Western Retrospective: The Magnificent Seven Original vs Remake

Hi, this is John Delancey and you are listening

to the Geekcast Radio Network. Hello and welcome

to episode 244 of the Cinema Geeks. I'm one of

your Cinema Geeks Optimist Solo and joining me

as usual is the Comic Concierge. Hello, Dan.

Hello. And I'm back. We are back for more Western

action. Yeah, we're continuing our Western retrospective.

This is the final chapter in our original or

it's hard saying original because they're all

like also based off of other things, but our

original versus remake section. So you've already

heard us talk about 310 to Yuma and True Grit,

both the originals and the remakes. And today

we're doing one more just like that covering.

The two magnificent seven films, one of them

obviously came out in 1960 and the other one

came out in 2016. So almost 60 years between

the two. And then after we finish this one out,

we'll start a new chapter in our Western retrospective

where we go into some overlooked Westerns. We'll

talk more about that towards the end before we

get the facts and get into the nitty gritty of.

Today's movies, though, Dan, remind everybody

what your previous experience was with both of

the Magnificent Seven films. Oh, I have seen

the original, but it's been about a decade or

so. So like I remembered very little of it. I

have seen Seven Samurai as well, just to, you

know, give that comparison. But I had not seen

the remake. So it was one of the interesting

ones where I've seen the original, but not the

remake. But how about yourself? I went into this

one just like I did with the 310 to Yuma and

True Grit, having not seen any of the originals

of these three films, but seeing all of the modern

versions. And I remember on first watch of all

of them being more in the positive camp than

negative. I remember liking all of them to varying

degrees. And that's what was interesting about

going back and watching them with the originals

and seeing how they either... grew or fell or

how they kind of held up over time also it's

been a long time since i've seen i've seen magnificent

seven more than true grit and 310 to yuma i will

i know that for a fact this will be my fourth

watch of the 2016 magnificent seven third or

fourth it's at least third but i think it's probably

the fourth um so i don't know why but i've seen

that one more than the the remakes of true grit

and 310 to yuma not saying that's a good sign

or bad sign just have more experience with it

i guess so um i'll be interested to hear kind

of we've had different takes on the other ones

right like i think we both felt with 310 to yuma

that the original was easily the better of the

two maybe i don't know easily might be too strong

a word, but we both definitely favor the original

one. Yeah, definitively appreciated the original

one. I think True Grit, I think we were both

more positive on the remake. Yeah, I liked both,

but definitely thought the original was better.

Yeah, I don't think maybe the gap between the

two was as big for us on True Grit as it was

maybe for 310 to Yuma, but I don't know. I'm

interested to see kind of how that... which one

magnificent seven will mirror more and kind of

hearing your thoughts i definitely have some

so before we get into that let's let dan lay

the groundwork for the 1960 version and kind

of get us all prepared for that and then we will

come back with our thoughts on that one whoa

double remake as we end our remake first the

original section of our western retrospective

with a double remake, as we start with 1960's

Magnificent Seven, which of course is a remake

of Seven Samurai, relocating the story from feudal

Japan to the American frontier in Mexico. The

film opens on a poor Mexican farming village

that is repeatedly terrorized by an infamous

bandit and his gang. They ride in each harvest

season, steal some food and supplies, and then

head out. Desperate and unable to defend themselves,

some villagers travel north to the United States,

looking for gunslingers willing to help. protect

their town. They eventually recruit seven very

different gunmen. Oh, that's where they get the

name. The calm and experienced Chris Adams, the

cocky drifter Vin Tanner, professional fighter

Bernardo O 'Reilly, trouble gunslinger Britt,

hothead youth Chico, con artist Harry Luck, and

the knife -throwing Lee, each drawn by either

money, pride, boredom, or just a search for meaning.

You know, that old trick. The seven arrive in

the village and begin training the frightened

farmers to defend themselves as well. At first,

the villagers are intimidated by the gunfighters,

and it's hard to blame them with all that denim.

