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.

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.

Living up to expectations is hard, this movie was the sequel to John Sturges´ classic The Magnificent Seven, it stars the three living part of the original posse; Chris ( Yul Brynner ), Vin ( newly appointed Robert Fuller to original Steve McQueen ), Chico ( new Julian Mateos to original Horst Bucholz ).

Although the story is very similar to the original ( seven guys fighting off a Mexican forajido ) the pacing is awful in comparison. As a stand-alone this movie would have been a decent one, but living in the shadow of its predecessor is devastating. Maybe this isn't fair but the hype of the first one was still buzzing and this sequel was but a poor copy of the original...

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.

"The Magnificent Seven" was an exceptional remake of Akira Kurosawa's "The Seven Samurai". But, unlike the Japanese film, it was set in the West. Because of a terrific musical score and excellent cast, the film was a resounding success. Now, years later, the studio is whoring out the name in a remake. I know it sounds very harsh, but there is so much that disappoints in "Return of the Seven".

The biggest problem in this film is that of the three survivors at the end of the last film, only one is played by the same actor in both films (Yul Brynner). The other two are played by new actors. These two plus the new members of the group are all lightweights compared the the fine cast in the first film. Think about it--here we have the likes of Claude Akins, Robert Fuller and Warren Oates instead of actors like Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson and James Coburn! The second biggest problem in the sequel is that the film is pretty much the same as the first film. The SAME great music is once again here and the plot is pretty much the same, as the seven rescue the exact same town that was terrorized in the first film! It cheapens the name of the franchise and offers nothing particularly new.

Now the actors do try their best and the film is worth seeing as a time-passer. But, it's just not a worthy sequel to one of the best westerns of the 1960s--it's only a pale imitation. Interestingly, the next film in the series, "The Guns of the Magnificent Seven" is actually a bit better even though NONE of the actors playing the seven are back because at least the plot is a tiny bit different.