Dirtylogy
It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.
Mandeep Tyson
The acting in this movie is really good.
Billy Ollie
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
atomicgirl-34996
Now that I'm getting older, I've been revisiting movies that have had a reputation of being cherished classics. While some have held up wonderfully, others have had me reaching for Mylanta. The Magnificent Seven is one of them.I think the only reason why it's remembered is that it starred a large number of actors who later became legendary, so people think it's much more epic than it really is. But imagine this movie being cast with less memorable actors and what you're left with is one of the corniest, most cliche ridden Westerns of all time, from the Mexican banditos to the duel between the cocky aggressor and the passive dude who looks like a wimp but defeats him handily in the last second. The Magnificent Seven makes no sense, either. I mean, let's me see if I can get this straight: for no reason at all, a group of guys decide to defend a Mexican village for paltry pay. Not only are they not getting paid anything, they have to go through the trouble of traveling out to Mexico on horseback. I guess we're not supposed to question their motives because according to Hollywood lore, gunslingers were like the knights of the medieval era, who had a duty to serve and protect. Well, sorry, but there was nothing remotely resembling this in the Old West, so just having the gunslingers do this because of some code of honor they were bound by doesn't fly. How the movie starts out is even more ludicrous. Two of them decide to defy a town's refusal to bury an Indian in their cemetery. It's a ludicrous scenario because there was nothing to stop the town from exhuming the corpse once the two men got their way and left. So what was the point?Oh, and how do you like the fact that the Mexicans were poor peasant farmers in an insulated village, but were all speaking English fluently? They were even still practicing indigenous rituals, for God's sake! That's how cut off they were from civilization! The lack of realism of The Magnificent Seven was the least of this movie's problems. The acting, writing and characters were terrible. Why did the movie have to make a point of showing McQueen's character doing a count every time they found a new guy to join their group? We can count. I hated Chico, who was an annoying, pathetic spaz and from what I vaguely remember was a mashup of both Toshirô Mifune's character and another character from The Seven Samurai. Yul Brynner walked like he had explosive diarrhea and was trying to desperately hold it in the entire time; you can see how his wooden, stilted performance in this movie inspired his casting in Westworld as a robot. He walked and moved like an android the entire time.Robert Vaughn was...ick. His character was pathetic, and so was his acting. It seemed like he was trying to channel Robert Walker from Strangers on a Train. I hated every scene he was in. James Coburn and Charles Bronson were tolerable. Steve McQueen was insufferably cocky in this film with his hand gestures; I wanted to clock him. The last guy was forgettable--so forgettable that I forget the actor's name. Some of the lines of dialogue were pathetic and cliche, especially the line in which one of the village kids rants that the village men are cowards for not using a gun. Oh, gosh...lemme guess...Charles Bronson's going to say they're brave for choosing not to use a gun. Yup. Nailed it.Normally, I'd give a film like this a 1/10. The only reason why I'm not is that Eli Wallach was, as usual, in top form, and the score was....wait for it...magnificent. The movie was also well shot. Otherwise, it was meh in all other respects.
chaswe-28402
Astonished at this film's low rating on this website. Almost all reviewers trot out the mantra that this is a remake. So was Hamlet. But Hamlet was better than its predecessors. And so was this film. Perfectly directed, perfect script, perfectly performed. Splendid score. Exciting and engaging in every respect. Philosophical. Its only flaw was that both the principal heroes survived. Also, Buchholz was faintly annoying. The direction, otherwise and in particular, was superb, almost balletic, especially in the composition of its scenes, and the movements of the actors. Great film. Undated. Haven't seen many better. Worth re-watching many times. Made stars of all its actors, except for Brad. This review isn't meant to be helpful
kwhite-53010
Some may disagree with me but for my money this is the best western ever made. The dialogue, the music, the scenery and the outstanding cast and direction all come together in perfect alignment.
It is a movie I have watched many many times since first seeing it at a very early age. Needless to say, I am a huge, huge Yul Brynner fan.
Tarx
The Magnificent Seven is a 1960's western directed by John Sturges. It's a movie that I had heard of but knew little about before watching, and left me with mixed feelings. There are things that work, and the acting is (mostly) strong, but ultimately the film is dragged down by an agonisingly slow pace. This is 128 minute film which would probably work better if it were half that length. It takes the first 45 minutes before they have even recruited the seven (in a very Avengers Assemble-type-way), and then they go to protect a villain from plundering bandits. The issue is that the plot doesn't really develop from there. Director John Sturges focuses entirely on characterisation instead of genuine story development, so the end result is a film with great characters but a story that drags on and on, which passed its sell-by-date within the first hour. However the plus-side to this is that the film contains some genuinely good characters, who mostly manage to keep it entertaining, even when the pace drags it down. Yul Brynner as Chris Larabee Adams and the great Steve McQueen as Vin Tanner both offer great performances and characters - it is these two that keep the film afloat. The villain of the story, Calvera, played by Eli Wallach is somewhat average but at the same time the exact type of villain you would expect from this type of film, so in that way he serves his purpose. The casting is on- point and there are only a couple of weak performances, so on the whole there are few complaints there. Being a western about 1870's gunslingers and bandits, an audience would naturally assume that this would be a movie packed with action, but unfortunately this is no where near the case. There is virtually no trace of action within the first 70 minutes of the movie, and even after then, there are only two real shootouts, which, although they were well shot and entertaining in themselves, were far too infrequent. In a movie already dragged down by a very slow pace, a bit of action here and there would go a long way; but audiences are bound to be disappointed as they are instead forced to listen to endless monologues about not giving up and fighting to survive, yet ironically we barely see any of this. If you're looking for a movie that focuses mostly on characters instead of action or story, this will probably please you (although you'd be better off watching the 2015 Steve Jobs movie, which does a much better job of both characters and story), but if you're looking for an action-packed Western with a strong story, look away - you will not find that here. Still, the characters are certainly good, and the acting complements them, along with a great, Oscar-nominated soundtrack by Elmer Bernstein that all works together to make this a just-about-enjoyable movie that still, in 2016, has its strengths.