But the men slowly gain their trust while preparing

barricades and teaching them how to shoot and

fight. Several of the gunmen form emotional connections

with the villagers, especially Chico, who falls

in love with a local woman and becomes increasingly

tied to the community. The film spends much of

its middle section exploring the contrast between

the wandering, lonely lives of the gunfighters

and the humble but meaningful lives of ordinary

people. Though at first, the initially succeed

in driving the bandits away, the villagers eventually

panic and betray the gunmen out of fear, allowing

them to retake the town. After being expelled,

most of the seven realize they couldn't simply

just leave and let them survive on their own,

but they choose to return anyway, knowing that

they'll probably die. They are magnificent after

all. And many don't survive the heroic battle,

but eventually... they do drive the bandits away.

In the end, only Chris, Van, and Chico survive.

Chico decides to remain in the village with the

women he loves, while Chris and Van ride away,

recognizing that the farmers, not the gunfighters,

are the true victors because they have homes,

family, and a future. The movie closes on a bittersweet

and the cost of violence. This was a bit of a

breakout party for a number of these actors,

including Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, James

Corbyn, and Robert Vaughn, who of course moved

on to do much bigger things and become much bigger

stars. Unlike A Few Dollars More, which of course

we also covered in our Western Restrospective,

check out an episode on that in your favorite

podcast feed, this adaptation of Curacao's work

did not lead to a lawsuit. In fact, Kurosawa

was a big fan, so much so that he awarded director

John Sturgis a ceremonial samurai sword as a

gift. Man. That ought to have been great. Not

that this didn't create some bad blood, but just

between the actors. The scene McQueen reportedly

caused some ill will with Joel Brenner. McQueen

would supposedly do small distracting things

in the background during Brenner's close -ups,

shaking shotgun shells, moving strangely, adjusting

his hat, anything to draw the attention of the

audience toward him. Brenner eventually became

so furious and reportedly had scenes refrained

so that McQueen would not dominate the shot.

Their rivalry became a thing of Hollywood legend.

The production itself was a physically difficult

one because much of it was filmed and under harsh

conditions in rural Mexico. The cast dealt with

intense heat, dust, long shooting days. Director

John Sturgis was known for being calm and controlled

despite managing such a large ensemble cast and

with several strong personalities. Although,

you know, of course, as mentioned, he did have

some issues. He was kind of like the Phil Jackson

of Hollywood directors when it came to this film.

It also helped considering the pressure many

felt knowing they were adapting such a respected

film like Seven Samurai. That carried over a

bit with its initial reception as well, as it

received a mixed reaction from critics. Many

thought the film was entertaining, but inferior

to Seven Samurai. Others, however, praised the

movie's pacing, charisma, and memorable cast.

It's quite interesting. is that the movie actually

performed much better internationally at first

than it did with the US. It was especially popular

in Europe and Japan. Japanese audiences were

reportedly fascinated by seeing an American Western

reinterpret a beloved samurai story. Now, it

was successful in the US enough to earn three

sequels, Return of the Seven, Guns of the Magnificent

Seven, and lastly, The Magnificent Seven. Ride.

Yul Brynner was the only person to return for

the sequel. Steve McQueen's character did return,

but was played by Robert Fuller instead of McQueen.

Perhaps it was that old rivalry. No word yet

if any of them will be returning for Avengers

Doomsday later this year. But where do Kevin

and I stand? Are we with the critics who feel

like it is a pale comparison to Seven Samurai?

