations for propaganda, ill-conceived foreign interventions, the deleterious effect of combat on the psychological balance of some soldiers, etc.Still, Rita Hayworth shines as an older, demoralized beauty. Conte is dead on. Heflin hams it up a bit. Hunter is inconsistent but when he is bad, he is very bad.If only....

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

This film made Coop look like a Stoop.In the Frank Capra film, Coop just sits there while people of low class browbeat him in court... In this Robert Rossen stew, Coop lets the men he is commanding walk, and sit, and crap all over him.In any real scenario, no army Major would have let the situation get as out of hand as this one did... From the start Coop suffers a severe lack of Authority, and he does practically nothing to prevent it.Hayworth's character should have clawed a couple of these guys to little tiny bits, "Gilda" would have shot those creeps. This woman, is not believable at all. Also, she looks too good for the character she is playing- After several days in a Mexican Desert, she is relatively unmussed. For being in a desert in sunny Mexico, there is a severe lack of dirt, sweat, and flies in this film.The best part of the flick, is where Hayworth's character discusses bravery with Coop: She says something to the effect that "One act of cowardice does not mark a man as a coward forever, and one act of bravery does not make a person a permanent hero." Rossen, with the talent in this film, could have made that statement in a much more interesting way, but instead he takes two of the greatest actors of all time and gives them shoddy lines and weak characters.Someone stated that Coop was "Too Old" for the part... Not So, he looked great. Coop always looked great. He just played against type. He ought to have been more "Sergeant York" than Mr. Deeds here.Regardless of these problems, this film is worth watching at least once or twice, it is not one of my personal Coop favourites, but it is Coop nonetheless.

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".