A Revolta dos Sete Homens

Okay, so it's not as good as the original, but it's definitely better than the "Return of the Magnificent Seven" and a gazillion times better than "Magnificent Seven Ride!" (which I had to turn off 30 minutes in because it was too painful to watch). The previous reviewer feels "Guns" is long and boring...I agree it is too long, but it's far more interesting than the second and fourth films. I feel "Guns" must be separated and stand on its own. If compared to the original, it is a sub-par sequel, but as a stand-alone Western, it has some really nice moments.

Most of the actors are young and inexperienced, which wouldn't be as noticeable if they hadn't cast James Whitmore...the guy is a brilliant character actor...you can't take your eyes off of him...his scenes with a little Mexican boy who has been burned out of his home and whose father has been imprisoned are wonderful...every scene Whitmore is in is charged with energy and life...I have always been befuddled why he never became the huge star he deserves to be. There is something about Monte Markham I have always liked...he doesn't have the screen presence for films, but I always felt he could have been a huge TV star given the opportunity...unfortunately, after the opening scene, the script gives him little to do. I thought Reni Santoni was fun to watch...he veered into over-acting a few times, but overall I enjoyed his performance...he had a few really nice moments. I enjoyed the relationship between Joe Don Baker and Bernie Casey and felt they had some nice moments, too. For whatever reason, the script leaves less-than-nothing for Scott Thomas to do...he is the most forgettable one of the group. In spite of the atrocious blonde toupee, I was surprised to find that I enjoyed George Kennedy as Chris. Few men could ever come close to having the screen presence of Yul Brynner, but if one takes this movie on its own, Kennedy does a good, solid job.

I fully concede that this is a mediocre film, but I can't help but smile whenever the theme starts to play. For some reason I have fun watching this movie and if you are in the mood for light entertainment, then I really think this one is worth a try.

Look at the stars of 1969's Guns of the Magnificent Seven - George Kennedy, James Whitmore, Monte Markham, Reni Santoni, Bernie Casey, Scott Thomas, Joe Don Baker... though the latter one matches, in sheer inexpressiveness, one Robert Vaughn - the rest of the cast hardly matches up with the star-studded original line-up (the Brynners, McQueens, Bronsons, Coburns & co.). Yet this film is indeed far-more action-packed than its illustrious predecessors (who all had tough gunslinger Yul Brynner in them; but then again, so did Westworld and... ugh... Futureworld! But that is another story...) Thus, I am tempted to theorize that, not just here but around the world, 1969 was dominated by... props! The true stars of so many mainstream releases were the premises, the themes or the sets - and, in this case, as the title clearly emphasizes, the guns! Let's face it, most of these guys are not "magnificent" - but they are reliable TV actors for the most part - and they delivered the goods here! And this was seen in many more 1969 productions - the new Bond was unknown George Lazenby, who mattered less than all the gizmos 007 used... There was a sequel to the Planet of the Apes released too - it mattered not that it really starred James Franciscus all throughout and merely had a cameo by Charlton Heston near the end of the film - what mattered was that the planet was revisited (and re-exploited!). Closer (in spirit as in style) to Guns, The Wild Bunch was all about gunfire and violence - it mattered little to the average moviegoer that it gave a slightly over-the-hill William Holden another chance... and co-starred Ernest Borgnine in the closest thing to a major role he'd get since Marty... Need I go on...? George Kennedy and William Holden almost - ALMOST - could have switched films in 1969... and few would have noticed! (Sam Peckinpah would have though - and that is what really matters!).

James Whitmore is a solid, rock-solid actor - I will always remember his many guest spots on various TV dramas - most notably his turn as an alien in The Invaders! Michael Ansara makes for a debatably adequate villain of service... him I remember for rather silly appearances in shows such as Lost In Space! He matched up well with Guy Williams - when Guy was Zorro too! Note the presence, also, of an illuminary here - Fernando Rey, the Portuguese/Galician actor who, in typical Hollywood supporting role attribution fashion, is given a bit part here... Hey - Hollywood had no clue what to do with enchanting leading ladies such as Romy Schneider and Catherine Deneuve when THEY came to Tinseltown... Thus, it comes as no surprise to me that the pet actor of the great film director Luis Bunuel -Rey- was so poorly treated in the USA! Fernando Rey was, at best, an exotic flavour du jour for casting agents - and on par with the likes of Charles Durning or E.G. Marshall... maybe! He was, by sharp contrast, a major actor in Europe - and Portugal's answer to Laurence Olivier, no less! Then again - what did Hollywood really do for Laurence Olivier himself, ultimately...? Most people will completely miss Fernando Rey's performance here - if they blink an eye! What a shame really...

All in all - in conclusion - Guns of the Magnificent Seven is a good one... a very good one! Lots of action - and more than meets the eye, on many levels!

Essentially I agree with "palmer 4" on most of his major points. I am a huge fan of Yul Brynner's "Chris," and it took me some adjusting to accept George Kennedy in the same role, but I think Kennedy did a very good job. (And ultimately I just decided they weren't the same character, but that Kennedy was another Chris, perhaps mistakenly identified by the Reni Santoni character as the one Yul Brynner played.) Kennedy had a history of playing big dumb lugs, but in this role he showed he could play a big intelligent lug, and a charismatic leader. "GUNS" is far more entertaining than "RETURN" and superior on every level to the unfortunate, better-they-hadn't-made-it "RIDE." As "palmer" says, the members of the seven in "GUNS" are more interesting and have better chemistry than the members of the seven in the other sequels. (Although I liked the Claude Akins character in "RETURN" and think he would have fit in well with the original seven.) What makes "GUNS" the superior "Seven" sequel, above all else, is the humdinger climax, the attack on the prison-fortress. It was well thought-out and well-planned by the screenwriters and the director, and is almost as exciting as the climactic shoot-out in the original.

Guns of the Magnificent Seven is directed by Paul Wendkos and written by Herman Hoffman. It stars George Kennedy, James Whitmore, Monte Markham, Reni Santoni & Joe Don Baker. Music is by Elmer Bernstein and Antonio Macasoli is the cinematographer. It's the second sequel to The Magnificent Seven which was based on Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. Plot finds Kennedy and his assembled group of gunmen hired to rescue a revolutionary from a Mexican dictator.

Routine but very watchable entry in the "Seven" franchise. It's nicely cast with Kennedy, Whitmore, Baker and Bernier Casey effective, and the photography from Macasoli is pleasing and makes the Spanish location feel period Mexico. There's also good value in the writing as regards the characters and their hang-ups, while the climax is high on noise and adrenalin. Clearly not a patch on the original film, and when it all comes down to it this film wasn't wanted or needed. But as it is, it's a decent time filler for those after a bit of standard gunslinging adventure. 6/10

George Kennedy is no Yul Brynner and Monte Markham is no Steve McQueen and on and on and on. Guns of the Magnificent Seven went in a slightly different direction than the two Magnificent Seven movies that preceded it.

What's the same?

Mexico. Farmers. An injustice. Seven fighters. Pretty Mexican woman falling for one of the fighters.

What's different?

The enemy. The cast. The run time.

The differences aid the movie a lot more than the similarities with the exception of the cast. It's not that the cast was bad, it's just that they weren't the original Magnificent Seven and that will always be a negative.