Or do we feel like it adapts it well for the

Western genre? back to us to discuss all right

starting with this 1960 version dan i will start

with you because you had some previous experience

i know you said it had been like almost a decade

since you had seen this film and now you're watching

it after watching uh a dozen or so it seems like

westerns you know in in the last little bit here

so i don't know if that had an effect on your

viewing or even just going through the two other

modern versus the original ones but uh what was

your take after all of this kind of table setting

with your rewatch of the 1960 original magnificent

seven and going back to this i didn't remember

much i remember obviously the general framework

the one scene that that stuck out to me was the

like one of the earliest action sequences where

they're on you know trying to transport the the

casket but i didn't even remember like the the

reasoning behind it just remember they had to

like go through the town for some reason so it

was basically like going in fresh because i what

i thought happened and beyond just the general

framework was completely different than what

actually happened but honestly this has or in

the sense one like i mentioned i do love seven

samurai and it's seven samurai is one of those

stories that has been adapted in so many different

ways like actually we're watching a bug's life

a few months ago and that obviously takes a lot

from it we we watched an episode of the mandalorian

of the first season that takes elements of it

there's a you know it's one of those stories

that has been retold in a lot of different ways

but at the time certainly probably a little bit

more fresh especially this isn't the first time

we've gotten a kurosawa film that was adapted

for western although this one came before the

uh you know, the previous one that we went over,

but this, what it has going for me, for me is

that it has one of my favorite type of storylines

that exist in any type of medium, whether it

be a comic book heist. And that's the getting

the band together story. And it's just something

about it. It's just, I just, I just, I just love

it. It's like, it's like, you know, it's why

I love fantasy football. It's like drafting your

team, what they're kind of doing here. You know,

you go around and you're, You get to get a little

glimpse of what each person brings to the table.

You got the guy with the knife. You got the guy

who's clearly muscle. You got the guy who's more

of the wild card, things like that. So that element,

like it was just, it naturally appealed to me.

So that was part of it. But also what surprised

me about this was I thought it had a little bit

more to say than I remembered. Like I didn't

realize or didn't remember. that it does talk

about things about what does real bravery look

like what does masculinity look like and actually

takes some real time to dissect that like you

get a great conversation with Charles Bronson's

character and some of the kids from the village

regarding them being disappointed in their parents

thinking that they're cowards but him talking

about what real bravery looks like you know taking

responsibility being willing to ask for help

and things you know it seems almost some of the

dialogue at times almost felt it was ahead of

its time now it doesn't completely you know bring

that home by the end that we can discuss but

i thought at least had a little bit extra kind

of like watching the original 310 to yuma i was

really impressed with some of the themes and

that and i thought this you know it's taking

some of that from seven samurai as well but i

know going into it like people were saying oh

it it's a it's a less in -depth version of that

story and perhaps it is but still I think there

is something there it doesn't abandon it completely

and lastly you just have a really solid cast

so I think it was highly entertaining I think

managing this group of individuals I think it

did as best as it could like does every character

have an amazing arc from beginning to end not

necessarily but I do think as a unit they come

together and you can clearly see each like role

each person is playing so i had a good time with

it i thought it was really solid and i thought

you know it was looking at all the westerns we've

done thus far i don't know where it would rank

within it but i think it certainly holds up really

well and has a little bit extra beyond just you

know the the western shootouts and its ability

to kind of take the story and that was so well

known and just twist it for the western genre

but what was your Being coming into this the

first time, having experience with the original

or the remake, and I know this is probably the

one that has the most changes that we'll get

to, but what was your thoughts? How did you enjoy

or not enjoy the original Magnificent Seven?

See, I thought you were going to give us another

wrestling analogy. I thought you were going to

say like... like it was like picking members

of a faction or something like creating you know

what i had that opportunity and i completely

wasted it i should have yeah it was like the

enforcer and the the you know like the technical

wrestler and the the guy on the mic like i thought

we were gonna get that but um so i this is interesting

for me because i feel like this film perhaps

more than any other film that we've watched so

far in this entire retrospective represents one

of the main reasons why I wanted to do this retrospective

because not only did I know that I had a big

blind spot for a lot of classic westerns but

I also felt that it wasn't just going to appease

or scratch that itch But that it also was going

to be able to help me see different actors that

I also have blind spots for. And I feel like

this movie does all of it, right? It gives me

one of the classic Westerns that I've not seen.

But it also exposes me to a whole cast of characters

that I wasn't alive during this time period.

