Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: dave jenkins on April 20, 2016, 06:45:41 AM



Title: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 20, 2016, 06:45:41 AM
We just don't get enough remakes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deSRpSn8Pyk


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 20, 2016, 07:51:41 AM
Thanks for sharing.

Not terribly excited based on the trailer. Feels like a Tarantino movie. Which means y'all will like it but I won't.

But these days, I am happy just to see that a Western is being made.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Novecento on April 20, 2016, 08:13:34 AM
What a long way we are from "Seven Samurai"...


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: cigar joe on April 20, 2016, 10:22:53 AM
It all looks too green and too PC don't ya think?

Probably got one black man, one asian, one woman, one hispanic, one white man, one transgender, one gay.  O0 O0 O0


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 20, 2016, 11:00:16 AM
It all looks too green and too PC don't ya think?

Probably got one black man, one asian, one woman, one hispanic, one white man, one transgender, one gay.  O0 O0 O0
You're forgetting the Native American who kills with bow and arrows.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: cigar joe on April 20, 2016, 11:21:40 AM
You're forgetting the Native American who kills with bow and arrows.

which one does he bump off the list?  ;D


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on April 20, 2016, 01:14:45 PM
Thanks for sharing.

Not terribly excited based on the trailer. Feels like a Tarantino movie. Which means y'all will like it but I won't.


It doesn't look for a second like a QT film. And with a director like Fuqua there ain't much hope that it will work for me.

Actually QTs westerns are not that good either.
Well, actually it's a mess. Mediocre genre directors like Fuqua and Mangold make westerns, and when great directors like QT or los Coens shoot one, it will be inevitable one of their weaker films.

Where are the reincarnations of Peckinpah and Leone?


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Groggy on April 20, 2016, 01:29:21 PM
Why.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Dust Devil on April 21, 2016, 03:12:27 AM
There's money to be made in a place like this.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: cigar joe on April 21, 2016, 03:58:14 AM
There's money to be made in a place like this.

 O0


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Groggy on April 21, 2016, 07:35:50 AM
There's money to be made in a place like this.

We deal in profit margins, friend.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: T.H. on April 21, 2016, 05:07:24 PM
To make things worse, it's made by Sony, so any chance this of thing having a shred of creative integrity is out the window.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: titoli on April 22, 2016, 10:39:48 PM
It's good they remade just the title: didn't even try to find lookalike faces of the original. It could have been called "Dirty Dozen" or "The Professionals" or "Seven Men Army" with nobody objectioning to it. Still looks like a not bad b-grade timewaster. I'll watch it.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: noodles_leone on July 18, 2016, 11:03:30 AM
Trailer 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shnGH2yi2rc


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 18, 2016, 11:09:11 AM
"I feel like we're bonding." There's some great 19th Century dialog for you.

Why doesn't somebody make a Western where, at the beginning, a bunch of 21st Century men and women show up in their usual clothes, change into Western garb, and then go into a holodeck or something to act out the action?


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on December 26, 2016, 02:29:20 AM
The Mag 7 remake (might be better called the 4th sequel) is as uncharismatic as are its characters as are their actors. Even the Denzel remains pale (well, comparatively). Action scenes are not bad, but lack a reasonable structure, and are going on of course much too long. A generous 5/10, which makes it probably the best sequel of the not-that-great-either original.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Dust Devil on December 26, 2016, 03:42:56 AM
I don't think I'll be bothering with this in the near future.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 26, 2016, 06:54:15 AM
Some guy told me they should have switched the genre once again, which isn't stupid. If they want to remake it, why stick with western? They should do a Vietnam war version or something. That would feel "fresh" again.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 26, 2016, 10:45:24 AM
Some guy told me they should have switched the genre once again, which isn't stupid. If they want to remake it, why stick with western? They should do a Vietnam war version or something. That would feel "fresh" again.
Do you really think Battle Beyond the Stars was a success? Well, to each his own.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on December 26, 2016, 12:19:29 PM
They only need a director with ideas, one with a vision. Not one with a slide rule.

