Il ritorno dei magnifici sette

In some ways, it almost seems unfair to compare a sequel to the original, that we should judge it on it's own merits. However, usually the only reason we are watching a sequel is because of the original, so my review consists primarily in comparison.

The most interesting thing about Return is how hard the makers tried to make it like the original. They were largely successful. Burt Kennedy's direction is good and recreates the visual feel of the original. Of course, Bernstein's score highlights the film. The story, different in particulars, is goes through essentially the same stages: armed men attack the village, the call for help, the gathering of the seven, traveling to the village, defying the villain, the first attack beaten off, a pause where we get to know the characters and their motivations better, the final attack. The only difference is that the villagers do not 'betray' their protectors, as in the Magnificent Seven. A character even sneaks into the enemy camp in much the same fashion as in the earlier movie.

The real weakness of the sequel is the script. Along with the excellent acting and music, the dialogue in the first film was very well written and something of a departure from earlier westerns. It was terse, oftentimes funny, filled with meaning. In Return the delivery and the tone is the same, but the words spoken so solemnly are utterly commonplace and with no humor. Robert Fuller would have been a good replacement for McQueen, but the character is written completely differently and is far less interesting.

The acting, also, is inferior to the first film.

Another problem with the film is the portrayal of the peasants. They are a not characters, as in The Magnificent Seven, but a mass. This film is solely about the 7 Americans riding to the rescue to the rescue of defenseless peasants and at times seems to have a pro-intervention (pro-Vietnam?) political subtext that the in first film, which was a translation of Seven Samurai to the New World, was either absent or more subtle.

All this said and out of the way, film has lots of action, a good score, and Yul Brynner, who is always fun to watch in a western whether it is The Magnificent Seven or Adios, Sabata. Fans of westerns and action films will probably find it entertaining.

Familiar face Emilio Fernandez, who played Lorca, acted in over 70 films, starting in Mexico, and wrote and directed many of them. The relationship between his character, his dead sons, and Chris could have made a very compelling film. Unfortunately it was not expanded on.

Do you remember how the first Magnificent Seven ended? Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen rode off after polishing off Eli Wallach and his group of bandits. Horst Bucholtz as Chico stayed in the village and married a girl from there. The other four also stayed in six by four graves.

Flash forward now to the present. One day another group of bandits sweep down on the village, they take Chico and the rest of the men as workers on a little project. They've taken the men from two other villages as well.

The call is sent out for help again. Yul Brynner and Robert Fuller in Steve McQueen's role recruit four others and ride back to where they fought that battle many years earlier.

Instead of the eminently practical Eli Wallach whose interest in these poor villages was for supplies during the winter for his gang. This time we're dealing with a fanatic played Emilio Fernandez who Yul Brynner has had dealings with before. He's got all these peasants working as slave labors to rebuild a church as a monument to his two dead sons. The man's trolley has definitely slipped his tracks.

I guess I miss Eli Wallach from the original. I found Fernandez's character to be just too off the mark for me. I can't believe his own men are standing for what he wants.

Just as Steve McQueen came from western television so does his replacement Robert Fuller, fresh from the Laramie series. Fuller is competent enough, but does not have McQueen's charisma by a stretch. Too bad they couldn't get Steve McQueen to repeat his role.

The other four of the new Seven are Jordan Christopher, Claude Akins, Warren Oates, and Rudolfo Acosta. All of them fill roles that we've come to expect of them. Julian Mateos takes Horst Bucholtz's part, a more mature Chico to be sure.

You could not have done this film without that wonderful Elmer Bernstein theme again. What I can't understand is why his score was nominated again as there was nothing original in it.

Return of the Seven is a decent enough remake, but it ain't a patch on the original.

This was really a disappointment after watching The Magnificent Seven. I know sequels are usually disappointing, but this one had nothing going for it compared to the original. The only character returning was Yul Brenner. he looked as if he was going through the motions to collect a check to pay the rent. The outstanding cast that made The Magnificent Seven what it was was not equaled in any measure by the replacements. Even the addition of Steve McQueen couldn't have saved this film. And the bad guy? Give me a break! Eli Wallach was a consummate outlaw and I don't even know the name of the baddie in this film - he is so forgettable.

This film should not have been made. It shames the memory of The Magnificent Seven.

Yul Brynner returns as gunfighter Chris, who is recruited by old friend Chico(now played by Julian Mateos, taking over from Horst Bucholz) to return to his village that has been raided by a powerful landowner, who has kidnapped the men for his own purposes. Chris agrees to help, and enlists old friend Vin(Robert Fuller, taking over from Steve McQueen) and new members of the "7", including actors Claude Akins & Warren Oates.

Disappointing sequel has some good action, but a limp plot, and is generally an inferior rehash of the first, though Brynner is still good, and Fuller a decent substitute for McQueen.

This must have done well though, since two more sequels were made(without Brynner!) Haven't seen them, don't plan to.

A friend of Chris is living peacefully in a small village. One day all the men are kidnapped and Chico's wife comes to Chris for help. Chris puts together a group of men and rides to rescue the villagers. They find that the men have been kidnapped and are being used as slaves to build a village church.

Basically, following any classic film is very difficult. This does it by rehashing the basic elements as best they can without copying it letter for letter. This time the quest of the seven (well, six for most of it) is a bit more noble but it is essentially the same. We even have Chris talking down the merits of his job as well as the farmers claiming they are cowards etc. just like the first film.

However that fresh feel of fun and style the first film had is worn thin here. The action is less exciting and are just like any other western. Whereas the first film had a mix of sweeping grandness as well as a sense of fun – this has both but in lesser quantities. The dialogue is OK and has some nice lines but it'll never match that used in the first film. The outcome is obvious and no real surprise.

The characters are less well defined. In the first movie all of the seven had a presence – mainly due to them all trying to outdo Brynner (watch McQueen – very few lines but he is always doing something in the background). Here most of them are nameless and you would struggle to name more than three, they all seem happy to let Brynner be the star – only Fuller and Oates really stick in the memory. Even the bad guy is poor – before he was an oppressor without care or reason, here he is a slave trader but he also has a history that gives him a sympathetic edge – but do you want that in a bad guy?

Overall this is an OK western but when you match it up with the original film then you automatically put it in a huge shadow that it can't get out of. As a sequel the flaws just scream off the screen because you know how much better it was last time round.