And for some reason, the... 1960s and 70s is

probably like my biggest blind spot out of any

decades from film and so like i haven't seen

a whole lot of films that these individuals have

been in so it was a nice like kind of just all

-encompassing like hey this is why we're doing

this is because i wanted to see classics and

i wanted to be exposed to like all of these different

people that i feel like i got with this one i

i do feel like i couldn't help but think about

and you already brought it up but the 310 to

yuma comparison right like i know we're not comparing

the the original and the modern one quite yet

and we'll get to that but what i will say that

this 1961 does in a different way than what the

original 310 to yuma does is really takes its

time and lets you sit with some of these characters

granted this one is a little bit larger of a

cast we're dealing with a tiny bit bigger of

a setting the 310 to Yuma we're spending a whole

lot of time like in a hotel room but there is

some other stuff you know the journey to and

from and a couple things and this one we're really

just you know involving a town which is still

fairly like secluded and things of that nature

so it's slightly different but I feel like you

still get those slow moments you still get to

sit with these characters dissect them a little

bit get to know them get to know what makes them

tick to different degrees like obviously they

spend a little bit more time with a handful of

characters than they do with some of the other

ones but i still feel like you got a sense of

most of the characters in this like i didn't

feel like there was ones where it was just like

he's just along for the ride i guess and we don't

really know why and he's just part of the band

so i thought it did a good job of balancing the

fact that we have not only these seven people

in this group But we also have the villagers,

right? And we need to understand their background

and their plot, you know, the kind of their place

in the story and their lot in life. We also have

to deal with the villain in this film and kind

of his gang of folks and stuff like that. And

I think that's a large task, right? Like when

you have not only seven quote unquote heroes,

but then you have the villains and then you have

the villagers and you have all of this stuff

like. competing against each other for time and

dialogue and moments like i feel like it is impressive

when you can pull that off and still give the

audience a feel for the fact that they felt like

they got to know all of those individuals at

least enough to suffice not just like we're just

skipping along and you just get like these real

superficial aspects of them or they're all just

playing stereotypes and you just kind of have

to connect the dots on your own so i really appreciated

that aspect of it that it was able to take its

time i felt like it handled violence in a decent

way uh as far as almost like a necessary evil

and it didn't um just hit you over the head with

the violence it didn't do it in a glorified way

and things of that nature like i felt like you

are you understood that these guys weren't like

bloodthirsty people that just enjoyed killing

people or did it for sport you got to feel for

like they're doing this because they feel like

there is no other option in a way um for the

most part i mean they all have different motivations

for being involved but i also thought it was

fun to see like the recruiting of the individuals

and i know you have to kind of do that somewhat

quick in these films right like you can't spend

half the runtime recruiting the folks you have

to do it in the first act basically but i felt

like this one did a decent job of introducing

us to each of those characters and kind of how

they came to be what their relationship was with

whatever they're calling ewell brenner's character

what was his name it didn't feel like it fit

chris which is such a basic name it's almost

like i feel like like all right i mean chris

i guess i i would never look at yule brenner

and be like let's name his character chris yeah

that would not it's never great when your character

name is far less interesting than your actual

real name it's like it just right yeah um so

i i was pleasantly not surprised but i i enjoyed

myself like i anticipated that i would somewhat

like it because I kind of know the gist of it,

having seen the modern one, but I thought it

delivered in ways that I didn't 100 % expect.

So I came across fairly positive. Before we get

too far into it, I'm just curious. You probably

have a little bit more experience with these

individuals, but obviously the kind of star,

main bill of stars of this film are Yul Brynner,

Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson. and james coburn

like i feel like those are like the biggest out

of the seven that like just everybody kind of

knows from name recognition and i'll tell you

what my background was and i'm kind of curious

what your background is with these actors in

general so yul brenner i've only ever seen in

king and the king and i like i've never seen

him in anything else so like my only experience

was the king and i um james coburn i didn't realize

i've seen a bunch of his films But now I feel

like I need to go back and watch these films

and, like, pick them out. I've seen him in Maverick.

I've seen him in Sister Act 2. I've seen him

in Eraser. I've seen him in Payback. In Charade.

Yeah, in Charade, obviously, we just did, you

know, as far as the Cary Grant films. And he

also was the voice of Lute and Plunder in the

Captain Planet cartoon, the main villain. So

I have a variety of experience with James Coburn.

