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.

136 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The movie is a remake of 'The Magnificent Seven' by John Sturges (1960), which is itself a Western adaptation of Kurosawa's masterpiece, 'Seven Samourai' (1954). Despite a few flaws, the 1960 version was balanced and entertaining: cast, dialogues and music, notably, have now become legend. In comparison the latest version delivers almost nothing. If anything, it proves that quality is not about plot (which is roughly similar for the two Westerns), but about style.
*** WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS ***
The three films have the same structure: 1. Context and recruitment of the seven mercenaries; 2. Village life and training of the villagers; 3. Showdowns with the villains and conclusion. On all these parts, the movie fails.
1. CONTEXT AND RECRUITMENT OF THE SEVEN MERCENARIES. The context is over the top. The villains are horrendous, overstaffed for such a small village and ready to kill at any rate. By the way, Bogue, if you can murder 'half a dozen' villagers for no reason, why do you even bother offering them to buy their land? Just start shooting to make them go away.
The recruitment is so incredible it becomes funny: reasons for joining the band remain completely obscure, if not absurd. Sure, I'll join this suicide mission just because you have my horse (Faraday). Of course I'll join because it will get just one single bounty hunter off my back, out of the dozens chasing me (Vasquez). No, I won't join you, I am going away… well, after all why not, even though I don't know why I changed my mind (Horne). Hey, let's share deer liver for breakfast and I'll go along with you (Red Harvest).
2. VILLAGE LIFE AND TRAINING OF THE VILLAGERS. Village life, where? Villagers, who? We barely see any of this, we don't know how they live, what they think, how they feel. They are reduced to a simple background for the action. The character we understand most is Emma Cullen, which says something. In the previous movies, the villagers debated about options, asked advice to the wise elder, hid the women, betrayed the mercenaries. We saw them discussing, working, celebrating, building defences, training.
Here we only see a few minutes of the villagers' training. At first it is a disaster, but afterwards… but afterwards nothing, we don't see how they progress, technically and psychologically, to be able to confront the villains.
3. SHOWDOWNS WITH THE VILLAINS AND CONCLUSION. In the previous movies, there was a build-up of the action, with limited confrontations that eventually lead to the final climatic showdown. Here there is a first fight as the mercenaries enter the village, and then we wait, and wait… until the final showdown that lasts forever. Loads of explosions, of shooting, of deaths, more deaths… It is impossible to keep track of the body count, however it seems much more than the original villain bunch. In terms of strategy, Bogue, since you have such a terrific machine gun, why do you use it AFTER most of your men have been massacred, not BEFORE? We will never know. Also, why do you even bother coming to this fight, endangering your life? Surely not because Chisolm would have called you a coward, since you don't remember who he is anyhow.
The movie ends in utter ridicule, with Chisolm trying to make Bogue pray with him. And when the three remaining mercenaries leave, letting the villagers sort out the mess, the latter repeat 'thank you' as a mantra, even though most of their men died and their village is completely ravaged. Was that better than moving away? On a moral and symbolic ground it could have been, but then it would have required the movie to have moral and symbolic insight, instead of just inflated action.
-----
This is where it doubly fails. First, it is a standard no-brainer action movie, while the two previous films (especially 'Seven Samourai') were talking about values, honour, courage, purpose and dangers of fighting, characters, friendship, solidarity. Their ending was meaningful: villagers (life) win, mercenaries (death) lose. Dialogues were to the point; here, they are reduced and plain: just compare for instance the Quotes section of the three films on IMDb. There is only one scene when the main characters could have a real conversation: the dinner in the saloon. At that point we hope the movie will lift off the ground where it is stuck… unfortunately, dialogues remain dull. Earlier, it makes two weak attempts to add substance, to no avail: Bogue's opening speech on capitalism and the ethnic diversity of the mercenaries.
Second, it does not even succeed in being an efficient action movie: it is full of stereotypes, lengths, overblown scenes and inconsistencies. To some extent it tries to imitate Sergio Leone's style (or Clint Eastwood's inspired by Leone): outfits, close shots, macabre tone, incongruities. However it is a far cry from this Western master because it lacks essential elements: pacing, measure, second-degree humour and class. A typical example of superficial form without purpose. I am not a huge fan of Tarantino (another possible reference), but at least he would have provided rhythm and coolness to the same story.
The only quality that emerges is the solid acting. A special mention to Denzel Washington as usual, to Ethan Hawke as a past legend now drowning in despair and fear, to Haley Bennett as a sensitive yet strong woman. Actually everybody is performing so well that it makes the movie enjoyable at times.
If you haven't seen Sturges' and Kurosawa's films, you are lucky, you will appreciate them considerably after this one.

