Most of the bad reviews are coze its been compared to the original one. But if u forget about it and lay back, its a good movie with great acting. My favorite is always Ethan Hawke. Of course whats missing is some really good music but hey, we heard worse, right
625 Reviews
Modern approach to a classic.
kerryhill12320 October 2016
Hate to be cliché voting this 7/10 but thought it was appropriate for a film of this nature.
I was sceptical, like I imagine many were, when I first heard they were remaking The Magnificent Seven since the original is such a classic. Being a fan of westerns in particular, I will jump at the chance to see a western in the cinema.
I really don't think this was a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. It upholds some originality rather than just blindly following the original script and attempts a more modern and socially aware approach. This approach I do not necessarily agree with as it comes across far too forced at times, like they were attempting to recognise as many different races or even 'minorities' as possible.
It was cheesy at times, there is no doubt about this, but classically westerns were styled this way, being melodramatic at times and maybe one too many standoffs with intense close ups of characters staring at each other. In a way I like this though. I thought it paid almost tribute to the classic westerns of the 1950s and 60s. The famous lighting another mans cigar' scene was a pretty neat addition, and instantly reminded me of 'The Good, The Bad & The Ugly'.
The build up was worth it too was an awesome showdown and shootout, lots of well delivered performances and cleverly directed fight scenes. Not a bad film at all but definitely not a masterpiece. Worth your time if you're a fan of the genre.
I was sceptical, like I imagine many were, when I first heard they were remaking The Magnificent Seven since the original is such a classic. Being a fan of westerns in particular, I will jump at the chance to see a western in the cinema.
I really don't think this was a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. It upholds some originality rather than just blindly following the original script and attempts a more modern and socially aware approach. This approach I do not necessarily agree with as it comes across far too forced at times, like they were attempting to recognise as many different races or even 'minorities' as possible.
It was cheesy at times, there is no doubt about this, but classically westerns were styled this way, being melodramatic at times and maybe one too many standoffs with intense close ups of characters staring at each other. In a way I like this though. I thought it paid almost tribute to the classic westerns of the 1950s and 60s. The famous lighting another mans cigar' scene was a pretty neat addition, and instantly reminded me of 'The Good, The Bad & The Ugly'.
The build up was worth it too was an awesome showdown and shootout, lots of well delivered performances and cleverly directed fight scenes. Not a bad film at all but definitely not a masterpiece. Worth your time if you're a fan of the genre.
Denzel challenges Neeson for the title of World's Oldest Action Figure
A_Different_Drummer2 October 2016
Don't misunderstand.
Both Liam Neeson and Denzel Washington are in their 60s, both have defied the laws of Physics by starting brand-new careers as Action Heros late in life. and both are charismatic and talented enough to pull it off.
(Neeson with the Taken series plus a few other assorted action roles recently; Denzel with the Equalizer franchise and this strange oater.)
Frankly, I would be happy to buy a ticket buyer for all the action roles they both can dish up. If both these gentlemen want to continue to make these sorts of pictures for the next 20 years, I promise to keep watching.
However, leaving aside the star power of the lead in this production, overall this film is a borderline remake.
The original had a better ensemble cast, better music, and better acting.
This is an "OK" remake (as many other members have opined here) with arguably better pistol-handling skills.
And still a very nice way to spend a rainy afternoon.
Both Liam Neeson and Denzel Washington are in their 60s, both have defied the laws of Physics by starting brand-new careers as Action Heros late in life. and both are charismatic and talented enough to pull it off.
(Neeson with the Taken series plus a few other assorted action roles recently; Denzel with the Equalizer franchise and this strange oater.)
Frankly, I would be happy to buy a ticket buyer for all the action roles they both can dish up. If both these gentlemen want to continue to make these sorts of pictures for the next 20 years, I promise to keep watching.
However, leaving aside the star power of the lead in this production, overall this film is a borderline remake.
The original had a better ensemble cast, better music, and better acting.
This is an "OK" remake (as many other members have opined here) with arguably better pistol-handling skills.
And still a very nice way to spend a rainy afternoon.
The OK 7
drjgardner23 September 2016
Come on now. If you're going to re-make "The Magnificent 7" let's do it magnificently. Where was that great music? Where is the superlative cast that include Yul Brynner, Eli Wallach, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, James Coburn, and Vladimir Sokoloff? You might argue that Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt are on a level with Brynner and McQueen, but I wouldn't. Pratt certainly has potential, but he doesn't yet have McQueen's star power. The rest are pale imitations, except perhaps for an unbelievably fat Vincent D'Onofrio who is certainly entertaining.
This is a modern re-telling. You might call it the Diversity 7. The producers threw in just about every minority you can think of – Mexican, Asian, Black, Woman. The only thing missing was a "little" person .
Personally I liked the idea of the woman, played very well by Haley Bennett who has been with Washington before ("The Equalizer").
An action film like this works only when the villain is villainous. Eli Wallach was terrific. Peter Sarsgaard wouldn't scare a fly.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed it. It's OK, but it's not magnificent.
This is a modern re-telling. You might call it the Diversity 7. The producers threw in just about every minority you can think of – Mexican, Asian, Black, Woman. The only thing missing was a "little" person .
Personally I liked the idea of the woman, played very well by Haley Bennett who has been with Washington before ("The Equalizer").
An action film like this works only when the villain is villainous. Eli Wallach was terrific. Peter Sarsgaard wouldn't scare a fly.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed it. It's OK, but it's not magnificent.
Emma....
denise-8815220 January 2022
My only critique is with the Emma character. She's supposedly a pioneering woman...tough no-nonsense. But her dress says otherwise. Off the shoulder, low cut? Not the reality of the day at that time. If y'all wanted sexy keep it authentic...not contrived out of Hollywood!
Very Underwhelming. Too PC for its own good.
wingnut924 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Seven is the magic number. A "seven" rating for a somewhat underwhelming movie. The gun fights were well executed and the cast as good as advertised. It's the story that lagged. The team assembling so quickly and their rationales for doing so are near nonsensical and shallow. Also, PC Hollywood rearing its head was noticeable and irritating. Casting the lead as a black man was absolutely fine (especially given a superb talent like Denzel Washington) and actually added to the narrative but adding an Indian, Asian and Mexican to the team for good measure seemed tacked on and forced to a silly degree. Making sure ALL the white men suffer a bad fate before the end of the movie adds to the "white man guilt" Hollywood is so keen on promoting nowadays.
At the end of the day, the movie is mostly unremarkable save for some intense gun battle scenes.
At the end of the day, the movie is mostly unremarkable save for some intense gun battle scenes.
Too "conventionally" modern for its own good...
ElMaruecan8222 January 2018
The concept of "Seven Samurai" is so simple that it's hard to believe it took half a century for a director to come up with the mission-team trope. But that's why Akira Kurosawa was such a genius, he made the seminal action movie and it worked so well that it didn't take much for its Western remake to become a classic on its own merits.
The ingredients are simple and so is the structure: poor people oppressed by a corrupt and powerful man, the recruiting of the seven, the bonding with the villagers which is the meat of the story, then the climactic battle where four of the seven meet their demise. The success of the film depends on how each of these segments are handled and how the cast manages to transcend the material by making us relate to each player or enjoy their presence and interactions.