Mag 7 anno 16 is too generic to be anything special. At least I couldn't tell who of the 7 survives and who not (apart from the comparatively pale Denzel of course). That Denzel guy, he's such a great actor, but did he ever made one real worthy film?


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 26, 2016, 04:15:54 PM
That Denzel guy, he's such a great actor, but did he ever made one real worthy film?
That's easy: No. Got any tough questions?


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 26, 2016, 04:38:51 PM
Do you really think Battle Beyond the Stars was a success? Well, to each his own.

I don't even think the original Magnificent 7 was any good.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on December 27, 2016, 02:35:59 AM
That's easy: No. Got any tough questions?

It was a rhetorical question, so I wasn't asking for a real answer, but actually there is one: Inside Man is really good (despite the puzzling fact that Drink also likes it), I'll give it a 9, but otherwise I think he did not made a film better than 7. Before you all will tell me now that Inside Man is shit, I might add that with or without only one goodie it is kinda disappointing for such a talented actor. Too much los bros Scott stuff indicates that he has a choose-the-right-director problem.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 27, 2016, 06:40:36 AM
Training Day was a very good movie.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on December 27, 2016, 06:53:28 AM
Training Day was a very good movie.

Nope, disappointing compared to its possibilities. Maybe 6/10, maybe beneath.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Novecento on December 27, 2016, 07:18:06 AM
I don't even think the original Magnificent 7 was any good.

Certainly a very far cry from Seven Samurai.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: T.H. on December 28, 2016, 12:54:35 AM
So I stand alone on thinking that the original Mag 7 is better than Seven Samurai? Samurai is overlong and more academic than enjoyable. The Mag 7 is brilliantly directed, has a fantastic score and is one of the more fun movies of the classic Hollywood era. It also feels more modern than most movies of its time.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on December 28, 2016, 03:05:33 AM
The Mag 7 is brilliantly directed, has a fantastic score and is one of the more fun movies of the classic Hollywood era. It also feels more modern than most movies of its time.

In parts, yes, but for me every western of Sturges from the 50s is better.

But 7 Samurai is also not without faults.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 28, 2016, 04:08:53 AM
IMO Mag 7 is a good movie and 7 Samuarai is excruciating. Three hours of Japanese men crying.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Dust Devil on December 28, 2016, 04:48:16 AM
Men have feelings too.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 28, 2016, 08:14:32 AM
Men have feelings too.

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( >:D


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Novecento on December 28, 2016, 02:24:06 PM
IMO Mag 7 is a good movie and 7 Samuarai is excruciating. Three hours of Japanese men crying.

D&D - as a Leone fan, surely you find something in Seven Samurai to your liking? The Kurosawa influence on Leone was very significant after all.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 28, 2016, 05:15:49 PM
IMO Mag 7 is a good movie and 7 Samuarai is excruciating. Three hours of Japanese men crying.
D&D is excruciating: 3 hrs. of listening to him talk about all the babes he's banged. Give me the crying Japs any day.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on December 28, 2016, 06:25:43 PM
D&D is excruciating: 3 hrs. of listening to him talk about all the babes he's banged. Give me the crying Japs any day.

The babes are crying after 3 hours of me


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on December 29, 2016, 02:51:09 AM
The babes are crying after 3 hours of me

Why do they need so long? ;)


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 29, 2016, 04:38:29 AM
The babes are crying after 3 hours of me

In a good way?  :-\


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: uncknown on December 29, 2016, 12:09:03 PM
So I stand alone on thinking that the original Mag 7 is better than Seven Samurai? Samurai is overlong and more academic than enjoyable. The Mag 7 is brilliantly directed, has a fantastic score and is one of the more fun movies of the classic Hollywood era. It also feels more modern than most movies of its time.

Id....id.. idi... >:D


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: uncknown on December 29, 2016, 12:10:06 PM
DENZEL:

GLORY
CRIMSON TIDE
FLIGHT
INSIDE MAN....

nah , no good movies :-X


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: dave jenkins on December 29, 2016, 08:19:05 PM
DENZEL:

GLORY
CRIMSON TIDE
FLIGHT
INSIDE MAN....

nah , no good movies :-X
Glory isn't bad. It may rise to "good." But that is different, if I understand correctly, from "real worthy."