135 out of 197 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Yes, Denzel makes for one very cool bad-ass with his shiny Colt .45 strapped to his hip with the butt forward, but that's about it.
There is almost nothing in this picture that is a surprise or unpredictable. Dialog between actors is awkward and stilted (and sometimes completely unintelligible). Very little background on any of the characters is presented and offers no development what-so-ever.
Take 'Red Harvest', the crack Indian archer outcast. We practically beg to know more about him, but all we get is his announcement, 'The elders have said I'm on a different path', and boom, he's in the club. Please. The movie is over two hours long, and that's all we get?
There is a few laughs and a decent stunt here and there, but all that could have been accomplished in a much shorter run time and on a fraction of the ridiculous $95 million dollar budget.
More plot holes than you can count, and a final gun battle that is so technically improbable it will ruin what little suspension of dis-belief you had left. Example? The Gatling gun that fires hundreds of rounds on a single clip and magically zeros in on strategic targets... from a quarter mile away!
Also present is a fair amount of politically correct 'hate whitey' propaganda. When Red Harvest isn't pegging bad guys with his bow and arrows he frequently complains about 'white man's food', and all the white heroes are the only ones who get killed.
I wasn't amused.
This movie is a perfect example of why I rarely venture out to see a first run picture for the same amount of money I could have spent on a half tank of gasoline.
Maybe your kids will enjoy it, but you will not.
For real, don't bother

381 out of 601 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Y'know how sometimes the remake of a film can, if not actually improve upon the original - though, arguably, 'Scarface' does just that - take a different approach to the story of characters which is equally engaging, or sufficiently different to make the revamp justified...but not SO different that all it has is a titular connection to the original? Scorsese's morally skewed 'Cape Fear', for example.
Well, 'The Magnificent Seven' ISN'T one of those films. Not blindingly awful - Denzel is engaging as ever, and Chris Pratt plays Chris Pratt like no-one else can - just...pointless. It suffers by clearly having been designed by a committee.
'Hmmm', some twelve-year-old studio exec has thought. 'Westerns aren't ethnically diverse...so lets have a black star...but never actually register for more than a fleeting moment that he's a black man in prejudice-ridden 1870s America. A Native American, too...but let's not dwell on the irony that he's helping the townsfolk protect the land they stole from HIS people. Oh, and there were a lot of Mexicans in the original....but they're a political hot-potato, right now 'cos of Trump...so ONE will do, even although he doesn't appear to have any distinctive character traits, other than BEING a Mexican (a violent, rapacious one, at that...The Donald would be SO happy!). Oh, and we're clearly missing the Asian market...so how about an oriental knife-flashing Ninja type. THAT's not a stereotype, at all!!'
Now some of this would be excusable if half these characters had a back-story. Ethan Hawke has a potentially interesting riff on Robert Vaughan's jittery death-rattled mercenary, and Vincent D'Onofrio's quirky Jack Horne hints at an intriguing tragic history, but neither is particularly developed. hat said, they are still MORE fleshed out than any other characters, save for Denzel Washington's Chisolm, onto whom a wholly unnecessary revenge sub-plot is half-heartedly grafted.
All of the original seven are, to some extent, either idealists or characters in need of redemption. They are all Western archetypes - but the reason archetypes WORK is that they are universal. THESE seven are just...clichés.
All you NEED to know about Yul Brynner's principled gun-for-hire, Chris, in his bond with Steve McQueen's drifter, Vin Tanner, is summed-up in the wonderful Riding Shotgun On A Hearse: willing to bring Hell down on themselves and everyone else to bury a dead Indian, scorned by the prejudiced 'civilized' townies. They do what's RIGHT, according to morality rather than law or social convention. The link between Washington and Pratt is a formulaic bar-room shoot-out. Dull. A wasted opportunity - but typical of this cliché-ridden dross.
Oddly, the plot of the original film is entirely dropped, in favour of an artless re-hash of the key elements of 'High Plains Drifter' (break out the red paint an' the dynamite, kids!), and although the bland score hints at cues from Bernstein's gloriously rousing soundtrack, they wait until the end credits before a rather limp arrangement of the iconic theme kicks in.
That's a BIG tune, boys and girls...and you didn't earn it.
Crap. Watch the original, instead. More fun. More emotional connection. Just...better

74 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Another MADE-FOR-TV movie brought to the screen.
More of the same from Hollywood.
Lets re-make a classic, but ensure it's politically correct and an absolute that it represents every race, so as not to step on any toes.
Oh,and lets give everyone modern-day attitudes and dialects, because apparently no one has the capability of acting with the original language or mannerisms associated with the time-period depicted.
Filling a movie with a handful of 'regular stars' does NOT assure the film will succeed. This one is like the recent 'TARZAN' movie.
Save your money and watch the Seven Samurai & The Magnificent Seven (original) to see film beauty and entertainment.

