User reviews

This is the second in the original series of four "Magnificent Seven" movies . This sequel to ¨Magnificent seven¨ is well played Yul Brynner as tough gunslinger named Chris who along with Vin , Robert Fuller, and their group set off in rescue some Mexican villagers . One day someone comes and takes most of the men prisoner . The villagers have been kidnapped by gunfighter bandits . Chico one of the remaining members of The Magnificent Seven now lives in the village that formerly helped and being also abducted . His wife named Petra (Elisa Montes replacing Rosanda Monteros) sets out to look for Chris, the leader of The Seven for help . Chris is decided to take a group and strike a blow against the Mexican bandits . Chris also meets Vin (Robert Fuller replacing Steve McQueen) another surviving members of The Seven . They find four other men and they go to help Chico (Julian Mateos substituting Horst Buchhold) , they are a womanizer (Warren Oates) , a revenger (Claude Akins), a highwayman (Virgilio Teixeira) and an orphan named Manuel (Jordan Christopher) . As Chris and his buddies , each of whom comes for a different reason , must free a Mexican village imprisoned by nasty outlaws (Emilio Fernandez , Rodolfo Acosta in similar roles to Calvera's Elli Wallach) who are devastating the small location . All of them get a chance to redeem themselves . Later on , the group develops a plan to secure the villagers defend it against enemy attack.

Chris character was played by Yul Brynner in two occasions and one performed by Lee Van Cleef and George Kennedy . Brynner as a two-fisted pistolero is very good ; in fact , it was Yul Brynner who approached producer Walter Mirisch with the idea of doing a Western adaptation of Akira Kurosawa's classic, The seven Samurais. Yul insisted he would only make this film if Steve McQueen was not involved , McQueen felt the plot was too absurd and for this, and other reasons, was not interested anyway . The story is similar to previous entry , including customary outlaw band formed by an eclectic gang with diverse characters as well as speciality , as dynamite or guns . The film gets action Western , exciting riding, shootouts, it's funny and entertaining , although nothing new but displays a slight style . The movie contains some moment of violence and even touching on the relationships between the villagers and the Magnificent. Being a Spanish/US co-production , there appears several actors usual in Spaghetti-Paella Western such as Julian Mateos , Ricardo Palacios , Elisa Montes , Carlos Casaravilla and Fernando Rey playing his ordinary role as a priest . This is a passable though inferior sequel from the original and enduringly popular ¨The magnificent seven¨( John Sturges,1960) that is equally remake of ¨The seven samurais¨ (Akira Kurosawa) . After that , followed ¨The return of the seven¨(Burt Kennedy,1966), again with Brynner and ¨Guns of the magnificent seven¨ (Paul Wendkos,1969) with George Kennedy and ¨The Magnificent seven ride¨ with Lee Van Cleef by George McCowan and continued with a TV series and a Television movie realized in 1998 . As always, breathtaking and memorable musical score by Elmer Berstein ; Elmer , whose score for this movie is one of the best-known ever composed, also wrote the soundtrack for the parody of this film, 'Three amigos'. Appropriate cinematography by expert cameraman Paul Vogel , filmed on location in Colmenar , Alicante , Nuevo Baztán, Madrid, Samuel Bronston Studios, Madrid, and , of course , Almeria , Spain . Although this film revisits the village from the first movie, it was shot in Spain, not Mexico. Among the many reasons were the difficulties that occurred between the American filmmakers and the Mexican crew and government censors during the shooting of the first film .

The motion picture was professionally directed by Burt Kennedy .He initially was screenwriter , his initial effort, ¨Seven men from now¨ (1956), was a superb western, the first of the esteemed collaboration between director Budd Boetticher and star Randolph Scott. Kennedy wrote most of that series, as well as a number of others for Batjac, although it would be nearly 20 years before Wayne actually appeared in the film of a Kennedy script. In 1960 Kennedy got his first work as a filmmaker on a western, ¨The Canadians¨ (1961), but it was a critical failure . He turned to television where he wrote and directed episodes of "Lawman" (1958), "The Virginian " (1962) and most notably ¨Combat!"(1962) . He returned to films in 1965 with the successful ¨The Rounders¨ , later producing and directing the pilot for the TV series of the same name and subsequently the notorious ¨Support you local sheriff¨ , it results to be one of his best Western . This good Western is a Yul Brynner vehicle , if you like his particular performance ,you'll enjoy this one .

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.