But it's not as easy as it sounds, the original was a three-hour epic with a clear three-act structure, not only we could identify each Samurai but each death resonated as a mini-tragedy. "The Magnificent Seven", less epic but as entertaining, managed to make at least five of them pretty endearing in a briefer lapse of time. Now, the problem with Antoine Fuqua's 2016 remake is that it's obviously admiring the original material and does the best to duplicate its magic, but it never seems to take its own characters seriously enough, not the magnificent, not the villagers, so why should we care? As expected, each of the seven embodies a particular trait, Denzel Washington is Sam Chisolm, the Ace, his establishing moment consists on the 'permanent' arrest of a wanted criminal and a few collateral damages. The scene works but it's so reminiscent of one of King Schultz' deeds in "Django Unchained" that it's instantly forgettable. Chris Pratt is the cool one, who enjoys a magic card trick or two and spends half his time delivering a wisecrack. Individually, they're good but together, they're no Brynner and McQueen.
Now, I waited for the taciturn one, the third Samurai/James Coburn type. He's a knife thrower played by Byung-Hun Lee, this is an interesting fellow that deserved a more ominous introduction, but as soon as we're finished admiring his skills, we discover that he's only the sidekick of a more legendary sharpshooter named Goodnight Robicheaux and played by Ethan Hawke. Hawke plays the third more three-dimensional member of the seven but I didn't like the way he stole Billy's thunder, relegated to one simple skill.
And depth would be a luxury for the other magnificent, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo is a Mexican outlaw who's given a chance by Sam and spends the rest of the time exchanging a few racist quips with Pratt, Vincent D'Onofrio is a religious tracker whose voice is the closest thing to comedy relief, and then there's Martin Sensmeier as an exiled Comanche warrior. They're all colorful and ethnically marked but that's not saying much, the Native is defined by his ability to throw arrows, the knife thrower throws knives the religious nutcase speaks to the Lord, the Mexican is... Mexican.
The only oneswho benefit from an extra pinch of depth are Hawke whose troubled actions seem to recall some PTSD shock from the Civil War and Pratt, and Washington. But if you're looking for counterparts to the magnificent seven, don't bother. I didn't expect one but I wish they could have improved the seventh one and made him as a scene stealer as Mifune, but the film didn't even manage to be better than "Young Guns", and I loved "Young Guns", the film had six protagonists and they were not as expendable as the so-called magnificent.
This version with Antoine Fuqua is obviously driven by good intentions and the fact that he decided to make a multi-ethnic cast could have given a special texture, but Fuqua also goes for the female heroine trend, and Haley Bennett (the toughest one from the village) is just so bad-ass she overshadows many of the seven. If Fuqua wanted something original, he could have made her the seventh one. It wouldn't have been the least realistic thing about the film, the introduction of the villain had almost killed any attempt to take it seriously.
They say a film is as good as its villain, on the basis of Bartholomew Bogue, the film should have been great. Peter Saargard revisits a form of old-fashioned mustached villain that is not uninteresting. That said, I can believe any form of evil exploitation, of throwing people off their land, but that a man would be shot in cold blood in front of witnesses, and a woman being axed from behind and the Marshall, no matter how corrupt he is, would do nothing about it, that's too much. If evil doesn't have standards, then the conception of heroism turns into something 'superhero' binary that doesn't really prompt us to root for anyone, since there's no intellectual challenge.
But Haley Bennett as the seventh one would've been a challenging twist, but there were more shots on her cleavage than any scenes involving the last three seven put together so I wondered whether her presence was meant to arouse the male audience or to inspire the female one. But the film leaves a little to care about, especially the villagers who're not given enough screen-time or interactions anyway. And since the timing between the entrance and the battle doesn't exceed forty minutes, we couldn't care less about the outcome. What lacked in the film is a transition between the introduction and the battle, the fact that many deaths left me cold was indicating of how the film was so reliant on the concept that it forgot to tell a genuinely powerful story, it's just about archetypes colliding into each other in a muck of cinematic conventions. It's fun and entertaining at moments, but the rest of the time, I was scratching my head with perplexity.
But it's not as easy as it sounds, the original was a three-hour epic with a clear three-act structure, not only we could identify each Samurai but each death resonated as a mini-tragedy. "The Magnificent Seven", less epic but as entertaining, managed to make at least five of them pretty endearing in a briefer lapse of time. Now, the problem with Antoine Fuqua's 2016 remake is that it's obviously admiring the original material and does the best to duplicate its magic, but it never seems to take its own characters seriously enough, not the magnificent, not the villagers, so why should we care? As expected, each of the seven embodies a particular trait, Denzel Washington is Sam Chisolm, the Ace, his establishing moment consists on the 'permanent' arrest of a wanted criminal and a few collateral damages. The scene works but it's so reminiscent of one of King Schultz' deeds in "Django Unchained" that it's instantly forgettable. Chris Pratt is the cool one, who enjoys a magic card trick or two and spends half his time delivering a wisecrack. Individually, they're good but together, they're no Brynner and McQueen.
Now, I waited for the taciturn one, the third Samurai/James Coburn type. He's a knife thrower played by Byung-Hun Lee, this is an interesting fellow that deserved a more ominous introduction, but as soon as we're finished admiring his skills, we discover that he's only the sidekick of a more legendary sharpshooter named Goodnight Robicheaux and played by Ethan Hawke. Hawke plays the third more three-dimensional member of the seven but I didn't like the way he stole Billy's thunder, relegated to one simple skill.
And depth would be a luxury for the other magnificent, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo is a Mexican outlaw who's given a chance by Sam and spends the rest of the time exchanging a few racist quips with Pratt, Vincent D'Onofrio is a religious tracker whose voice is the closest thing to comedy relief, and then there's Martin Sensmeier as an exiled Comanche warrior. They're all colorful and ethnically marked but that's not saying much, the Native is defined by his ability to throw arrows, the knife thrower throws knives the religious nutcase speaks to the Lord, the Mexican is... Mexican.
The only oneswho benefit from an extra pinch of depth are Hawke whose troubled actions seem to recall some PTSD shock from the Civil War and Pratt, and Washington. But if you're looking for counterparts to the magnificent seven, don't bother. I didn't expect one but I wish they could have improved the seventh one and made him as a scene stealer as Mifune, but the film didn't even manage to be better than "Young Guns", and I loved "Young Guns", the film had six protagonists and they were not as expendable as the so-called magnificent.
This version with Antoine Fuqua is obviously driven by good intentions and the fact that he decided to make a multi-ethnic cast could have given a special texture, but Fuqua also goes for the female heroine trend, and Haley Bennett (the toughest one from the village) is just so bad-ass she overshadows many of the seven. If Fuqua wanted something original, he could have made her the seventh one. It wouldn't have been the least realistic thing about the film, the introduction of the villain had almost killed any attempt to take it seriously.
They say a film is as good as its villain, on the basis of Bartholomew Bogue, the film should have been great. Peter Saargard revisits a form of old-fashioned mustached villain that is not uninteresting. That said, I can believe any form of evil exploitation, of throwing people off their land, but that a man would be shot in cold blood in front of witnesses, and a woman being axed from behind and the Marshall, no matter how corrupt he is, would do nothing about it, that's too much. If evil doesn't have standards, then the conception of heroism turns into something 'superhero' binary that doesn't really prompt us to root for anyone, since there's no intellectual challenge.