245 out of 400 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

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.

127 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

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.

132 out of 230 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

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.

113 out of 201 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Antoine Fuqua's The Magnificent Seven is about as brazen as the cowboys it portrays. It is loud, visceral and action packed but lacks the necessary functions for it to be a truly great film. Despite Fuqua's most confident directing and Denzel Washington's excellent performance, the film ends up being as cluttered as the cast would suggest. When it all comes down to it, it is a matter of an overload of star power. While there have been films in the past that have had incredible casts and flourished, this film makes it feel as though the film is only big enough for one star. Chris Pratt is great as an alcoholic and incredibly ballsy gunslinger, Faraday, but he lacks any gusto to really command the screen as does most of the cast outside of Denzel Washington (someone who I can't say enough good things about here). It ends up feeling like these roles could have been played by anyone when it should have felt like these actor's owned these roles so much so that you can't imagine anyone else in it. Unfortunately that isn't the case here. Quite frankly, the only performances worth noting are Washington and Peter Sarsgaard, who gives a devilishly good performance as a sadistic law man. In this respect, the film is very much a disappointment for anyone expecting to see the next great ensemble film of the year. More importantly, those of you who were excited to see the re-teaming of the Training Day squad (Washington, Hawke and Fuqua) will have to wait a bit longer for that because there is barely any chemistry between Ethan Hawke's Goodnight Robicheaux and Washington's Chisolm. The screenplay, written by True Detective's Nic Pizzolatto and action aficionado, Richard Wenk is lackluster to say the least. As I said, the character development with the characters is either not there or so forced and unnatural that it takes you out of it. After the abysmal season 2 of True Detective and this, I think is safe to say that Pizzolatto is turning into the one hit wonder that everyone feared that he would be. However, I will still hold off on officially saying that about him because there are some ideas that were introduced in the film that were really interesting which is why it is all the more frustrating when they are cast aside and never touched upon again. The screenplay is the big problem here. It is well paced but emotionally hollow. It never really reaches anywhere near the heights of the Kurosawa masterpiece or even the 1957 remake that that film spawned. In this case, the script reads and sounds like a bad imitation. Despite this, The Magnificent Seven does boasts some pretty exceptional action set pieces much to Fuqua's credit. The film is explosive but it is highly predictable. Those who are killed don't really resonate with the viewer because quite honestly, we don't care about any of the characters outside of Washington. They are mere footnotes to the larger picture which is a monumental disappointment. Overall, I thought that Antoine Fuqua's The Magnificent Seven boasted a great idea and never truly capitalized on it. The film felt like it really could have been something but we are left holding on to the idea of what could have been.

169 out of 311 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hollywood, you do not take a classic film and do a lackluster job and make it worst. You try to transcend. It's lazy Hollywood all over again. The script makes no attempt to develop any of the characters and what we get is a piece of hollow action flick with no substance to it. Hollywood thinks we are all sheep and simply throw away our hard earned money to them. They insult our intelligence over and over again with remakes of great classics promising to be better than the original. Once in a blue moon they succeed but not this time! Don't waste your money. Wait for it to go on DVD or watch it free if you can. Better yet, watch the classic Magnificent 7 with Yul Brynner and you will see how much better that one is to the remake. They don't call it a classic for nothing!