One of my all-time favourite music scores is Elmer Bernstein's thrilling theme from 'The Magnificent Seven'. I was practically dancing in my seat when I got to hear it again during the opening sequence in 'Return Of The Seven', the first of 3 sequels to John Sturges' classic western. My enthusiasm was short-lived. Bernstein and star Yul Brynner are the only major players to return for this 1966 rehashing of the first picture. Their work is solid---even though they just do the same things they did in Sturges' film---but writer Larry Cohen and director Burt Kennedy don't have any new ideas of their own.

It's impossible to replace actors like Steve McQueen, Eli Wallach, James Coburn, and Charles Bronson with Warren Oates, Fernando Rey and a slew of unknowns, but that must have been the best they could do. It's just as foolish to remake the remake (let's not forget that 'Magnificent' was a redo of Kurosawa's 'The Seven Samurai'). A completely different story might have worked better. Since only 3 of the original 7 survived---and neither McQueen or Horst Buchholz return as Vin or Chico)---you can't help noticing that the B team is just not good enough to match what the A team did with Brynner in 1960.

So brace yourself as Chris Adams (Brynner) and company ride into battle against Mexican bandits all over again. This time they've got to save Chico and the other male villagers they saved years before. Same result? Not telling, but there are 1 or 2 fun moments along the way. Any excuse to hear Bernstein's music is a good excuse, especially when the movie is on free TV. All the same, I think I'll skip the other sequels. 'Return Of The Seven' isn't horsepoo, but it's certainly not worthy of riding with 'The Magnificent Seven' either.

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.

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...

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.

Though not as good as the original, The Return Of The Seven brings back Yul Brynner for another appealing turn as black-clad anti-hero Chris Adams, with Claude Akins and Warren Oates providing memorable support. However, the rest of the seven are kind of bland, but alright.

Burt Kennedy was one of the best and least heralded directors that the western genre has to offer. Here, he doesn't disappoint, filling the screen with the type of excellent screen composition that his old collaborator Budd Boetticher was known for and from whom he no doubt learned to direct.

The afore mentioned direction, good production values, and exciting action sequences, as well as the performances of Brynner, Oates, Akins and Emilio Fernandez all help make up for the slow spots in the script.

Speaking of Warren Oates, the same year he also starred in the art-house/drive-in western The Shooting. Such a great actor he is, that Oates doesn't even seem like the same person in both movies! Three years later, he and villain Fernandez were opposite each other again in The Wild Bunch.

I don't mind sequels; sometimes they're better than the original. However, many times the originals are best left alone....especially when you can't duplicate the cast. One of the big reasons "The Magnificent Seven" was such a hit was the very popular cast.

This is hardly the "magnificent seven," when only Yul Brynner returns as one of the members of that famous group in "The Magnificent Seven." With six of the seven guys absent and replaced by much lesser-known actors, this loses its appeal in a hurry. In other words, except for Brynner, these guys have no charisma! This is a like a championship sports team fielding all substitutes except one.

Brynner is good, once again: fun to watch, fun to hear with that distinctive deep voice of his, but the story, not just the rest of the crew, is lame. This movie should never have been made. In the original, we cared about the "seven;" in here, we couldn't care less.

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.

"Return of the Seven" has a few good action scenes, and Elmer Bernstein's score is as rousing as ever. Nevertheless, it's a boring film, because it simply fails to involve us emotionally. Mcqueen's absence makes a really bad impression, and the fact that his character here is played by a different (little-known) actor is odd - in a bad way. The characters are not developed, so we don't connect with them - and we hardly care when some of them die. This sequel is a passable but poor imitation of the original.

Don't watch "Return of the Seven" as a sequel. Watch this movie as a "stand alone" western. If you watch it that way, you're in for a great time. "Return of the Seven" is a solid western. It has a good story and a very good cast. This movie is filled with great performances. The action is top-notch and, of course, the music is terrific. I put off watching this movie for many years. Shame on me. I can't wait until i get to see it again.

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.