But Haley Bennett as the seventh one would've been a challenging twist, but there were more shots on her cleavage than any scenes involving the last three seven put together so I wondered whether her presence was meant to arouse the male audience or to inspire the female one. But the film leaves a little to care about, especially the villagers who're not given enough screen-time or interactions anyway. And since the timing between the entrance and the battle doesn't exceed forty minutes, we couldn't care less about the outcome. What lacked in the film is a transition between the introduction and the battle, the fact that many deaths left me cold was indicating of how the film was so reliant on the concept that it forgot to tell a genuinely powerful story, it's just about archetypes colliding into each other in a muck of cinematic conventions. It's fun and entertaining at moments, but the rest of the time, I was scratching my head with perplexity.
If you look for holes; you'll find them. But its really entertaining!
ChetlovesMer28 September 2016
First off, I've seen both the original "Seven Samurai" and the Yule Brenner, Charles Bronson, Steve McQueen version about a hundred times; I love both of those movies. I thought this version was great. Is it the greatest movie of all time? Of course not. Is it a reflection of how movies are done today? Of course it is?
There are unquestionably some holes in the story. People point to the Gatling Gun scene as totally over the top. And, Yes. It is over the top. The Gatling Gun, however, was a huge leap forward in firearm technology and if the movie makers were prone to a little exaggeration, I'm okay with that. My guess is any late 1800's cowboy who came up against a Gatling Gun and survived would probably also heavily exaggerate the story when telling it.
The other issue I keep hearing is that some of the seven join up for almost no reason. They just "join up". Okay, again, true. But I challenge you to watch the 1960's version again. If you are truly honest with that film at least 3 members of that seven join up because they have "nothing better to do". I actually think the idea of a bounty hunter rounding up guys who have a bounty on them kinda makes sense. Both the town and the team are way more culturally diverse than ever would have happened in the late 1800's. But did you really think Hollywood could make a movie in which all the bad guys are Mexicans and all the heroes are white guys like in the 1960's version? (Okay Charles Bronson's character was HALF-Mexican.)
This version is very entertaining. It's a fun escape. It's an action movie which isn't another damned superhero movie. The female lead is phenomenal. Denzel is Denzel-ishly great. Chris Pratt is both entertaining and a solid second-in-command. The other characters fill in the blanks nicely. The strangely culturally diverse town participates in their own salvation. The action scenes are well done, if not completely realistic. It's a re-imagined version that pays tribute in many places to both the original and the 1960's remake.
Go see the movie and have fun like I did. And if you are one of those people that needs complete realism. Then sit at home and think about how boring complete realism would be.
There are unquestionably some holes in the story. People point to the Gatling Gun scene as totally over the top. And, Yes. It is over the top. The Gatling Gun, however, was a huge leap forward in firearm technology and if the movie makers were prone to a little exaggeration, I'm okay with that. My guess is any late 1800's cowboy who came up against a Gatling Gun and survived would probably also heavily exaggerate the story when telling it.
The other issue I keep hearing is that some of the seven join up for almost no reason. They just "join up". Okay, again, true. But I challenge you to watch the 1960's version again. If you are truly honest with that film at least 3 members of that seven join up because they have "nothing better to do". I actually think the idea of a bounty hunter rounding up guys who have a bounty on them kinda makes sense. Both the town and the team are way more culturally diverse than ever would have happened in the late 1800's. But did you really think Hollywood could make a movie in which all the bad guys are Mexicans and all the heroes are white guys like in the 1960's version? (Okay Charles Bronson's character was HALF-Mexican.)
This version is very entertaining. It's a fun escape. It's an action movie which isn't another damned superhero movie. The female lead is phenomenal. Denzel is Denzel-ishly great. Chris Pratt is both entertaining and a solid second-in-command. The other characters fill in the blanks nicely. The strangely culturally diverse town participates in their own salvation. The action scenes are well done, if not completely realistic. It's a re-imagined version that pays tribute in many places to both the original and the 1960's remake.
Go see the movie and have fun like I did. And if you are one of those people that needs complete realism. Then sit at home and think about how boring complete realism would be.
Blazing Saddles II
david-54630 December 2022
Did I just watch a remake of the Magnificent Seven or a remake of Blazing Saddles. Ok I'm being tongue in cheek. But throughout this film which admittedly had good action scenes, was gritty, and was visually not bad but everything else screamed of Blazing Saddles. Instead of dirt poor villagers we get the good folk of Rose Creek. In Blazing Saddles it was the good folk of Rock Ridge, "people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons". No sorry no Hedy sorry Hedley Lamar played to the hilt by a comedic Harvey Korman. But we do have an over the top very evil Bartholomew Bogue played to the hilt by Peter Sarsgaard. When Chisolm played stoically by Denzel Washington rides into to town my thoughts turned to Bart played by Cleavon Little riding into town in Blazing Saddles. Any minute now I expected some crazy old dude to announce that the "Hey, the sheriff's a *** - Church bells clang". While watching Bogue's huge gang of cutthroats riding towards Rose Creek I expected any moment now a toll booth to pop up in the desert. While watching Bogue's men being blown up by dynamite I kept looking for men and horses flying in the air. Finally as Chisolm and Vasquez rode off into the sunset I wondered if they had a Cadillac waiting for them. Maybe the film could have used a little of a songstress played by Madeline Kahn to give us some romantic interlude. No such luck. Ok the film wasn't totally bad. Love the diversity touch of Chisholm's Seven even as I wondered where was a Robert Vaughn. Lee Byung-Hun was a nice substitute for James Coburn. Finally a nice touch at the end as they played the theme song from the original Magnificent Seven. Hopefully Kurosawa wasn't rolling over in his grave though.
One Hell of a Ride
allstarrunner19 September 2016
Finally another great western movie!
To be sure, all the western clichés are found in this movie; and I don't have a problem with that! One of the things I liked best about this western was the pacing, sometimes I find westerns to be a little too slow (for my personal taste - subjective, I know) but I felt this movie nailed it, even with a run time a little over 2 hours.
The action scenes are great, very well done. The casting and acting was great - Denzel does a great job as the leader of this rag tag group of guys. Pratt, of course, nails the comedic relief role.
The movie carried a surprising amount of "heart" throughout it all the way to the end.
Here is the bottom line: Yes, this movie is worth your hard earned money to go see in the theater.
To be sure, all the western clichés are found in this movie; and I don't have a problem with that! One of the things I liked best about this western was the pacing, sometimes I find westerns to be a little too slow (for my personal taste - subjective, I know) but I felt this movie nailed it, even with a run time a little over 2 hours.
The action scenes are great, very well done. The casting and acting was great - Denzel does a great job as the leader of this rag tag group of guys. Pratt, of course, nails the comedic relief role.
The movie carried a surprising amount of "heart" throughout it all the way to the end.
Here is the bottom line: Yes, this movie is worth your hard earned money to go see in the theater.
