This past weekend, Antoine Fuqua’s remake of the 1960 Classic Western, The Magnificent Seven took in an impressive 35 million dollars at the box office. So for that reason alone, the director and cast deserve a nod. After watching the trailer and reading several reviews of this updated version, I’ve decided not to go see this film at my local movie theater. Here are some interesting quotes from the review in the Hollywood Reporter. “The cast is OK and does its job, but no more; without question, several, if not all, of the actors in the Sturges film oozed far more attitude, charisma and sense of savvy. As it is, there's a bit too strong a whiff of modern guys grooving on getting in the saddle and whipping out their weapons.” “An eyebrow-raising and ear-perking moment occurs at the end, when the opening strains of Elmer Bernstein's eternal score for the 1960 version blast from the soundtrack. For some, this will provide an all-too-vivid reminder of a film that's better than the one they've just seen.” This is an excerpt from the review from Roger Ebert.com "Rarely have so many charismatic actors been used in a film that feels quite as soulless as Antoine Fuqua’s update of “The Magnificent Seven.” It’s one of those projects that should work on paper. The cast is perfectly assembled, and I’ve actually been a bigger fan than most of Fuqua’s recent old-fashioned morality plays like “The Equalizer” and “Southpaw.” However, this effort, the opening night film of the Toronto International Film Festival, too often registers as hollow, an exercise in genre that has echoes of the John Sturges and Akira Kurosawaversions, but little of the charm of the former and none of the depth of the latter. " I will preface my comments by saying, it’s not necessary to remind me that the original Magnificent Seven was itself a remake of Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai. The original Magnificent Seven was one of the favorite films of my youth and I’ve watched it many times over the years. And, it always made me sad to see characters I liked, particularly Britt played so beautifully by James Coburn get killed in the climactic battle with Calvera and his men. I contend it was because this version of the film appears to have more soul in the writing, which allows the viewer to care about the characters. Additionally, the setup of fighting a large gang victimizing poor Mexican villagers, rather than white townspeople being victimized by a greedy corporate villain has much more moral impact. And therefore, endows the heroes with a nobler cause. In today’s day an age, audiences believe they’ve seen it all. And I’m sure many filmmakers contend they have to follow formulas, which includes bigger, better effects and ratcheting up the amount of violent content. And in doing so, perhaps filmmakers are willing to sacrifice deeper character development and more meaningful content. Furthermore, audiences no longer have the patience or attention span to hang with films that go for a deeper level of content. If you saw the film over the weekend, or plan to see it, please weigh in with your thoughts.
Anything Goes : *The Magnificent Seven* Versus the *The Magnificent Seven* by Phillip E. Hardy, Prolifique
Other topics in Anything Goes:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
John: I guess you missed the part of my post saying "it's not necessary to remind me of original Seven Samurai." The new remake is called The Magnificent Seven not Seven Samurai. But thanks for reminding me and underscoring why I prefaced my comments. Also, I'm not debating or denying the artistic merits of Seven Samurai.
There ARE ONLY remakes. Everything is a rehash, reboot or a remake of something else. Read your Joseph Campbell and you'll see there there are only a few real stories that are ever told in the history of the human race. It's what we do. I also find it funny that the Theatre (read: the "legitimate stage") is almost nothing but remakes and reboots. How many times do we see Shakespeare, Our Town, Les Mis, Miss Saigon, Cats, Chicago, etc. This is nothing new. The concept of revisiting successful material has been around ever since the beginning of recorded history. What are Shakespeare's history plays but an "inspired by actual events" movie? Romeo & Juliet is a remake of Tristan & Isolde, and so on. Just relax and enjoy the storytelling and the talent! :)
John H: No offense taken. The difference between the MS of 1960 and 2016 is that the former attempted to do a somewhat faithful rendering of the 1954 Samurai script, whereas the latter clearly doesn't give a rat's ass. Owen: Good point about the endless recycling.
I"m sure it's a great film. I'd challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to a gunfight, but I don't think whiny critics are worth the lead in any of my bullets. Here are my favorite words about the critic, compliments of Teddy Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. " May the Cinema Heavens continue to bless all those who make films.
Every artist has a right to their own interpretation.
Every artist has the right to make a crappy movie too. And those who choose to remake movies will always run the risk of being judged by previous versions. And, I'm not saying the new Magnificent Seven is bad, but current Rotten Tomatoes ratings are: 1960 version rates at 90. The 2016 version is current rated at 61. And Teddy Roosevelt can kiss my critical posterior. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1013077-magnificent_seven/ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_magnificent_seven_2016/
I did see Mag 7 on IMAX ($22) with a full audience. People were laughing and cheering. Every Actor got his Hero moment. I enjoyed it. God bless reboots and single Writing credits (Mag 7 was shared credit). Them jobs are top shelf assignments.
Dan M; great post and perspective.
Phillip E. Hardy sites like RT are great if you value consensus over assessment, which I do not.
Christopher: What a boring world it would be if we all agreed on everything. However, based on the clips I've seen and the reviews I've read, my assessment is I wouldn't spend money to see the new Magnificent Seven. I'd watch free on Netflix if they ever get it. Or I might spring $4.99 for pay for view. However, my main point is one I hit upon in previous weeks. That several new remakes have distilled the soul out of equation. Some other examples would be the recent Ghostbusters and Ben Hur.
Phillip E. Hardy Clips are never a good way to judge a film as a whole as they are taken out of context and generally have some bits taken out to keep them a certain length for marketing purposes. Not very indicative at all of how the entire film may turn out. Also you should read criticism of a certain film rather than reviews of a certain film. Film criticism doesn't have a consumerist side to it while reviews are geared towards marketing.
Christopher: thanks for your advice and opinions.
Gatling machine gun, high-body count, wild wild West, Faqua directing, Denzel acting. What else do you want? Joe Public doesn't care about the original 1960s Mag 7 or The Seven Samurai. Joe Public wants to be entertained & eat popcorn.
It's just impossible to compare an original film made in 1960 to its remake made 55 years later. The styles and purpose of filmmaking have changed in so many ways - from cinematography...to music....to fx...to editing...to the moments of silence between dialogues...to the depths of the character development...and probably most importantly - to what audience's expect/demand and what filmmakers think that audiences expect/demand in today's films, sound-wise, and vision-wise. I saw both films...and in a 48 hour span. I loved the remake, and love the original; am glad to see a western being made for today's marketplace; and am glad to see it has already made back its production expenses. And kudos to Antoine Fuqua, who has been a brilliant filmmaker and video/commercial maker for almost 25 years now. He is definitely one of the best working today.
Bill C: I will pretty much agree with you on most of your points about modern filmmaking. However, anytime you do a remake of a movie, you risk running a comparison. For example, Gone With the Wind was made nearly eighty years ago. If it was remade today, there would no doubt be comparisons.
@allen Johnson On that note, even the holy Bible is nothing but a retelling of myths, common folklore handed down from generation to generation until someone wrote them down. I wonder where Shakespeare got his idea to the same? lol