85 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

There is a huge gun battle so those who are watching for that will be satisfied. Sadly this movie could have been better written. The dialog isn't clever in fact it sounds dumb most of the time. The humor falls flat too. There are some silly plot elements and a draggy middle section.
It was fun to see them fortify and how their traps worked out. The filming is beautiful and the scenery is more colorful than the usual Westerns.
The big battle delivers a huge climax. The machine gun thing was out of place. Sometimes it was hard to make out who was shooting who and who was getting shot.
The ending was weak. Why Bogue would just walk in there and have a one on one with Denzel is just illogical. As a modern twist the brown red and black heroes are the ones left standing.
The cast is generally likable. Ethan Hawke looks haggard for someone in his mid 40s. Denzel looks trimmer than of late. Chris Pratt could still lose about 20 pounds. Byung Hun Lee is okay. The standout is Vincent D'Onofrio who really acts different in different roles. See him in Daredevil? Cam Gigandet looks like a classic Western bad guy. Haley Bennett is quite believable - not too pretty to be unrealistic.
One major casting mistake: Peter Sarsgaard doesn't have the malevolence required to be a villain. His sing song way of talking sounds slimy not nasty.
Not a must watch.

42 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

one star for Denzel, I think he did it for the money because the film stinks. Like the 2016 version of Ben Hur its a empty vessel, boring and the characters are footnotes and soulless. Kurasawa's masterpiece is about characters, the people, Antoine made it in a Hollywood shooters-shi. for the brainless. Actors who sell there soul for this kind of B grade zombie violence movies, are in despaired need of money or the don't care what they do. I made it through half and than i fast forwarded it til the Gatling gun opens fire and I start crying. Now i have to write 2 more lines about this movie but I don't know what to write because its not worth to write about any more.

44 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

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.

38 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sadistic and totally devoid of any reality this is an awful film. Full of anachronisms (a settler's wife with decolletage!), ridiculous characters and improbable action sequences. One sequence was even a direct ripoff from Django. Cartoony and predictable this was a waste of money in its creation and a waste of time in my (almost) viewing. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this in a theater and my husband regrets ordering it from Netflix. The people responsible for green lighting this project should be forced to view it and then be banned from Hollywood. Stick with the original and its terrific cast. RIP Robert Vaughn, the last surviving seven.

30 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

OK, first you need to know that the only thing I remember from the original is the music--and your reward for sitting through this is that you get that music during the end credits.
I am ALL for diversity and want to see more actors of color in roles that could be played by any ethnicity, but this movie bends over backwards to be SO inclusive, that the viewer is distracted by that. You've got a black man, a Hispanic, a Native American, an Irishman, an Asian, a fat guy, an old guy, a god-fearing guy (OK, the last 3 are all rolled into one) and a woman! And at least one of these people is probably gay--not that there's anything wrong with that.
It's mostly shoot 'em up, and ....... Oh wait, it's ALL shoot 'em up.

67 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

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.

153 out of 295 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A film is only good when it fits your expectations. I had high hopes for this one. I haven't seen a good modern western in a while - so I gave 'The Magnificent Seven' a shot.
Oh boy, what a mistake. Yes, there is shooting. Yes, there is low jokes. Yes there is seven characters. But that's about it. The whole story can be said in 5 minutes.
During the movie you see repeated failed attempts to build the characters - and add a human flavor to the film - all failed. I didn't identify with any of the seven, I didn't like any. They all shot, spit, made stupid racial jokes and were archetypical.
If you want a stupid action movie to watch when making a dinner - go for it. You can totally miss half of the film and still not get lost. But if you want developed characters, charisma and a good film - watch something different.

24 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

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

117 out of 237 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Had this been a new western, rather than a remake of an awesome remake of a classic, I'd give it a 3.
I loved the original remake & thought the new trailer was great, so admittedly went in with high expectations, especially with Denzel Washington playing the legendary Yul Brenner.
The beginning is horrible and the first hour is plain bad. The first action scene as seen in the trailer, is such a letdown, with no rhyme, reason or continuity. They throw in some corny bones of the original remake, including a few verbatim lines.
Denzel was okay, but far from his best work. Vincent D'Onofrio is mildly amusing, very entertaining & quite likable as Jack Horne. Byung-hun Lee rocks as Billy Rocks and I would liked to have seen & heard more of/from him. Martin Sensmeier as Red Harvest was awesome but an important fight scene with him near the end, fell short & flat. The best actor/character in the film is Haley Bennett as the heroine, Emma Cullen! Funny thing is, the very best part of the film is her narration at the very end. I think it was the only time I smiled during the boringly long film which could have been done just as poorly in 90 minutes.
Someone in the discussion boards talks about the painful PC diversity, and I would normally agree, but in this case, it actually worked and made a terrible film, a little more interesting. The commenter quips that only a little person was missing, but there actually is one and chose him to mock on several occasions. I guess little people aren't high on the SJW's list of victim class.
I had to see it but would much rather have seen The Hateful Eight again instead and even went back and gave that movie an extra star. The Magnificent Seven needed the Tarantino touch and some blood. For all the killing, I don't remember seeing a drop, though maybe I just blinked through them. Then again, They can get a pass because there wasn't much blood used in old time westerns and they probably saved millions on spectacular special effects, or the lack thereof.
This movie is SO bad, that I did something I never do at the movies, got up & went to the bathroom to be comfortable in my boredom, without even asking my friend what I missed, because I didn't care. I didn't really bond with the characters, except my concern for the horses, imagining as I always do in movies, the suffering these poor creatures went through during times of war & battle.
This expensive movie will make money on the back of the original remake, and I'm sure they paid a fortune for the right to butcher it. I'd really like to know exactly what they did pay for the rights.
I recommend you wait until it's on cable and have 2+ hours to waste.