Not perfect, but it's still good fun.
brownwilliamandrew6 January 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I've noticed that most of the more scathing, negative reviews seem to take issue with this film as it relates to the original. This remake "doesn't have the character development" or "the group's motivations for undertaking the deadly, difficult
task aren't as profound or meaningful as those in the original". I, for one, very much enjoyed the liberties taken to make many things different from the original film and story. If I wanted to watch a film that carbon-copied the original, I would.......you know.......just go watch the original.
The film is very well shot, with some very nice scenery in many scenes. Yes, the "7" could easily be called the "PC7", and that may irk some people. Our mercenaries-to-the-rescue consists of a black man, an Asian man, a Mexican, a Comanche, and 3 white dudes. (Not to mention a brave, ready-to-fight-anyone woman who's a heck of a shot). And yes, all the white dudes get killed. Get over it, people. I'm white, and I'm not bothered. The 7 are all unique in their own way, and I'd say they all did a fine job with what they were given. Some better than others, namely Washington, Pratt, and D'Onofrio. The only real downside in the storyline is Saarsgard's Bogue. He's a gold-seeking millionaire who will go to whatever lengths necessary to get what he wants. But...........why? Why is he like that? Why does he even want to buy out (or destroy) the town? He already owns the gold mine. How is the town negatively affecting his operation? He's about as scary as a mustache on a blonde dude. The final shootout / battle is generally a good time, despite it being kinda unrealistic. I mean, c'mon, that Gatling Gun isn't the unstoppable harbinger of death its made out to be. Especially not at that range. And why did the battle even need to happen? Yo, Goodnight. You're the sniper. Get up in that steeple. When you see Bogue, shoot him. Problem solved.
It doesn't qualify as some movie that'll go down in the annals of history. It's a rather clichéd, shoot-em-up cowboy flick. But it's good fun. If you want a life-changing cinematic experience, go watch Forrest Gump or something. If you just wanna chill with some tacos and watch a Western flick that'll make you wanna play Red Dead Redemption and twirl your revolvers, this is it.
The film is very well shot, with some very nice scenery in many scenes. Yes, the "7" could easily be called the "PC7", and that may irk some people. Our mercenaries-to-the-rescue consists of a black man, an Asian man, a Mexican, a Comanche, and 3 white dudes. (Not to mention a brave, ready-to-fight-anyone woman who's a heck of a shot). And yes, all the white dudes get killed. Get over it, people. I'm white, and I'm not bothered. The 7 are all unique in their own way, and I'd say they all did a fine job with what they were given. Some better than others, namely Washington, Pratt, and D'Onofrio. The only real downside in the storyline is Saarsgard's Bogue. He's a gold-seeking millionaire who will go to whatever lengths necessary to get what he wants. But...........why? Why is he like that? Why does he even want to buy out (or destroy) the town? He already owns the gold mine. How is the town negatively affecting his operation? He's about as scary as a mustache on a blonde dude. The final shootout / battle is generally a good time, despite it being kinda unrealistic. I mean, c'mon, that Gatling Gun isn't the unstoppable harbinger of death its made out to be. Especially not at that range. And why did the battle even need to happen? Yo, Goodnight. You're the sniper. Get up in that steeple. When you see Bogue, shoot him. Problem solved.
It doesn't qualify as some movie that'll go down in the annals of history. It's a rather clichéd, shoot-em-up cowboy flick. But it's good fun. If you want a life-changing cinematic experience, go watch Forrest Gump or something. If you just wanna chill with some tacos and watch a Western flick that'll make you wanna play Red Dead Redemption and twirl your revolvers, this is it.
Good remake, lots of action, entertaining Western!
Whingewood29 September 2016
Yet another remake
but the trailers for this one were at least encouraging, especially with Denzel Washington playing the lead.
I have vague memories of seeing the original The Magnificent Seven, (which is in itself a re-imagining of Seven Samurai), and I seem to remember liking it. I think 56 years is long enough of a gap to justify a remake, so I'll give them a pass on this one (although you could argue that 1980's Battle Beyond the Stars was another Seven Samurai remake). So what was it like?
Each character was steadily added to the team, they had a bonding/preparing the town montage, the bad guys showed up, they shot each other a lot, characters were killed, the film ended. Pretty much what I was expecting, and that's fine.
Personally, I love Westerns (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is one of my favourite films ever), so for me this formula really worked. Is it going to win any awards? Probably not, but the performances were good (although it might be hard to argue that Chris Pratt was acting anything other than himself, which again, is fine), it looked good, and most importantly, I was entertained.
(From my blog site: whingewood.wordpress.com)
I have vague memories of seeing the original The Magnificent Seven, (which is in itself a re-imagining of Seven Samurai), and I seem to remember liking it. I think 56 years is long enough of a gap to justify a remake, so I'll give them a pass on this one (although you could argue that 1980's Battle Beyond the Stars was another Seven Samurai remake). So what was it like?
Each character was steadily added to the team, they had a bonding/preparing the town montage, the bad guys showed up, they shot each other a lot, characters were killed, the film ended. Pretty much what I was expecting, and that's fine.
Personally, I love Westerns (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is one of my favourite films ever), so for me this formula really worked. Is it going to win any awards? Probably not, but the performances were good (although it might be hard to argue that Chris Pratt was acting anything other than himself, which again, is fine), it looked good, and most importantly, I was entertained.
(From my blog site: whingewood.wordpress.com)
A-Team with Six-shooters
floodmylife23 September 2016
Good movie, but certainly not great. The cast are tremendous actors, but IMO Vincent D'Onofrio was the star of the show...fantastic acting on his part. Of course, Denzel Washington was a good main character, however, unbelievable given that historically, the west was populated largely by people of Caucasion and Mexican descent. I feel that the casting of mostly minorities was another pathetic attempt at re-writing history with a broad, multi-colored and politically correct brush that is all too common today. This movie largely lacked character development and I wished there was more substance to the film. What can I say? Like many other movies released in the last 10 years, it had plenty of action and fast-moving scenes, but fell short of becoming something memorable. In the end, the script reminded me of the classic A- Team episode, except this team sports cowboy hats and six- shooters.
A 6 if you didn't see the original a 4 if you did
aj121824 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The third American remake of Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. It has a great deal of the same issues but they are exacerbated in this third iteration. This movie of the three has weakest storytelling but some of the best action, but it doesn't feel like a western. And it isn't quite an action movie instead it is this kind of middle ground that just makes the movie feel lost and out of place. And that is one of the over arching issues with this movie, it doesn't know what it wants to be.
*LIGHT SPOILERS BELOW*
Everyone besides Denzel Washington has no motivation. The big bad guy an evil corporate industrialist (who honestly gains nothing by destroying the town...he has the mine rights already and would greatly benefit from having a town nearby) decides to destroy the town, murder half the inhabitants and set the church on fire in the first 5 min...just so you know he is evil. Chris Pratt's character Faraday is motivated to get his horse back and an obscure promise of some payout. But he realizes early on that he has his horse back and the payout isn't that much, so he kind of stays and dies for no reason. Ethen Hawke's "Goodnight" and Byung-hun Lee's "Billie" show up because Denzel asked nicely (again no talk of a payout). And this repeats itself with the rest of the characters, (except for the good Comanche Indian Denzel ate a raw deer liver so they became be-sties). And it gets worse because all the magnificent seven are the same stereotypes you have seen in Hollywood since the 70's. Mountain Man into Jesus, Noble Indian Savage, Mexican Bandit, Confederate Soldier with PTSD, Gambling Cowboy, token woman that can shoot, Asain samurai with a pistol, and the only real character Denzel Washington as Chisolm.