The original film was a childhood favourite, but it's easy-going follow-up "The Return" is nothing more than a disappointing excuse to cash on the original's success. It wasn't a rushed production; as it came out quite a few years later but this time around the story and performances were nothing short than thin and lacklustre. Director Burt Kennedy does his best with some professionally well mounted set-pieces and striking visual details (with the beautifully spacious cinematography making a mark), but cult filmmaker Larry Cohen's screenplay is a generically unengaged rehash (where again sacrifice and hardship comes to the forefront) but it simply lacks the charm and killer punch. At times too talky and sluggishly paced without really making the characters emotionally attachable, that when it comes down to the nitty, gritty it feels mechanically laboured and short-lived. There was more effort in throwing around coin bags, than in its action. Yul Brynner returns, decked in black bringing back that tight-lipped, hardened illustration, but it's just wasn't enough to carry it along. The hired help is mostly an unmemorable one-note bunch (Claude Atkins, Elisa Montés) other than Warren Oates' verbose, womanising character. Robert Fuller scarcely takes over the character that Steve McQueen portrayed. As for the villains, they are even less interesting and imposing. Also Fernando Rey shows up as a priest. Composer Elmer Bernstein contributes once more with his excellently rousing music score. Technically its soundly made, but direly uninspired writing and performances sink it.

It's inevitable that any sequel to a classic like "The Magnificent Seven" is going to represent a drop in quality. The script (by Larry Cohen) is definitely on the routine side, and its gallery of characters are mostly nondescript. There's still entertainment value in the "assembling men for a mission" theme, and some of the actors here get a chance to shine. Burt Kennedy's direction is certainly adequate, and the action scenes are well executed.

Yul Brynner returns to the role of Chris. He's approached by Petra (Elisa Montes), the wife of Chico (Julian Mateos), a former member of the Seven. Petras' and Chicos' village is raided by a group of bandits who kill some of the men, but abduct most of them for some unknown purpose. The villain responsible is Lorca (Emilio Fernandez), who is not an entirely unsympathetic character. Chris reunites with Vin (Robert Fuller, taking over for Steve McQueen), and brings together associates such as Frank (Claude Akins), Colbee (Warren Oates), and Luis (Virgilio Teixeira); he's also joined by the hard luck young man Manuel (Jordan Christopher).

Admittedly, this setup was indeed more fun with the original gang of characters, who had a little more personality than this bunch. That's not to say that guys like Akins and especially Oates don't have their moments. Oates is certainly a joy in the role of a shameless horn dog. Fernandez is good, but again, he's no match for his predecessor Eli Wallach. Fuller is reasonably likable, but he's no Steve McQueen. At least there's a nice part for Fernando Rey as the well meaning priest who disapproves of Lorcas' methods.

Elmer Bernsteins' theme music still resonates, and the widescreen photography is first rate. The pacing is adequate; this is the shortest of the "Seven" films at a fairly trim 96 minute run time.

Decent entertainment for undemanding Western fans.

Seven out of 10.

Remake of the 1960 original is essentially the same story revisited, with Brynner reprising his role as Chris, while Robert Fuller substitutes for Steve McQueen and Julian Mateos vice Horst Buchholz. This time Emilio Fernandez and right hand man Rudolfo Costa led 60-strong bandits sweeping across peasant villages, enslaving all the men to work on Fernandez's obsession of building a church as a shrine to his dead sons for whom he still grieves. When Mateos is taken in one of the raids, his wife (Montes for Rosenda Monteros) locates Brynner and he quickly sets about assembling another magnificent seven to defeat Fernandez. The story thereafter is just the same.

Eclectic cast includes Claude Akins as the brooding loner, Warren Oates chasing tail wherever he can find it, Virgilio Teixiera as an ageing gunslinger who narrowly avoids the hangman and Jordan Christopher as a poor Mexican chicken thief brought along for luck. Fernando Rey also appears as a morally conflicted priest who wants a church for his pilgrims, but disagrees with Fernandez's methods to achieve that goal. Each of the characters has a cross to bear and as in the original, we learn about their path to redemption throughout the story. Elmer Bernstein's familiar score is once again on display and Burt Kennedy's experience with the genre is evident in his handling of the subject matter.

But despite a good cast, "Return" is just an inferior remake; the dialogue is at times overly sentimental and the characters aren't as well drawn as in the original, just shallow replicas. A disappointing sequel attempt. Followed by "Guns of the Magnificent Seven" in 1969 and "Magnificent Seven Ride" in 1972.

Any follow-up to "The Magnificent Seven" wouldn't be as good. I mean, how do you even follow-up one of my top 5 favourite films of all-time? I'd heard many bad reviews about "Return of the Seven" - thankfully it wasn't as bad as all that.

While the absence of both Steve McQueen (as Vin), and Horst Buchholz (as Chico) is felt strongly, the rest of the film keeps a very similar format to the original, and I loved that aspect. The plot is literally the same - small village being attacked by bandits seeks the help of some gunmen, each with their own motive for defending said village against overwhelming odds.