Not as much from this time period outside of

charade and this. Charles Bronson we just saw

in Once Upon a Time in the West, but otherwise

that's my only exposure to his films. And Steve

McQueen, this is the only film I've ever seen

him in. So I've never seen Steve McQueen in anything

else. I know he's been in other stuff. So his

whole filmography is kind of a blind spot for

me. What was your experience with all of these

actors as far as the main seven group coming

into this? So Steve McQueen is probably the one

I have the most experience with. He, of course,

like The Great Escape I have seen, which also

does have Charles Bronson in it as well. But

McQueen is easily the biggest star there and

probably another big one. Bullet is another one

of his that I have seen as well. The Towering

Inferno, which was like. It has a lot of people

in it. If you're just looking for a movie with

a lot of stars of that era, there's Paul Newman

as well, and McQueen, who kind of headlined that,

but Faye Dunaway is in that. Fred Astaire is

kind of crazy. O .J. Simpson, and also Robert

Vaughn is in that as well. So that does have

a good casting there. So he's the person I probably

have the most with. Yul Brynner, I actually haven't

seen The King and I, but the only thing else

that I've seen him with... I know of I mean Death

Race which was like his last movie and the Westworld

as well where he plays the gunslinger and that

like he's the you know the robot I guess or whatever

you want to call it that turns evil so that might

have been now I saw this before that but he he

doesn't really say much in that you know he's

kind of he's just this evil black hat you know

just doing so I don't I have much experience

with him outside of that. Charles Bronson, also

I've seen a good amount of his stuff as well.

Like I mentioned, Magnificent Seven, Great Escape,

Once Upon a Time, and the last, Death Wish. I

have seen one or two of those, perhaps. And if

you've seen one Death Wish, you kind of have

seen them all. And then some other small, Hard

Times is another Bronson film where he kind of

plays like a bare -knuckle. knuckle boxer that

i have seen too so okay but yeah i'm a big steve

mcqueen fan i during i had a like um back in

the dvd days i like had a steve mcqueen pack

and had like okay on this clown affair uh the

great escape and a few others that i've seen

but i mcqueen is like the you know argue like

i didn't say the first action star but maybe

the first action star outside of like westerns

because obviously he did this but he'd go on

and kind of almost he could say like john wayne

and then mcqueen was like around that as well

like he was like the you know ultra cool ultra

you know him and paul newman kind of uh i thought

i don't think he is nearly the actor paul newman

is but he's you know he's got But it certainly

helped make him a star. It was the first thing

that really helped him break out as well. I think

this is also, for Coburn, I think this is his

third overall film role. I don't know what kind

of presence he had in the two that came before

this, but this is one of his first major film

roles as well. And I believe he got the job simply

because he was friends with, I think, Robert

Vaughn, because he wasn't originally cast, but

the person that was couldn't do it. And this

whole film was also interesting. with the background

of it, which I didn't cover just the facts. Cause

I was, I just learned this recently, but this

was being made like right before there was expected

to be like an actor strike. So they were trying

to get it kind of done and cast really quickly,

which is a big reason why like he, he got, you

know, they're just like, you know, someone, all

right, well, he seems good enough, which is crazy.

Cause I think, you know, he certainly fits that

role really well. He, he's kind of got that silent

assassin down. And we saw that with charade as

well. yeah so we got those those headlining four

along with like you said robert vaughn and then

we get brad dexter and horse buckholtz is forming

our magnificent seven in this film how do you

think they all work together playing off of each

other was did one stand out more than the other

were you finding yourself more uh kind of in

like wanting to see more of any of them specifically

or how did you feel like they fit in these roles

The thing was, like, you got, each had a very

distinct character right away. Like, Robert Vaughn's

character, like, he just, you know, he's all

prim and proper. He's got, like, he's, like,

dressed in the nines. You learned a lot about

him just, like, almost immediately. Same thing

with, like, Charles Bronson. Like, he could have

been... i don't know almost like the cover of

a romance novel with this like denim shirt he's

like chopping wood like it like it's with with

ease uh i really was impressed with bronson in

this i think he had like he was almost like the

soul of the movie if there's one person i felt

like i don't know if it's the performance but

the character it's kind of what the character

has to be but horace buckle as you know chico

being that like you know he's a young kid who's

just trying to improve a point uh but he does

come on a little strong. I know that. So I guess

he's supposed to be annoying, but he was really

riding that line a little bit. And like I said,

I like James Corbin. Brad Dexter, to me, his

character was the one that just didn't really

stand out in any meaningful way. I did like the

chemistry between Brenner and McQueen, even though

in real life they kind of were not big fans of

each other. I felt at least the movie, it felt

like they, you know. they had a good connection

and maybe that rivalry would actually just made

it better on screen. I don't know. Uh, so yeah,

that they, they did a good job of hiding that.

Cause I thought they had great chemistry together.