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Dust Devil on December 30, 2016, 05:20:34 AM
I liked Inside Man a great deal to be honest. Crimson Tide is also tightly packed, and worth of your time.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Dust Devil on December 30, 2016, 05:22:03 AM
I'd have to rewatch 7S and TM7 to give my opinion on whichever I like more; but I did like them both. That much I can tell you.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on December 30, 2016, 05:47:49 AM
I liked Inside Man a great deal to be honest. Crimson Tide is also tightly packed, and worth of your time.

Inside Man is a very good thriller, with lots of amazing acting, not only by the Denzelist.

Crimson Tide is 6/10


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: uncknown on December 30, 2016, 01:19:22 PM
I liked Inside Man a great deal to be honest. Crimson Tide is also tightly packed, and worth of your time.

INSIDE MAN is fantastic!!!!


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Moorman on January 18, 2017, 06:23:44 AM
I was HIGHLY disappointed in this film. I'm a  huge fan of the director, Antoine Fuqua, and of course, Denzel Washington, so i had HIGH hopes that this movie would start a rebirth of westerns that Tarantino has failed to do with his version of it.  Everything was on deck for the director to do just that. Did i say already that i was HIGHLY disappointed in this movie?

First, a lot of people felt it was either blasphemy or just plain no need, to redo the original Mag7.  I disagree wholeheartedly because to me, the original was overrated, big time. I said in my review of the original that they had the huge build up, excellent cast, and mixed all that with pop gun fights.  This movie went the opposite direction. It had the huge cast, but a stupid the Mag7 meets avengers, buildup. No character development, and a stupid script.  The gunfights went the extreme opposite direction, but lacked the Peckinpah realism...

Everything about this movie was done to setup the final showdown.  What a showdown it was. Way over the top. Did i already say this was a avengers movie? I wanted to turn it off when Chris Pratt's character did his attack the gatling gun sequence. I wanted to burn it when Denzel's character pulls a Once Upon a Time in the Old West thing at the very end when he reveals why he is truly after the bad guy...

Garbage, and i expected more from both the director and Denzel Washington...


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: cigar joe on January 18, 2017, 04:02:55 PM
I'll catch it if it ever comes on Netflix.


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Spikeopath on February 08, 2017, 02:17:05 PM
Well I liked it plenty enough  :D

I seek righteousness. But I'll take revenge.

Directed by Antoine Fuqua and written by Nic Pizzolatto and Richard Wenk. Starring Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D'Onofrio, Byung-hun Lee, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Martin Sensmeier, Haley Bennett and Peter Sarsgard. Music is by Simon Franglen (also working from a James Horner template) and cinematography by Mauro Fiore.

Seven gunmen band together to aid the town of Rose Creek whose inhabitants are being driven out by ruthless capitalist Bartholomew Bogue.

We are now in an age of film making where "tagged classics" are no longer sacrosanct. Any number of these "tagged classics" have been and will become viable for remake - reboot - reimaging for newer audiences. It's here, it happens and really there's nothing we can do about it but moan amongst ourselves. John Sturges' 1960 The Magnificent Seven (itself a remake of Kurosawa pic Yojimbo) is a much loved film, and not just in Western lovers circles, it's a film that non Western fans are known to enjoy - and rightly so, it deserves its place as a "tagged classic" and still enthrals over 50 years since its release. So the big studio big wigs and Antoine Fuqua were taking a major gamble remaking a classic remake with their own remake!

Undeniably the shadows loom large over the 2016 version, so much weight of expectation, in fact to some it was a stinker of a film even before it was released! Well, as those who have seen it will attest, both the fans and the dissenters, it hasn't raised the bar for the "Seven" formula, but, and this is very key here, the makers wasn't setting out to make a film that down the line would be a perceived a "tagged classic", and this is evident in the ream of extras available on the Blu-ray releases. They achieved what they set out to do, to make a blunderbuss Oater for the modern era to sample, and they have done it with much love, much cool and lashings of technical greatness. Add in a cast clearly enjoying themselves and not letting anyone down, and it's a tasty plate of beans.