51 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Character development - minimal, at best. I felt no connection with any of the characters. I did not care if they lived or died; in the 1960 version by director John Sturges, I felt some empathy and sadness when characters died; here - nothing.
Film Score: Horner's score - I can't remember anything but snippets of boring music that sounded like it was trying not to sound too much like the great score E.B. did back then.
Also, I just didn't buy Denzel's squinty-eye looking into the camera shots; he just ain't a cowboy type to me. Maybe I'm just too biased with Lancaster Eastwood Wayne types.

41 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I have to give this movie 1 star because I cant give it 0 stars.
I've seen the original Seven Samurai and it was a good movie and I saw the original Magnificent Seven and it was a great movie.
This is a piece of garbage remake that tries to jam pc correctness into it where it can. Why is Hollywood trying to remake EVERY movie that has been successful, when is the Gone With the Wind Remake or Casablanca remake coming out?
Anyways back to this flaming bag of poo, this movie is not worth your time or money with its lackluster cast, dumb and ridiculous improbable stunts, the Gatling gun scene, and the cowboy ninja it just made me want to vomit.
Please save your money and buy the Blu-Ray Original Magnificent Seven money, it is a classic never goes out of style and doesn't need CGI, unbelievable stunts, or ninja cowboys the story the great cast and the action carry it.
So I give it -99 stars and 53 thumbs down.

43 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

By twisting the plot of the original film ,which itself was a Westernized version of Kurasowas Seven Samuria ,they ruined the movie.
The idiots took a great morality play and turned it into nothing more than a politically correct statement. This is not entertainment , it's left wing propaganda.
By changing the bad guy from a bandit leader preying on a helpless village into an evil businessman/ developer/ polluter trying to take advantage of a helpless middle class town they've hit on every liberal agenda except climate change and gun control.
By including diversity with a cast that represents every race except the aboriginal Japanese Anui they even got that commandment in.
I really don't mind that so much, in fact I love most of Denzel's work, but it was enough to make it the last straw.
What's so disappointing is that the cast IS great but the fundamental changes ruined the film completely.
What moron decided to make this about the evils of Capitalism I can only speculate that perhaps the producer was Michael Moore or that high priest of the environmental movement Leonardo Dicaprio or both ?

57 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

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.

49 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Another desperate attempt by Hollywood half-wits to remake a classic.
Denzel, as usual SUCKS, he is possibly the worst actor ever and i can only imagine he got the role because he was the lowest bidder.
This is a film in which a viewer can be forgiven for rooting for the bad guys annihilate humanity. God help us if the best savior we can muster is Denzel and his desperately diverse band of PC cowboy caricatures.
If you have so much white guilt you feel the need to cut yourself, go watch this movie instead, its actually worse than rending your own flesh with a dull spoon.
Save your time and money.

6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I hope you enjoy music and guns at 500 times the volume as the voices, but don't worry, they don't say anything important anyway. The soundtrack is terrible, the story is the same thing you've seen in every western. A crazy rich guy with an army messes with a town only to come face to face with 7 gunslingers who can take out an army.
Almost no character development, nothing to add to the previous versions. Actually, they took nothing from what made the older ones work...
Hollywood likes to get a bunch of popular stars that people like to watch and then not use them for anything except being on screen. All these cool actors and hardly any acting at all. I couldn't have cared less about any of them. I was so bored watching this movie, I'd rather have been at home watching Netflix.
I wish I could say they were ruining movies, but apparently, people come out in huge crowds to see this garbage so they keep making it. I wish I could enjoy it as much as they do, but there must be something wrong with my brain.

16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink