Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Executscan Expected more

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

shakercoola This sequel the critically acclaimed film works as a stand-alone adventure. It features a band of six sharpshooting adventurers and criminals who come to the the aid of 300 peasants and their friend who has also been kidnapped. The peasants are rounded up from three villages and used as slave labor by 60 vaqueros and farmers in the Sierra Madre mountain range. The leader of the vaqueros is looking for posterity by building a church for his villagers, albeit on grounds of persecution and slavery. Return of the Seven plods ahead with little backstory. There isn't much energy in the performances. For viewers accustomed to the original it will seem a bit like a remake. Yul Brynner's recruits have little impact as characters. The inevitable meeting produces drama before the inevitable showdown.

Wizard-8 This first sequel to "The Magnificent Seven" is a disappointment. It is not a BAD western - there are a few bits of genuine merit to be found here and there. It was given an ample budget so that the production values look pretty good, and director Burt Kennedy captures the Spanish landscape well. He also directs the action sequences fairly well. The main problem, however, is the script (by Larry Cohen, of all people.) While the story runs a half hour or so less than the original movie, it feels like it moves a lot slower, with a lot less action sequences sprinkled in. An even worse problem is with the depiction of the characters. Most of the seven protagonists are given very little detail; we hardly learn a thing about them. It's even worse with the villain - we have to wait until almost half the movie has passed before he makes his first appearance, and while his motivations for what he is doing are kind of interesting, in total there's not enough done to make his character a strong and memorable villain. The best that can be said overall for this movie is that it's not the worse entry in the series - that dubious honor goes to "The Magnificent Seven Ride".

Jackson Booth-Millard The first film, a remake of the classic Japanese classic Seven Samurai, was indeed a magnificent film, and you wonder if it needed any sequels, as it turns out, three sequels were made, and this was the first. Basically Chico (Julián Mateos), one of the original seven men is living in the Mexican village that they helped defend from the gang of bandits, but a new one is making its way into the town. The leader of the gang wants to build a church to commemorate his dead sons, and he kidnaps three villagers for labour, so Chico now needs to get a new team of gunmen together. He starts first by getting the other former members of the seven, Chris (Yul Brynner, the only original cast member) and Vin (Robert Fuller, replacing Steve McQueen) on board, and they go to get other recruits. They return to town with the four other men, a playboy, an avenger, a highwayman and an orphan, and once again, with the help of the villagers, they fight off the oppressors. Also starring Warren Oates as Colbee, Jordan Christopher as Manuel, Claude Akins as Frank, Virgilio Teixeira as Luis, Rodolfo Acosta as Lopez, Elisa Montés as Petra and Fernando Rey as Priest. Brynner does I suppose still do a good job, I didn't really take much notice, to be honest, the only thing to take notice off is how similar it is the film very film it is following, there may have been the odd change in story and events, and the Oscar nominated music by Elmer Bernstein is still fantastic, but the original is way better, but not a terrible western sequel. Okay!

screenman The original title always struck me as a rather overblown definition for a bunch of gun-toting saddle-tramps. Still; their screen presence was at least underscored by a top-quality group of actors to support Yul Brynner. Most were movie stars in their own right.However; this first sequel was a pale imitation, with a group now composed of largely B and C list players, who were more mediocre than magnificent. It was a similar set-up. Brynner's 'Chris' had to recruit yet another team of gun-toting saddle-tramps to sort out the Mexican peasants' problems again. Another tyrant was giving them grief.With the originality and freshness of the first movie now spent, this remake had little else to offer. The budget was evidently very limited. This was reflected not only in the cast, but also in the below-par script, which borrowed much from the earlier classic. It was also more than half an hour shorter than John Sturges' original. Yet we still had a reprise of the agonising and moralising that made even the first a little turgid at times. However, here there was no decent acting, action or location work to balance things up. Filmiing was less expansive. It failed to convey the broad sweep of landscapes that were a great part of the original.Generally; it just lacked imagination. The first movie had been a smash-hit, and this pedestrian sequel was evidently put together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to cynically cash-in on former success. And it shows. There's very much a 'made for TV' feel about it.Not recommended.