Fuqua updates things by having his seven as a row of differing ethnicity's, which works a treat, and crucially he and his writers are respectful of those characterisations, even if a bit more fleshing out wouldn't have gone amiss. Yet nothing is at a cost to honouring the great Westerns of old. Beautiful landscapes envelope the players, the musical score bouncing around man and nature with homaged sweetness. There's closeups, silhouetted slices of panache, superb stunt work (man and beast), glorious set design, and then there's the action. The fight sequences are excellently constructed, a feast for the eyes and ears, death and slaughter unfurled in brutal but hunger appeasing strokes. There's comic relief about the place, and while much of the dialogue wouldn't have the great poets of yore troubled, there is deepness to be found. Intelligence, too, the addition of PTSD to one of the main players is a notable piece of worth, while how wonderful to find a Western lady character of great substance (Bennett excellent), so good in fact she could have been one of the seven!

It's a bare bones story, with a pointless motive revelation tagged on for the finale, while some anachronisms will irritate those bothered by such. But if you are able to judge it on its own terms, as a Western entertainment for this era, and to accept it isn't trying to outdo the source of its inspiration, then a good time can readily be had. 8/10


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: cigar joe on February 08, 2017, 03:27:27 PM
thanks for the review cigar joe (mgtbltp)  O0


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 08, 2017, 07:13:17 PM
Welcome aboard, all newbies  O0 O0 O0


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: uncknown on April 27, 2017, 08:27:04 PM
It all looks too green and too PC don't ya think?

Probably got one black man, one asian, one woman, one hispanic, one white man, one transgender, one gay.  O0 O0 O0

My thoughts at first but...

this is the rare exception where multi-cultural casting absolutely works!
 :)


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: uncknown on April 27, 2017, 08:28:42 PM
DENZEL:

GLORY
CRIMSON TIDE
FLIGHT
INSIDE MAN....

nah , no good movies :-X

ad MAG 7 to that last of "no good" movies ^-^


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: uncknown on April 27, 2017, 08:32:14 PM
They achieved what they set out to do, to make a blunderbuss Oater for the modern era to sample, and they have done it with much love, much cool and lashings of technical greatness. Add in a cast clearly enjoying themselves and not letting anyone down, and it's a tasty plate of beans.

"Fuqua updates things by having his seven as a row of differing ethnicity's, which works a treat, and crucially he and his writers are respectful of those characterisations, even if a bit more fleshing out wouldn't have gone amiss. Yet nothing is at a cost to honouring the great Westerns of old. Beautiful landscapes envelope the players, the musical score bouncing around man and nature with homaged sweetness. There's closeups, silhouetted slices of panache, superb stunt work (man and beast), glorious set design, and then there's the action. The fight sequences are excellently constructed, a feast for the eyes and ears, death and slaughter unfurled in brutal but hunger appeasing strokes. There's comic relief about the place, and while much of the dialogue wouldn't have the great poets of yore troubled, there is deepness to be found. Intelligence, too, the addition of PTSD to one of the main players is a notable piece of worth, while how wonderful to find a Western lady character of great substance (Bennett excellent), so good in fact she could have been one of the seven!

It's a bare bones story, with a pointless motive revelation tagged on for the finale, while some anachronisms will irritate those bothered by such. But if you are able to judge it on its own terms, as a Western entertainment for this era, and to accept it isn't trying to outdo the source of its inspiration, then a good time can readily be had. 8/10"



can't really add much to that.
Its a Western made by people who love westerns for movie goers who love westerns
.
bruce marshall


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: uncknown on April 27, 2017, 08:34:02 PM
I don't think I'll be bothering with this in the near future.

id...id... idi... ^-^


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: uncknown on April 27, 2017, 08:36:20 PM
D & D was completely surprised when Ethan Hawke's character returned at the end.
"I never saw that coming!" he reportedly yelled out loud ^-^


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 27, 2017, 08:57:35 PM
D & D was completely surprised when Ethan Hawke's character returned at the end.
"I never saw that coming!" he reportedly yelled out loud ^-^