The action in this movie is however fast paced and over the top...Think of a western "SHOOT EM UP" and you have it. They do not use the traditional idea of western movies that build up the tension over the course of a movie. It is suddenly, Chris Pratt kills 8 bad guys in 15 seconds. Billie (the samurai gunslinger) runs in the open and stabs 4 cowboys with knives (despite having two pistols), and Mountain Man tackles a horse (despite having a pistol, rifle, tomahawk, knife etc). It is cool to watch but will have you at moments go WTF.
If you think about the story you will have a bad time. If you want realistic western action you will have a bad time. If you want a mediocre action movie that takes place in a western town, this could be worth a shot but only if you watch during a matinée. It doesn't hold a candle to the original (1960). But it does have better action than the 1998 one...but the story is worse. So it is basically on the same level as the made to TV movie.
*LIGHT SPOILERS BELOW*
Everyone besides Denzel Washington has no motivation. The big bad guy an evil corporate industrialist (who honestly gains nothing by destroying the town...he has the mine rights already and would greatly benefit from having a town nearby) decides to destroy the town, murder half the inhabitants and set the church on fire in the first 5 min...just so you know he is evil. Chris Pratt's character Faraday is motivated to get his horse back and an obscure promise of some payout. But he realizes early on that he has his horse back and the payout isn't that much, so he kind of stays and dies for no reason. Ethen Hawke's "Goodnight" and Byung-hun Lee's "Billie" show up because Denzel asked nicely (again no talk of a payout). And this repeats itself with the rest of the characters, (except for the good Comanche Indian Denzel ate a raw deer liver so they became be-sties). And it gets worse because all the magnificent seven are the same stereotypes you have seen in Hollywood since the 70's. Mountain Man into Jesus, Noble Indian Savage, Mexican Bandit, Confederate Soldier with PTSD, Gambling Cowboy, token woman that can shoot, Asain samurai with a pistol, and the only real character Denzel Washington as Chisolm.
The action in this movie is however fast paced and over the top...Think of a western "SHOOT EM UP" and you have it. They do not use the traditional idea of western movies that build up the tension over the course of a movie. It is suddenly, Chris Pratt kills 8 bad guys in 15 seconds. Billie (the samurai gunslinger) runs in the open and stabs 4 cowboys with knives (despite having two pistols), and Mountain Man tackles a horse (despite having a pistol, rifle, tomahawk, knife etc). It is cool to watch but will have you at moments go WTF.
If you think about the story you will have a bad time. If you want realistic western action you will have a bad time. If you want a mediocre action movie that takes place in a western town, this could be worth a shot but only if you watch during a matinée. It doesn't hold a candle to the original (1960). But it does have better action than the 1998 one...but the story is worse. So it is basically on the same level as the made to TV movie.
Antoine Fuqua + Denzel Washington + Ethan Hawke = This is the best what they came up with it?
85122225 December 2016
Greetings from Lithuania.
"The Magnificent Seven" (2016) is a disappointment to start with. It has amazing cast, great genre director Antoine Fuqua and ... nothing that will glue you to your screen during its 2 hours run time. It wasn't a bad movie to say the least, but 2 minutes after the credits will start rolling, you will forget it ASAP.
Writing was the weakest thing of this movie to say the least. It lacked character development, nor the intriguing plot. So i toke what was given to me and the best thing i can say it wasn't bad, but "The Magnificent Seven" is a very mediocre "saw it many times, know where it is going and how it will play out flick" to say the best. The best thing in this movie was its cinematography by Mauro Fiore - it is a great work.
Overall, "The Magnificent Seven" will work as a guilty pleasure on a boring evening with some friends and maybe some light alcohol involved, but nothing more. This is the weakest film by the great Antoine Fuqua till this date, and its not his fault - action sequences (and the are a lot of them were pretty solid) - script is what has to be blamed here in a first place. Not bad flick, but given the names behind and in front of the camera, this is a disappointing movie.
"The Magnificent Seven" (2016) is a disappointment to start with. It has amazing cast, great genre director Antoine Fuqua and ... nothing that will glue you to your screen during its 2 hours run time. It wasn't a bad movie to say the least, but 2 minutes after the credits will start rolling, you will forget it ASAP.
Writing was the weakest thing of this movie to say the least. It lacked character development, nor the intriguing plot. So i toke what was given to me and the best thing i can say it wasn't bad, but "The Magnificent Seven" is a very mediocre "saw it many times, know where it is going and how it will play out flick" to say the best. The best thing in this movie was its cinematography by Mauro Fiore - it is a great work.
Overall, "The Magnificent Seven" will work as a guilty pleasure on a boring evening with some friends and maybe some light alcohol involved, but nothing more. This is the weakest film by the great Antoine Fuqua till this date, and its not his fault - action sequences (and the are a lot of them were pretty solid) - script is what has to be blamed here in a first place. Not bad flick, but given the names behind and in front of the camera, this is a disappointing movie.
The magnificent three
Scott6999 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I love Denzel Washington as an actor, and I enjoyed that they diversified the cast in this version. The character of hawke was quite interesting. But making the sharpshooter a guy that can no longer shoot, why? It was a fun movie , and I liked that they included a Native American and an Asian. But at the end, they killed all the white characters. That was not missed by me. These hidden messages really annoy me.
Regurgitated Hollywood Garbage
dbryn30 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The original is still considered a top 5 western of all time, so why mess with that? It's opening night of this movie in a half full theater, and from the number of one liners that only got a few laughs from the two elderly ladies a few rows back, to the cliché action sequences ripped off of other great westerns, my eyes are sore from how much they rolled over 140mins. The writing was as lousy as the directing in my opinion. The dialogue looked amateur compared to what was delivered in something like "Tombstone". Poor Vincent D'Onofrio was using some ridiculous voice that he could hardly deliver the lines in, and *spoiler alert* his death was over dramatic and CHEESY!!! Good guys and bad guys dropping like flies from bullets, but Chris Pratt rides in o ten(?) men firing at him, sustains at least six bullets before falling... he has just enough strength to muster trying to light a smoke, and light some dynamite with a casual trouble free grin -- CHEESY! And then to top it all off, let's add in a few native Americans in nice clean clothes that look straight off the shelf from the local trading post - navy blue felt was it? What, did they run out of money on wardrobe? The lines, the Indian war cries, and the native vs native fight was insulting in my opinion.
So, what did Hollywood accomplish with this? Antoine Fuqua's took a top western and destroyed it. When the current generation hears of "The Magnificent Seven", they will remember a garbage film and that's what people will remember -- well done.
So, what did Hollywood accomplish with this? Antoine Fuqua's took a top western and destroyed it. When the current generation hears of "The Magnificent Seven", they will remember a garbage film and that's what people will remember -- well done.
A lot of fun
kees_cornelisse47720 September 2016
After I saw the trailer of the movie I was expecting a fun western with just good action and nice characters because the cast is great on paper, but then the question of course is if it also works for the movie. Well for me it worked. I just had a lot of fun with it.
