Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Though both are Union officers, Colonel John Marlowe (John Wayne) and Major Henry Kendall (William Holden) find themselves on opposite sides of an emotional divide while marching their troops to a Confederate supply station with the intention of blowing it up. Marlowe is the no nonsense, get the job done type, while Kendall shows a compassionate side that more modern times might have qualified him as a conscientious objector. Their march to Newton Station is interrupted by a brief stay at Greenbriar, where proprietress Miss Hannah Hunter (Constance Towers) has the misfortune of being caught eavesdropping on Marlowe's plan to destroy Newton Station and continue a southward march all the way to Baton Rouge.Unable now to leave Miss Hunter and her personal servant Lukey behind, Marlowe is forced to bring them along to prevent the enemy from learning of his plans. I was rather surprised to learn that the role of Lukey was portrayed by early Wimbledon tennis star Althea Gibson in her only significant screen appearance. I'm kind of curious how she added this job to her resume, there's got to be a good piece of trivia in there someplace.Played pretty much as a straight Civil War drama, there's a curious segment in the second half of the picture in which the elderly administrator of the Jefferson Military Academy sends his teen-aged cadets out to do battle in support of the Southern cause when Marlowe's troops enter the area. Wisely, though somewhat unexpectedly knowing John Wayne's persona in films like these, his character Marlowe calls for a bugle retreat so as not to engage the youngsters in what would have been a horrific massacre.Oddly, once the objective is reached and mission accomplished, the film ends rather abruptly at a point where it looks like one more stand is about to be encountered, the Baton Rouge objective having been cited more than once. Equally questionable, Colonel Marlowe declares his love for Miss Hunter in a head scratcher of a plot contrivance considering all that went before. If anything, it should have been Holden's character to attract Miss Hunter's affections considering the amount of time they spent together tending to wounded and dying soldiers.

Incredibly lame, and not representative of the genius of John Ford. Very unrealistic and contrived. Just about everything is wrong, militarily. Subordinates question just about every order of their commanding officer, the CO gets drunk in the middle of a raid, US Grant gets called by his nickname by subordinates, after doing well to disguise their intentions the Union soldiers give it all away by showing the towns people the direction they are headed.Then there are the sappy sentimentality's that devalue the movie even more. The doctor who doesn't seem to realise there is a war on, the irritating Southern woman who is just there as a very contrived love interest (and who should have been shot as a spy), the successful attack by a regiment of kids.Add in a few overblown characters that are there just to represent the types of people who fought in the Civil war: eg the politician- officer.Usual one-dimensional swagger-filled performance from John Wayne. William Holden is incredibly irritating as the doctor. Even more irritating is Constance Towers as the Southern woman. Hardly a good performance in the whole movie.The saddest thing is that the movie is loosely based on a real event, the Grierson Raid. Though the characters and many details have been changed, this movie is an insult to the memories of the men who took part in that raid.

Union cavalry officer John Wayne leads his men through Confederate Mississippi hoping to reach Baton Rouge. Along the way, he has to deal with Rebel soldiers and spies, as well as clashing with doctor William Holden. While not one of director John Ford's best, this is an interesting movie for a few reasons. First it's a film about the cavalry's role in the Civil War, which is rarely discussed. Second, it takes place largely in Mississippi. Most Civil War movies that take place in the South generally focus on Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, etc. This is one of the few that I can think of to deal with the war in Mississippi. Third, this is John Ford's only Civil War film. He did direct a small segment of How the West Was Won that took place during the war and he certainly had many characters affected by their Civil War experiences in his westerns. But this is the only full movie of his that actually takes place during the war itself.Duke is fine. It's not one of his more memorable roles, though that's more the fault of the script than his performance. William Holden plays an army surgeon Duke is forced to take along with him. In all honesty, Holden's character seems completely tacked-on to the plot. He could've been removed entirely without upsetting the film much. It might have even improved it. Constance Towers is fun as a Southern belle the soldiers have to take with them on their march. At first she seems flighty but soon shows there's more to her. She also has one of the most provocative scenes from any Ford film, where she bends down in front of John Wayne with her cleavage exposed, offering him some chicken and saying "Would you like a leg or a breast?" She's probably the only standout in the film. It's not one of Ford's best. It's watchable and interesting enough, but also overlong and familiar in tone to other cavalry movies I've seen, despite the change in locale. Obviously Wayne and Ford buffs will want to check it out.

This 1959 movie is not an old Western, but it feels like one. John Wayne plays Col. John Marlowe, the commander of a cavalry unit during the American Civil War. Not surprisingly, he is a coarse, no-nonsense officer, exactly the kind of military leader you would expect John Wayne to play.The story revolves around the adventures and skirmishes of his cavalry unit as it travels through enemy territory (the South) on a mission. To me, the movie did not seem to have much of a plot. Either that or the plot was too complicated for me to follow after a single very casual viewing on the tube. My initial impression is that the screenplay was poorly written in that we were presented with a number of disjointed events.The unit is in enemy territory so they are in a precarious situation. There are a few nicely staged shots of units in formation and battle scenes, bugle calls and all. John Ford's staging and camera work seemed rather good. Really, this film was not much more than a filmed civil-war re-enactment. Civil-war buffs will enjoy this movie for this reason.However, do not expect this movie to deliver any real insight into the cavalry. Despite its name, "The Horse Soldiers" is not a realistic movie about horses of war or the life of cavalrymen. I still don't know what impression Ford wanted to give about them. Sometimes they were portrayed as slack drunkards; at other times they were portrayed as an effective military unit. This was confusing to me because you can't have it both ways. Col. Marlowe's conduct in the film was inappropriate for any military commander. Whatever cavalry commanders were like in the Civil War, I'm sure they were never like this.There was little character development at all. I never got to the point where I actually cared about what happened to any of them.There were a few battle scenes that seemed particularly unrealistic. It's one of those goreless movies where few seem to be actually hit by all the weapons and munitions being let loose. In one scene, a number of cavalrymen are surrounded by a crowd. When the shooting starts, the cavalrymen are hit but no one in the crowd is hit or even tries to move away.I cannot say that this movie provided any insights into the Civil War either. If it's based on a true story, I suppose the story is just not that interesting to me. I suspect that this movie would be more interesting to Americans who know something about the American Civil War (and enjoy old movies with John Wayne).There were a few interesting scenes involving the unit's contact with blacks in the South. However, this aspect was not really developed in a satisfactory way. I couldn't see the point of these scenes.At first, the movie's tension was focused on the complications of having to drag around an uncooperative, captive Southern belle (played by Constance Towers). Later the drama shifted more to the disagreement between Col Marlowe and an attached medical officer Maj. Henry Kendall (played by William Holden).These relationship conflicts did not seem believable and interesting to me. There seemed to be no relationship between Col. Marlowe and Miss Hunter at all. Many of the scenes involving her were so cliché they bordered on the ridiculous. It was also difficult to understand Marlowe's approach towards the doctor, even after the reason for his antagonism was explained. It just made no sense to me that a military commander would be so antagonistic towards his medical officer. I felt that John Wayne's atrocious acting was partly the reason for these problems.The movie might be enjoyable enough for old movie buffs who like John Wayne and the American Civil War. However, for the rest of you, don't expect much.