I literally never saw it coming: I was busy making out in the back corner of the theater   >:D


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: uncknown on April 27, 2017, 09:01:34 PM
I literally never saw it coming: I was busy making out in the back corner of the theater   >:D

with a human being? >:D >:D >:D


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Moorman on November 19, 2017, 03:04:48 PM
Again, this was a wasted opportunity.  Hollywood, caring more about fast bucks and not making a classic, did exactly what spikeopath said they did.  They set out to make a widely accepted, entertaining movie, with no thought or care for making a new, classic western.  The remake of 3:10 to Yuma had the perfect balance that i wish this movie had. In the 3:10 to Yuma remake, they made a modern western ( not avengers movie), and spiced it up with just enough entertainment to keep the modern microwave audience tuned in.  Like i said in the " Homesman" thread, i believe that after Clint made Unforgiven, that there are only a couple of modern westerns that still pay homage to the classic westerns...


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: cigar joe on November 20, 2017, 06:39:58 AM
The remake of 3:10 to Yuma had the perfect balance that i wish this movie had. In the 3:10 to Yuma remake, they made a modern western ( not avengers movie), and spiced it up with just enough entertainment to keep the modern microwave audience tuned in.

Sorry to burst your bubble here, you're judging the remake with what you yourself have admitted was a limited knowledge of Westerns to begin with. Take my point of view. Living in the 50s we were inundated with Westerns, not only on film but prime time TV had 20+Westerns spread over every night of the week.

I agree, spicing up the Genre is a good idea to attract the "microwave audience" but it's got to make what I guess we can call "Western" sense in the story, especially for Western Aficionados.

To me the Original 3:10 to Yuma is still superior to the remake. I applauded the fact that they attempted to make a Western but it's extremely hard to get that feeling from the "Golden Age" Westerns right in a lot of respects, one of the major factors for this is the lack of personnel to get it acted right, to look right, and sound right. They, you could say, sort of had a "Western infrastructure" in place in the past that was used over and over again by film personnel who knew how to do it over and over in a way that got that  Mythos of the West right, not necessarily historically correct.

Remember the first Western was "The Great Train Robbery," it was filmed when the Wild Bunch was still active and robbing trains. A lot of the Western actors, once filmmaking moved to Hollywood, were originally out of work real cowboys, or they lived during the transition from the horse and buggy days and knew how to ride horses and drive teams. They had those Western US speech patterns, regional dialects, western slang words, etc., etc. It was a hands on knowledge.

(An old timer friend of mine's father was a teamster. He hauled freight wagons around central Montana to ranches and towns. The old timer told me that things didn't really start to change out West until after WWII. Railroads, and the horse were still predominant before the war, the larger towns had some electricity but the rural areas stayed pretty primitive. After the war the perfection of the technology of tracked vehicles opened it all up fast.)

Anyway getting back to the making of Westerns, so these original filmmakers sort of just turned out these films like a stamp mill, continually polishing their craft through the years, the next generation learned first hand from the first, continuing to perfect their craft. When this second generation started to die off Western production also started to wane. (The end of the "Steam Age" was also towards the end of the 1950s a lot of the Western Shortline RRs that still used steam locomotives converted to diesel) So you also lost that infrastructure background resource for making a Western look realistic. Jet aircraft leaving contrails across big sky country screwed up a lot of Western Landscape shots.

So the hand me down hands on knowledge on how to make a Western, had no place to go and the old West and interest in Westerns was gone by 1980s. After that any Western made had to be recreated from scratch, with highly variable and inconsistent results. Today you got screenwriters who don't know squat trying to write Westerns with no knowledge of the West other than them watching Westerns and inserting PC ideas into stories, and it just don't feel right.

If you were born in the 1980s you wouldn't know the difference, and any Western made is a big deal.

I initially said (3:10 (2007)) that "It's a good worthy shot at a Western but it's not a Classic." (I was hoping we'd start improving from it.)