How about you? Anyone setting up for you or good

or bad? I mean, I really liked Ewell Brenner

and Steve McQueen. I thought like they, they

made a perfect kind of partnership in the movie

as far as the main lead. And, and almost like

the, not really like the number two, cause there

weren't necessarily like, 100 subordinate but

like just that kind of character that could play

off of him he was you know obviously mcqueen's

character and this is cooler than the other side

of the pillow as the kids say or maybe that's

what old people say um what's what it was scott's

on you know maybe it's right but i thought those

two uh were well i thought james coburn was an

interesting character like i didn't always know

what to make of it but i was intrigued by it

enough to be like you know what's going on with

this guy i think you're right charles bronson

brings a lot of uh heart to the film i know you

said soul i would probably say even more so heart

for me like he just yeah kind of really brought

that i feel like you know robert vaughn and brad

dexter are who they are and they're necessary

for you know the movie you can't have all of

them being like this super charismatic uh boisterous

you know magnetic people um or they would take

away from each other i do think like you like

horse buckles was probably overacting a tad in

quite a few scenes especially in the first half

he gets a little bit better throughout the rest

of the film, but he comes on strong in the beginning.

That's for sure. It's like one of those sour

candies, right? Like you don't know what to do

with it at first, but so yeah, I enjoyed that.

Obviously we get the return of Eli Wallach here

as our villain to go from the good, the bad and

the ugly is here with his, with his gang of bandits,

I guess you would call them. What did you feel

of, of him as the main villain? So that I completely

forgot. I hadn't seen the good and the bad and

the ugly before, but going back to that, I'm

like, whoa, Tuco's the villain? I completely

didn't know that. With the good and the bad and

the ugly, he was villain -lite, I guess. He certainly

had some, but he hammed it up here in a good

way. I felt like he was very hateable. He really

played that role well, but I don't think it ever

became too over the top. The fact that He understood

the restraint like he there was a lot of like

he maybe wasn't the best decision maker when

he's like Well, just let him go, you know, it's

like okay. It seems like not the smartest move

in the world but you know I thought he was charismatic

and He gave you a good person to want to see

take down to make a wrestling analogy. He was

the good heel He played it well, and I thought

I was a fan of his performance. How about yourself?

Um, I liked it. He's like a hard character for

her hard actor for me to pin down because then

Then you view a picture of him, which is obviously

a picture of him much older when you go to Wikipedia

or IMDb or whatever. I'm always trying to place

that picture I'm seeing with this character,

with the character we saw in The Good, The Bad,

and The Ugly. I'm like, none of these people

are the same people. I don't buy it. He definitely

comes across as a completely different character

in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. I had to

do a double take when I was like, I know this

is Eli Wallach, but... i'm not seeing the connection

between these two characters um as far as that

goes but i thought he did it well like i think

there's a maybe like one minor nitpick or negative

about the film is i do think some of the plot

it's a little clunky i don't know if clunky is

the right word it gets a little bit there's like

a little bit of a back and forth here when they

go to basically get information or see what they

can see about you know his gang and of bandits

and whatnot obviously eli wallach's character

and his bandits you know take over the town in

the meantime through some like you know collusion

with some of the locals and then we have the

magnificent seven go back they get caught then

they get put on horses and get their guns taken

away and get sent away and then they come back

like i i don't know if all of that like a hundred

percent worked for me as far as like the back

and forth of that it didn't necessarily like

take anything away it was just something i noticed

kind of as i was watching that was like what

why are we what are we doing like we're we're

why are you like kind of what you said like why

are you letting them go and like i don't know

there was there was a little bit of back and

forth there that i wasn't a hundred percent sold

on but other than that i do feel like even though

i know this film sometimes gets listed as far

as like a con goes as far as like some of the

pacing and maybe being a bit slower i didn't

feel any i didn't feel that like i didn't i didn't

think it was too slow i didn't really have any

problems with the pacing there was that little

bit of clunkiness i felt like in that kind of

getting towards our our final act but but other

than that i thought it moved at the pace i needed

and i sometimes prefer if you're going to take

it a little bit slower and give us some time

with like i think they did a good job of connecting

with the community yeah especially through I

believe, especially through Charles Bronson's

character with the kids and things of that nature.

We also obviously have a, I guess, a love interest

angle with, of course, Bill Colts and the one

female from the town. So, but I thought you had,

you know, different situations where you get

the old, like the elder on the outskirts of town.