I have to say that I haven't seen the original movies that this is a remake of so I didn't have that to compare it to, therefore if I compare it to something, I compare it to other movies I have seen.
Because the movie has a lot of things I have already seen in other movies (I won't say what because that may be considered spoiling the movie). Therefore the story isn't what makes this movie and if you're looking for a great story, the movie might not be for you.
What the movie does have first of all is a great cast that delivers. Denzel Washington gives the best performance of the movie by far but also Chris Pratt shows that Guardians wasn't a fluke, Hawke, D'Onofrio and just the entire cast works very well together for this nice team of 7 misfits that has to save the town.
Also the action is great, it's very true to the old westerns. There are some very tense stand-offs and when the shooting starts, the action is fantastically shot, directed and just well executed.
And the movie has a good sense of humor, there are good comedic moments that give good levity to the movie.
Because the movie actually is pretty towards an R-rated movie, it has some harsh and brutal things happening that might not be for kids. It's one of the most mature PG-13 movies I have seen.
All in all, the Magnificent Seven is a fun time in the theater, probably not as good as the original but better than most remakes these days (looking at you Ghostbusters) and I give it an 8.5/10
I have to say that I haven't seen the original movies that this is a remake of so I didn't have that to compare it to, therefore if I compare it to something, I compare it to other movies I have seen.
Because the movie has a lot of things I have already seen in other movies (I won't say what because that may be considered spoiling the movie). Therefore the story isn't what makes this movie and if you're looking for a great story, the movie might not be for you.
What the movie does have first of all is a great cast that delivers. Denzel Washington gives the best performance of the movie by far but also Chris Pratt shows that Guardians wasn't a fluke, Hawke, D'Onofrio and just the entire cast works very well together for this nice team of 7 misfits that has to save the town.
Also the action is great, it's very true to the old westerns. There are some very tense stand-offs and when the shooting starts, the action is fantastically shot, directed and just well executed.
And the movie has a good sense of humor, there are good comedic moments that give good levity to the movie.
Because the movie actually is pretty towards an R-rated movie, it has some harsh and brutal things happening that might not be for kids. It's one of the most mature PG-13 movies I have seen.
All in all, the Magnificent Seven is a fun time in the theater, probably not as good as the original but better than most remakes these days (looking at you Ghostbusters) and I give it an 8.5/10
Watchable remake, but lacking charm.
lost-in-limbo30 June 2020
The original 1960 THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN was one of the first westerns I ever saw, thanks to my grandfather, where Saturday afternoons as a kid I would sit there in the lounge room with him watching westerns, so it holds a special place in my heart. Hearing about the remake, I wasn't particularly interested, but over time my curiosity won out, especially with that ensemble cast led by Denzel Washington.
While watchable, I found it to lack that sense of big time adventure (well Elmer Bernstein's powerful music score was a big part of that) and the effortless magnetism of the original film, however this efficient reboot (in the second half) delivers in spades the bravado confrontations, blaring shootouts and blazing self-sacrifice in the face of impossible odds. Action is expertly-staged, pacing stays upbeat and an earnestly well-oiled cast (with some standing out more than others) acquitting themselves by bringing few moments of emotional attachment, in spite of the shallow caricature arches and at times forced chemistry. At the core of the mechanical plot, the message and its themes remains the same, although I didn't really understand the need for the out-of-the-blue revenge angle towards the end. Nonetheless THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN is an admirable effort.
While watchable, I found it to lack that sense of big time adventure (well Elmer Bernstein's powerful music score was a big part of that) and the effortless magnetism of the original film, however this efficient reboot (in the second half) delivers in spades the bravado confrontations, blaring shootouts and blazing self-sacrifice in the face of impossible odds. Action is expertly-staged, pacing stays upbeat and an earnestly well-oiled cast (with some standing out more than others) acquitting themselves by bringing few moments of emotional attachment, in spite of the shallow caricature arches and at times forced chemistry. At the core of the mechanical plot, the message and its themes remains the same, although I didn't really understand the need for the out-of-the-blue revenge angle towards the end. Nonetheless THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN is an admirable effort.
An energetic and highly entertaining Western.
Troy_Campbell29 September 2016
The Western has long become a rarity on the big screen, replaced over the last few decades as the dominant action genre first by bulging muscles and explosions, then by spandex and superpowers. So this big-budget remake of the 1960 classic comes as a welcome breath of tobacco-filled air, even if it doesn't quite live up to its predecessor. But as a piece of popcorn entertainment, it fires on all cylinders. Not surprisingly with Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Equalizer, Shooter) calling the shots, subtlety is pushed aside for frenetic set pieces and belief-defying heroics, especially in the wild climactic showdown that demonstrates minimal CGI does not equal minimal fun. Amongst all the balletic gunplay and macho posturing there's a relatively simple story: town is overrun by a dastardly villain (Peter Sarsgaard oozing creepiness), town employs cowboys-for-hire (guess how many) for protection, town fights with said cowboys leading the way. That the plot requires little more explanation then that highlights the focus of the movie, for better and for worse, however the fact it never feels shallow or superficial can be attributed to the exhilarating action and the ultra-cool cast. And what a fantastic cast it is. Denzel Washington is reliably charismatic as the contemplative leader, Chris Pratt is magnetic as the group's joker, Ethan Hawke is intense as the tormented sniper, Byung-hun Lee is enigmatic as the blade-wielding assassin, Vincent D'Onofrio is intriguing as the philosophical killer and Haley Bennett is fierce as the townswoman who stands her ground. Best of all, the eclectic characters – also including Manuel Garcia-Rulfo as the rowdy Mexican and Martin Sensmeier as the Indian warrior – share a wonderful chemistry that makes them utterly watchable from start to finish. An energetic remake with style to spare, The Magnificent Seven is a rip-roaring adventure that'll please long-neglected Western fans to no end.
A spectacle with little substance. Overshadowed by the original. "Missed shot" at an amazing team-up of such great cast
quiqueperezsoler16 April 2020
Maybe it's because of the straight forward plot and forced quirky characterizations that this movie finds a way to not lend itself more room for development. To ground the world, the setting, the stakes and, mostly, the characters. Missing heart-to-heart moments and scenarios that showcase the reactions and personalities of the characters. We have seen western movies before and we can understand those themes and tropes, but what makes the greatest western movies stand out from the overly saturated genre are subverting our expectations of those conventionalities.
Although following a formulaic structure, the westerns that seem to stand out from the rest critically (this coming from a 24 year-old who has barely scratched the surface of the genre and concludes this from analysing the most critically acclaimed titles) have either an engaging and unconventional plot or an endearing and well-realised cast. Aside from good practical effects, cinematography and soundtrack.
In every western, when there are no duels, showdowns or action scenes, there're heart-to-heart moments where we see characters getting to know each other better, romances flourish and fears discussed that strengthen the ties between them. And especially when there's such an amazing cast of very different characters those moments are highly needed and have to be devoted to that in order for the audience to care for whatever happens to them in the story.
The movie treats the audience with a spectacle of gunfire and staredowns and we relish them as they are good ol' western formulaic tropes that we never stop enjoying. But it seems like the movie is holding back on developing its characters and somewhat its plot. We have but almost one line of backstory for each and there's not enough going on in the movie to see them react to different scenarios and situations to find out their personalities.
