Can a movie suffer for just being good? There's a strong argument to be made for that in "The Horse Soldiers," with director John Ford and star John Wayne doing competent work in one of their less- heralded turns.It's a dark time for the Union in the American Civil War. Up against a stout Confederate defense at Vicksburg, General U. S. Grant (Stan Jones) take up an idea floated by cavalry Col. John Marlowe (Wayne) to lead a force deep behind enemy lines, lay waste to a rebel railroad junction at Newton Station, and ride on south to Union-held Baton Rouge."The main trick is no fighting until we reach Newton Station," Marlowe explains. After that, all bets are off as to a safe return."The Horse Soldiers" is a film that challenges you, not to judge its director and star on the basis of prior collaborations, namely the famed "Cavalry Trilogy" and "The Searchers," the latter of which was made just three years before. You get the sense here that Ford wanted Wayne to play the same kind of hard-edged character that made him so great in "The Searchers." Only in "The Horse Soldiers," Marlowe's tough tone gets tiresome too fast.To that end, Ford enlists the help of William Holden, playing Marlowe's foil as a medical officer named Kendall the colonel has no use for; and Constance Towers as a Southern belle who frets at her mistreatment by the Yankees she'd dearly love to see squashed.Watching Wayne and Holden go at it is fun, especially since you more or less see Kendall's point of view. Ironically, he's the West Pointer while Marlowe was an engineer in civilian life, which makes it odd to see Kendall fret about the cost of war while Marlowe goes about doing his small-unit version of Sherman's March. Kendall should know better, but Holden the pro sells it.I really enjoyed Towers here, who has to carry a lot of baggage regarding Ford's famous love-hate attitude toward strong women. But the film doesn't quite know what to do with her, which becomes a problem in the second half when a left-field romance is shoehorned in.At times Ford is on point as a director, bringing out the autumnal hues of the setting. An opening shot of Union horsemen riding against a fading sunlight is striking, and so is our first shot of Marlowe entering a ship's compartment backlit by a driving rain. The final battle is one of Ford's better ones.But there are moments where "The Horse Soldiers" feels labored. In the middle of Marlowe's occupation of Newton Station, a Confederate force arrives and for no good reason proceed to charge into Marlowe's well-positioned forces to predictable effect. Even Pickett's Charge made some tactical sense. Here you see Ford straining for effect, and overdoing the flags and musical underscoring.I really didn't get Marlowe's hostility toward Kendall, even after Wayne has a big drunk scene explaining it which showcases the actor at his weakest. You really want something more settled and grim in his character, not this loudmouth telling us doctors are no good because they couldn't save his wife.Ford also overloads the film with dramatic deaths, Marlowe telling a dying soldier "There's nothing to be scared of" and so on. Many of the characters get little enough screen time for their passings to register as more than filler, but they keep piling up.But when Ford connects with a good scene, some of them borrowed from past glories like "The Searchers" and some of them fresh to this film, you understand why he and Wayne mattered so much in the annals of American film. They register as true icons, even in lesser work.Such is my verdict on "The Horse Soldiers," a decent film with some great moments to pick out amid the clams. Look, it's Ford and Wayne, and they count for a lot, so settle in and give it a look. Just remember if you like it more than me, you have a bunch of films even better than this to enjoy even more.

To begin with, this has nothing to do with the historical events movie was based on. Now we come to the "Southern Bell" Spaying and how she was treated. Any self respecting commander with a battalion behind the enemy lines, discovering a spy would first and foremost have the responsibility towards his me. She would be shot on the spot. She would not be dragged with the company. Then she tried to escape. Again, she was not being dealt with. Then she tried to warn the Southern patrol, nothing again. Seriously. . Now about John Wayne's "Tough guy" character. His representation of an army officer in all the movies I saw him in such a role is totally over acted, unrealistic and down right stupid.

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.