Yul Brynner was an incredibly strong lead in the original, and he solely carries the film here. His delivery of powerful (and often humorous) one-liners was prevalent throughout. There were a few tributes to the original film too, and I couldn't help but smile each time. I got goosebumps when Chris (Brynner) rides up to the little village, looks down at it and says "I never thought I'd be back".

The Elmer Bernstein score is fantastic too and really carries the movie, becoming one of the most vital characters itself.

Unfortunately the bad guys this time round weren't exactly of Eli Wallach quality. In particular, the fight scenes weren't as well orchestrated. The film also finds itself treading water at times around the 3/4 mark. Despite all this, I did enjoy "Return of the Seven", when I didn't think I would. If fans of the classic can look past the absence of McQueen and Buchholz, then it's well worth a watch - especially on the strength of Brynner's return as Chris.

The first of three follow-ups to the John Sturges' western classic "The Magnificent Seven" is a prototypic sequel if there ever was one. It's a totally redundant and uninvolving rehash of the original that you nevertheless don't mind watching purely for popcorn entertainment value. The plot is almost identical, the lead actor reprises his role although he doesn't seem all too happy about that and some of the original characters are there as well albeit portrayed by different, inferior actors. I had some personal reasons for desperately wanting to see the film, including this being one of the first scripts written by Larry Cohen and Warren Oates in one of his pre-Peckinpah roles, but I could have guessed "The Return of the Seven" would be a forgettable and second class western. A large posse of bandits have kidnapped Chico (who suddenly looks a whole lot more Mexican than in the original film) and the rest of the male population in the original village to works as slaves. Under the reign of a man named Lorca, they are forced to build a church monument in honor of his executed sons. Chris and (a different) Vin round up four more trigger-happy gunslingers to save the day. Most of the sequences in this film are actually shameless copies from the highlights of the original. The recruitment of the shooters goes a little quicker, but they still use the same counting gestures. Why is it that cool stuff from the originals always looks silly in sequels? Chris' character also has become some kind of all-knowing, philosophizing prophet. He speaks the absolute minimum, but nonetheless makes people question themselves. Usually he just goes standing next to them and they begin talking wholeheartedly about their lives and issues. Chris merely just replies with one sentence but apparently this is enough to make them contemplate everything all over again. The other characters, on the other hand, are colorless and dull. Vin and Chico are only shadows of what they used to be and the others are merely just caricatures. Claude Akins as the silent and embittered loner and Warren Oates as the sneaky womanizer to name just two. The shootout sequences are pretty boring and unexciting. Elmer Bernstein's music is still a joy to listen to, but also that is exactly the same as in the original.

If the 'Godfather II' was THE example of why a gifted director might consider making a sequel to a great film, this turkey is the classic counter-example of why no-one should make one (leaving aside the obvious point about wanting to milk a very successful cash cow a second time around). The only actor from the first (truly magnificent) film to appear is Yul Brynner in the lead role and all of the others who appear are decidedly 'B list' (if that) character actors who simply do not have the charisma to awaken much interest in their 'stories' or fates amongst the audience. Some attempts are made at repeating the original film's reflections on life and the transitoriness of glory/earthly admiration but in comparison with, say, Robert Vaughan's nightmares in the original film, these are stilted and unconvincing, whilst also being delivered (like most of the dialogue in the film) in a wooden, unenthusiastic manner. Even the gun fights/action scenes are poorly composed and almost totally 'flat'. The only things the film has going for it really are Bernstein's music (identical to the original) and the presence of Brynner, who could always carry a scene or, as in this case, even a whole film. I doubt if anyone would want to sit through a viewing of it more than once, though. I also suppose that one should be charitable, given what was to follow in the form of the two subsequent 'sequels' after this (by which time even Brynner had jumped ship), both of which were absolutely and totally dire, leaving the original template of a truly immortal Japanese film which underlay the whole enterprise entirely (and mercifully) forgotten.

I'm not sure this film could ever match the first one, even if it starred the original seven (notwithstanding the fact that four were killed). It just doesn't have the spark and chemistry. All the actors seem tired and look as if they are just going through the motions to get their paychecks.

It's interesting how Yul Brynner is "magnificent" in the original film but stiff and unconvincing in this sequel. Yet when he stars in Westworld and Futureworld in the 1970s his character (in the same matching black pants, shirt and hat) evokes the same mystery and presence of the 1960 film's Chris Adams.

There's nothing in this 1966 flick to make it worth watching, even on cable.