After that, we started seriously debating the film and getting a bit heated with each other pointing out the flaws. dave jenkins then posted in response to this

Quote from: The Firecracker on September 07, 2007, 10:50:31 PM

The 200 dollars offered by Prince was stupid as well. Would the town's folk risk being hanged by firing at a marshall? Doubtful.
Also, why didn't the Marshall make a counter deal promising the town's folk DOUBLE the amount of cash Prince was offering to fire upon Wade's gang?

this:

It's even stupider than that. The gang rides into town and sets up under the hotel window from which five armed men are overwatching. The gang are murderers, wanted men, known to law enforcement officers. The men in the hotel room include three peace officers. They have every legal and moral right to open up on the gang as soon as they appear. They also have the advantage of higher ground. No additional advantage can be gained by delaying. It is the height of idiocy that the men in the hotel room don't immediately start firing on the gang below! Further, even if they were to delay, the moment the gang starts offering the 200 dollar bounty the lawmen would begin firing just to shut the men up and discourage takers. But the men in the hotel room are completely passive. Yet this is just one stupidity in a sequence of hundreds in this stupid movie.

Equally stupid things happen on the trail from the farm to Contention. The group leaves at night, under cover of darkness. Presumably, speed and concealment are the two things the party is most concerned with. In the very next scene, however, we see them lounging about by a campfire. Why have they stopped? They want to make time, and they should want to do it in the dark. Also, stopping means having to put a watch on Wade while the others sleep. For some reason, Wade is allowed freedom of movement throughout the night (his manacled hands aren't much inconvenienced). Then, only one man is left to watch the notorious killer (a union rule?). In the morning, the watchman is dead. Incredibly, the men just write him off and proceed with their journey! All psychological plausibility goes out of the movie at that point. If you are traveling with a murderer, and he murders one of your company, you just don't continue on with the status quo ante. You reassess the situation. In the present case, you realize that getting the guy to Yuma may not be do-able, that even with your full crew it was gonna be tough, but now with one man short it is likely impossible. The guy who decided Wade had to go to Yuma (and who is bankrolling the expedition) is along, and therefore should call an audible. Even if he doesn't, the rest of the crew should prevail upon him to change the terms of the expedition. They should realize that all their lives are likely forfeit if Wade continues to live. They should do the rational thing: kill Wade on the spot.

Instead, they go merrily on their way, allowing Wade to kill again. Even then the group doesn't learn.

Then there is the "shortcut" through the pass, which we are told is controlled by hostile Indians. This shortcut requires another night and another campfire. What the f***?

Then there's the stupid digression with the mining camp. What the f***?

Finally, reaching Contention, more stupidities abound, as cited above (but not exhaustively. It would take 2 pages of text to enumerate all the idiotic things that occur there).

The original film was not flawless. It had great style and a good set-up, but the story turned stupid at the end. One problem was with the basic concept: waiting for a train. If you are traveling with a prisoner, the only reason to take him to a hotel is to conceal him. The moment his whereabouts is known, the hotel is a liability. You have enormous blind spots in a hotel room, and your mobility is compromised. Also, getting the guy from the hotel to the depot is something of a problem (as we see). Better to forget the hotel and go straight to the depot. Who cares if there aren't enough chairs for everyone, at least you have clear fields of fire in all directions.

But why wait for the train at all? Such a tactic fixes you in place, and allows the gang to catch up. A more prudent course would be to ride up the line toward the oncoming train and hail it as it approaches. You keep ahead of the outlaws, and then gain an earlier speed advantage. Also, why not use the telegraph and call for reinforcements? Maybe Contention is a worthless town, but why wouldn't there be towns up and down the line where reliable helpers could be recruited? Why not contact the army? They too have an interest in seeing Wade and his gang brought to justice.

If you do a remake of a film, you should set out to improve on the original. In the case of 3:10, a serious revision in the plot was called for. The remakers not only didn't fix the old problems, they created hundreds more. I'm really disappointed that they didn't adopt the obvious solution: put the good guys on the train early, and then have Wade's gang try to stop it. A running train battle would have been cool. The most important thing, though, would have been to have characters acting like rational beings, not pawns in a stupid plot. This remake gets 1/5, as do all stupid films.