Not to mention the female lead, who's very underutilised. She initates the plan to take back the town and gathers the men to do so. And that would have been enough for her involvement in the story given the archetypes of western female characters but the movie goes out of its way to give her a feisty personality and a reason to fight but doesn't do almost anything with it. She is sidelined most of the times and when we get a character developing moment the scene cuts too soon to switch back to the plot.
The huge cast of renowned actors prevented the deeper development of those characters but unforutantely the movie doesn't treat us with much of a complex or eventful story to stop us from wondering why weren't those moments there. And when the time comes to see these characters mourn a death, have a team-up badass moment or joke with each other it's good for the ride and the espectacle but it leaves no bigger mark.
Nevertheless the movie has many good things going on for it, the entire third act is brilliantly executed, it's loud and exciting. It brings a sense of finality to the story like Avengers' Endgame did, only in this one we felt for those goodbye moments, jokes and team-up fights because we knew a lot about the characters and we have seen them grow and interact with each other through time and that's what I think this movie needed. It needed a trilogy or a prequel to set up the showdown. In this movie we see a grandiose battle, each of them fighting for their own reason but most of the time we don't know the reason. So their demise is not as impactful as it should.
There are so many slow showdowns and duels that the end duel doesn't feel earned or that impactful not to mention the underdeveloped generic motivationless villain. I haven't seen the original 1960s movie but I've seen enough westerns to know from the premise of the movie the sort of beats and themes it must have followed and there are all there but they are just not maxed out.
IN CONCLUSION, the movie is fun and exciting, is a parade of explosions, gun fights and good witty dialogue with very little depth to it and a script based solely in the interactions and superficial goals of each character in the story. It's fun to watch and doesn't make you think about it much, it's just plain fun.
Although following a formulaic structure, the westerns that seem to stand out from the rest critically (this coming from a 24 year-old who has barely scratched the surface of the genre and concludes this from analysing the most critically acclaimed titles) have either an engaging and unconventional plot or an endearing and well-realised cast. Aside from good practical effects, cinematography and soundtrack.
In every western, when there are no duels, showdowns or action scenes, there're heart-to-heart moments where we see characters getting to know each other better, romances flourish and fears discussed that strengthen the ties between them. And especially when there's such an amazing cast of very different characters those moments are highly needed and have to be devoted to that in order for the audience to care for whatever happens to them in the story.
The movie treats the audience with a spectacle of gunfire and staredowns and we relish them as they are good ol' western formulaic tropes that we never stop enjoying. But it seems like the movie is holding back on developing its characters and somewhat its plot. We have but almost one line of backstory for each and there's not enough going on in the movie to see them react to different scenarios and situations to find out their personalities.
Not to mention the female lead, who's very underutilised. She initates the plan to take back the town and gathers the men to do so. And that would have been enough for her involvement in the story given the archetypes of western female characters but the movie goes out of its way to give her a feisty personality and a reason to fight but doesn't do almost anything with it. She is sidelined most of the times and when we get a character developing moment the scene cuts too soon to switch back to the plot.
The huge cast of renowned actors prevented the deeper development of those characters but unforutantely the movie doesn't treat us with much of a complex or eventful story to stop us from wondering why weren't those moments there. And when the time comes to see these characters mourn a death, have a team-up badass moment or joke with each other it's good for the ride and the espectacle but it leaves no bigger mark.
Nevertheless the movie has many good things going on for it, the entire third act is brilliantly executed, it's loud and exciting. It brings a sense of finality to the story like Avengers' Endgame did, only in this one we felt for those goodbye moments, jokes and team-up fights because we knew a lot about the characters and we have seen them grow and interact with each other through time and that's what I think this movie needed. It needed a trilogy or a prequel to set up the showdown. In this movie we see a grandiose battle, each of them fighting for their own reason but most of the time we don't know the reason. So their demise is not as impactful as it should.
There are so many slow showdowns and duels that the end duel doesn't feel earned or that impactful not to mention the underdeveloped generic motivationless villain. I haven't seen the original 1960s movie but I've seen enough westerns to know from the premise of the movie the sort of beats and themes it must have followed and there are all there but they are just not maxed out.
IN CONCLUSION, the movie is fun and exciting, is a parade of explosions, gun fights and good witty dialogue with very little depth to it and a script based solely in the interactions and superficial goals of each character in the story. It's fun to watch and doesn't make you think about it much, it's just plain fun.
It's Magnificently Good..!!
yonathanlesmana30 September 2016
I have watched Kurosawa's masterpiece before and nothing will ever close to it, especially when we put the year of production into consideration. It so amazing what Kurosawa could do at that time with so many limitation in technology.
But let's stop comparing this movie with the old good "Seven Samurai". If I look this movie as just a movie (without consider it as a remake of something else), Magnificent Seven is a good cowboy movie.
I love Denzel's acting in this movie. His character is so strong. Ethan Hawke has the right face and attitude to become Goodnight. Great casts!
Chris Pratt is superb too. He brings the cheerful ambiance into this movie. His lines and jokes fit him well.
Well, one character that's not built right is Red Harvest. He lack of background story, make his character felt blunt, no attachment with the others or with audiences.
But overall, this is a very good movie. It brings me smile, and excitement. Cowboys fight is always good to watch, but never this good.
I personally love it! And will consider to re-watch it again in later time.
But let's stop comparing this movie with the old good "Seven Samurai". If I look this movie as just a movie (without consider it as a remake of something else), Magnificent Seven is a good cowboy movie.
I love Denzel's acting in this movie. His character is so strong. Ethan Hawke has the right face and attitude to become Goodnight. Great casts!
Chris Pratt is superb too. He brings the cheerful ambiance into this movie. His lines and jokes fit him well.
Well, one character that's not built right is Red Harvest. He lack of background story, make his character felt blunt, no attachment with the others or with audiences.
But overall, this is a very good movie. It brings me smile, and excitement. Cowboys fight is always good to watch, but never this good.
I personally love it! And will consider to re-watch it again in later time.
Interesting remake!
davyd-022375 February 2019
Not in the class as Brynner, McQueen etc, but some interesting variations upon the theme. A Mexican, an Indian, someone who I would describe as of "Japanese" type origin. You never really find out what the pay is. The villain is seriously vile. Musically not as good as its predecessor. Save for Denzel the cast is probably not as well known and they are quite a different bunch come together at the request of a woman on behalf of frightened villagers (not Mexican-in this case). The big showdown which has to come is lengthy, so don't take your eyes off the screen. Well worth a watch, maybe two. The original I would suspect you will watch over and over. This one, you probably wont. Huge amount more violence too
The Not so Magnificent Seven
TheLittleSongbird21 November 2017
A remake of a great film that is a remake of an even greater film (Akira Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai'), there are worse remakes out there than 2016's 'The Magnificent Seven'. Primarily 'Psycho', 'The Wicker Man', 'Rollerball', 'Ghostbusters' and 'Stepford Wives'.
'The Magnificent Seven' has its strengths but fails to live up to its title and one does question the point of it. It is well made visually, with an atmospherically gritty look and an evocative setting. Some of the action excites and the direction has a dark grit that is typical of Antoine Fuqua. While it is nowhere near as unforgettable or as iconic as one of film's all time great scores, James Horner's score here is demonstrative of what a great talent he was and how his tragic far too early death is still a sad loss.