If you want to join/revive the debate have at it the link to the original thread is here: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=6074.msg95454#msg95454 (http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=6074.msg95454#msg95454)





Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on November 20, 2017, 07:33:03 AM
Dave is right.
The 3:10 remake is really too often on the stupid site of things. And the directing is often quite uninspired. A very disappointing film considering the original's quality and some fine actors, especially a very charismatic Crowe.

I think it's worse than the Mag 7 remake, which is also nothing to write home about.

When los Coens are not able to get a really good film out of a remake of a classic western, why should muddle filmers like Fuqua or Mangold succeed?


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: Moorman on November 20, 2017, 03:30:44 PM
We are on the same page cigar joe. I never said the remake of 3:10 to Yuma was better than the original. I'm comparing it to its modern day contemporaries.  After Clint made Unforgiven, there has been only a handful of modern westerns that i consider to strike any semblance at all to the classics.  The remake 3:10 had some elements, but its still a modern western.  When i say " modern western", i am not in ANY way saying the modern westerns are like the classics. The mag7 remake was more a superhero movie to me, than a western.

I've said numerous times that i prefer classic movies from 1970 to the movies made afterwards.  A VERY GREAT PART OF MY APPEAL for classic movies is the fact i love history.  Thats why i love the write up you gave above.  We are on the same page...


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: T.H. on November 21, 2017, 11:41:06 AM
When los Coens are not able to get a really good film out of a remake of a classic western, why should muddle filmers like Fuqua or Mangold succeed?

Great point.

I do wonder if the mid/late 90s Coens could have pulled it off better though. 


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: cigar joe on November 21, 2017, 12:18:08 PM
Finally watched this, liked the intro of Denzel then it kept ratcheting it up and up with a bit too much of everything else, a 6-7/10. In the last two days I watched a minimalist Western that was like waiting for paint to dry (Meek's Cutoff) and this which throws everything at the screen plus the kitchen sink.

Instead of remaking the fictitious Magnificent Seven, they should make a film about the Ludlow Massacre This was an attack by the Colorado National Guard and Colorado Fuel & Iron Company camp guards on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado, on April 20, 1914. The guard used armored cars and machineguns.

About two dozen people, including miners' wives and children, were killed. The chief owner of the mine, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was widely criticized for the incident.

In retaliation for Ludlow, the miners armed themselves and attacked dozens of mines over the next ten days, destroying property and engaging in several skirmishes with the Colorado National Guard along a 40-mile front from Trinidad to Walsenburg. The entire strike would cost between 69 and 199 lives. Thomas G. Andrews described it as the "deadliest strike in the history of the United States," commonly referred to as the Colorado Coalfield War.

So here, we got practically all the same ingredients that could have been about an entirely new film about a real incident, but what do we get out of Hollywood another fucking half assed remake.





Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on November 21, 2017, 12:22:33 PM
Is it really a remake, or just another variation of the original (which was a remake), like the 3 old sequels?

Meek's Cutoff was btw an entertaining film, far more entertaining than the new Mag 7. (to come back to that entertainment question)


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: cigar joe on November 21, 2017, 12:24:55 PM
Is it really a remake, or just another variation of the original (which was a remake), like the 3 old sequels?

Meek's Cutoff was btw an entertaining film, far more entertaining than the new Mag 7. (to come back to that entertainment question)

Yea what your definition of entertaining? I'd like to hear this?


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: stanton on November 21, 2017, 01:28:07 PM
Yea what your definition of entertaining? I'd like to hear this?

That what entertains me, what else?

That what is fun to watch, that what is easy to watch, that what is amazing, that what is not boring, that what is not mediocre etc

Difficult films are often more entertaining than simple films for me. That's unless they are boring of course ;)

Eric Rohmer, the classic paint-on-the-wall-drying director, was an absolute great entertainer. Wasn't he?


Title: Re: The Magnificent Seven (2016)
Post by: cigar joe on November 21, 2017, 01:43:45 PM
I guess we have different tastes, one man's carp is another man's cannoli.