Casting is very variable, some of the acting is very good, some of it doesn't work. The best performances come from Denzel Washington, charismatic as ever, Ethan Hawke excelling in an atypical role and Haley Bennett mixing toughness and vulnerability adeptly. The most interesting character relationship is between Washington and Hawke and gives the film the few glimpses of realism and substance. Lee Byung-hun is also good fun.
Others don't fare so well, not helped by that most of the characters are not that interesting and sketchily developed. Didn't think either Chris Pratt or Vincent D'Onofrio, both decent and more in other things, fitted particularly well, Pratt especially jarred and his humorous lines lack wit and don't gel. Faring the worst is Peter Sarsgaard, who just isn't sinister or intense enough, even in a severely underwritten role he looks like he's sleepwalking.
While there's a lot of blood and violence, there is little soul or heart underneath and some of it is gratuitous. The dialogue is awkward, particularly the humour which falls flat and often feels misplaced. The story suffers from an overlong length, a sluggish pace, a lack of tension or suspense and heavy-handed and pointless political elements. Won't carp about the political correctness like some have but it doesn't add anything. The illogical and anaemic ending underwhelms drastically as well.
In summary, has its strengths but not so magnificent and one does question the point of it. 5/10 Bethany Cox
'The Magnificent Seven' has its strengths but fails to live up to its title and one does question the point of it. It is well made visually, with an atmospherically gritty look and an evocative setting. Some of the action excites and the direction has a dark grit that is typical of Antoine Fuqua. While it is nowhere near as unforgettable or as iconic as one of film's all time great scores, James Horner's score here is demonstrative of what a great talent he was and how his tragic far too early death is still a sad loss.
Casting is very variable, some of the acting is very good, some of it doesn't work. The best performances come from Denzel Washington, charismatic as ever, Ethan Hawke excelling in an atypical role and Haley Bennett mixing toughness and vulnerability adeptly. The most interesting character relationship is between Washington and Hawke and gives the film the few glimpses of realism and substance. Lee Byung-hun is also good fun.
Others don't fare so well, not helped by that most of the characters are not that interesting and sketchily developed. Didn't think either Chris Pratt or Vincent D'Onofrio, both decent and more in other things, fitted particularly well, Pratt especially jarred and his humorous lines lack wit and don't gel. Faring the worst is Peter Sarsgaard, who just isn't sinister or intense enough, even in a severely underwritten role he looks like he's sleepwalking.
While there's a lot of blood and violence, there is little soul or heart underneath and some of it is gratuitous. The dialogue is awkward, particularly the humour which falls flat and often feels misplaced. The story suffers from an overlong length, a sluggish pace, a lack of tension or suspense and heavy-handed and pointless political elements. Won't carp about the political correctness like some have but it doesn't add anything. The illogical and anaemic ending underwhelms drastically as well.
In summary, has its strengths but not so magnificent and one does question the point of it. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Not As Magnificent as Original, But Good
beachtv-121 May 2023
In the world of westerns, few films are as iconic as the original 1960's "The Magnificent Seven." The 2016 version, directed by Antoine Fuqua, ambitiously attempts to rekindle the magic of its predecessor for a contemporary audience, and for the most part, it succeeds.
The story, familiar to many, is a tale of heroism, camaraderie, and redemption. A desperate town, tormented by a ruthless industrialist, seeks the help of seven outlaws, bounty hunters, gamblers, and hired guns. Together, these seven men, each with their own motives and pasts, band together to protect the town.
Fuqua assembles an impressive ensemble cast led by Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt, who both deliver solid performances. Washington's calm and controlled presence as Sam Chisolm is contrasted perfectly by Pratt's quick-witted and charming Faraday. Each of the other five members brings their own unique flavor to the mix, creating a diverse and dynamic group that audiences can root for.
The film's direction is impressive, particularly during the action scenes. Fuqua's ability to choreograph and execute grand scale shootouts is on full display here. The climactic battle sequence, in particular, is both thrilling and visually spectacular, a testament to the director's knack for action.
From a cinematographic standpoint, the film is gorgeous, capturing the vast, arid landscapes and frantic chaos of battle with equal finesse. The musical score by the late James Horner, completed posthumously by Simon Franglen, pays homage to the classic western scores, successfully setting the mood and enhancing the action on screen.
"The Magnificent Seven" (2016), however, is not without its flaws. While it checks all the boxes for a fun, action-packed western, it falls short in terms of character development. With a running time of just over two hours, the film struggles to flesh out its characters beyond their archetypical roles. Also, while the story is enjoyable, it doesn't provide many surprises or innovative twists, leaning heavily on genre conventions.
Despite these criticisms, "The Magnificent Seven" (2016) shines in its ability to entertain. The film manages to balance intense action sequences with moments of humor and camaraderie among the seven protagonists. While it may not have the enduring impact of the original, it is an enjoyable ride that will leave audiences excited and engaged.
In conclusion, "The Magnificent Seven" (2016) is a solid action-packed western that delivers on the promise of its genre. With a stellar cast, thrilling action sequences, and a nostalgic nod to its roots, it provides a thoroughly enjoyable cinematic experience, especially for fans of action and western films.
The story, familiar to many, is a tale of heroism, camaraderie, and redemption. A desperate town, tormented by a ruthless industrialist, seeks the help of seven outlaws, bounty hunters, gamblers, and hired guns. Together, these seven men, each with their own motives and pasts, band together to protect the town.
Fuqua assembles an impressive ensemble cast led by Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt, who both deliver solid performances. Washington's calm and controlled presence as Sam Chisolm is contrasted perfectly by Pratt's quick-witted and charming Faraday. Each of the other five members brings their own unique flavor to the mix, creating a diverse and dynamic group that audiences can root for.
The film's direction is impressive, particularly during the action scenes. Fuqua's ability to choreograph and execute grand scale shootouts is on full display here. The climactic battle sequence, in particular, is both thrilling and visually spectacular, a testament to the director's knack for action.
From a cinematographic standpoint, the film is gorgeous, capturing the vast, arid landscapes and frantic chaos of battle with equal finesse. The musical score by the late James Horner, completed posthumously by Simon Franglen, pays homage to the classic western scores, successfully setting the mood and enhancing the action on screen.
"The Magnificent Seven" (2016), however, is not without its flaws. While it checks all the boxes for a fun, action-packed western, it falls short in terms of character development. With a running time of just over two hours, the film struggles to flesh out its characters beyond their archetypical roles. Also, while the story is enjoyable, it doesn't provide many surprises or innovative twists, leaning heavily on genre conventions.
Despite these criticisms, "The Magnificent Seven" (2016) shines in its ability to entertain. The film manages to balance intense action sequences with moments of humor and camaraderie among the seven protagonists. While it may not have the enduring impact of the original, it is an enjoyable ride that will leave audiences excited and engaged.
In conclusion, "The Magnificent Seven" (2016) is a solid action-packed western that delivers on the promise of its genre. With a stellar cast, thrilling action sequences, and a nostalgic nod to its roots, it provides a thoroughly enjoyable cinematic experience, especially for fans of action and western films.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