Like that guy is fantastic. I needed him in,

in more, I think I needed him for sure in the

modern one, but, um, or just in more movies in

general, he's like, you know, come to the town

where we've, where we've got it all protected.

He's like, no, I'm good. I'll sit out here. And

he had some wise words at the end too. Like,

I think like really gave you the theme of the

movie in a way where it's like, you know, the

villagers are the ones that will come out on

the top of this, you know, gunslingers are just

like tumbleweeds. They'll come and go. Um, I

thought that was a great, you know, kind of.

buttoning up of things towards the end. So how

did you feel like some of the supporting cast

and the setting and kind of the pacing went for

you? I guess I have an issue with the pacing.

I could see what you're saying regarding the

structure of like they're in the town and then

the townspeople like come scared and turn on

them and whatnot. I thought what that allowed,

it gave you an opportunity to see the true character

of them because ultimately they had to make the

decision of like, going back and you know basically

facing death rather than it's they had to make

a choice there rather than it just being an element

of like defending the town so there was one there

was that benefit it was like i don't know if

it was the one thing i'd say it hurt a bit was

like i meant we mentioned i mentioned earlier

that they had that great conversation about how

a lot of the villagers were the true heroes because

they were making this decision and then they

go back on it. But then again, they... Did you

get the impression that all of the villagers

made that decision? I got the impression that

it was just the one guy that kind of backstabbed

everybody. Yeah, that was my impression too.

It wasn't necessarily... I don't know. That he

kind of made the choice. I mean, it's not explained

super well, but I thought it was kind of alluded

to that it was the one guy. I guess... Where

I find it a little bit, like, from a structure

point, it's maybe a little structure and maybe

a little bit of just, like, decision making.

Like, I feel like multiple people were making

decisions that maybe is reality because people

make bad decisions. But it was like, there's

seven of you. Like, maybe half of you go on the

little scouting thing. Yeah. And half of you

protect the town still and make sure that doesn't

happen. And then on the flip side, like we talked

about, like, you're just going to send them.

on the horses and just assume they're not coming

back. Give them their guns back afterward. It's

like, thank you. That takes a lot of trust and

just like they're going to keep each other's

word. And then nobody really gave them him their

word that that was going to be what happened.

So I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

No, you're fine. No. So, yeah, I do agree. Like

the clunkiness, it's not super clear again regarding

like, is it that it was maybe the one guy, but

then did everyone. also not fight against it

per se. But then you do get the opportunity for

them to have that redemption piece with the villagers

as they're, again, fighting and making that decision.

But again, it's like one of the things it says

earlier is that, you know, they made the decision

not to fight because they have responsibility.

So then is it kind of going against that by then

trying to have its cake and eat it too? I don't

know. I think it at least got to the point where,

I mean, perhaps they just had no choice because

of the situation. They were in surprise. That's

that's where I struggle with it in the sense

of I don't know if it does or not. Like I haven't

come up to that decision, but I never thought

it was more like it's only two hour and eight,

two hours and eight minutes. And I don't know

if it's because we did the spaghetti Westerns,

which were going up to nearly three hours that,

you know, this felt, you know, light. But I was

never bored. And like I did like like you mentioned

it taking its time and getting an opportunity

for them to have a true connection with. this

town and the town also like seeing their hesitation

you know where they're they're not trusting at

first like you know they don't know if like these

guys just another evil like you know are we are

we gonna replace one with another so they're

hiding the women in most in many like the older

children but then that dissipating so i thought

that progression was kind of nice to get like

it didn't feel like this could have been very

exploitive and super racist to be honest we've

gotten that in many of the western west perspectives

and perhaps maybe some of it doesn't age well

but i don't feel like mexican the the town itself

was ever the butt of the joke or they were ever

like looked down upon like they like like you

said with the elder like they if anything it's

they were more celebrated so i thought that was

a benefit of it i think it worked too like i

think they handled the fact i think the setting

works for this film with it being like this poor

Mexican farming village in a way. And I think

the other thing that they do a decent job of

is with Eli Wallach's character. And I have it

pulled up so I keep forgetting what the character's

names are. I know it started with a C. Calvera.

Calvera. With his character, I thought they did

a decent job of not making him this mustache

-twirling, dick -dastardly villain. I thought

it was believable. uh somewhat authentic that

you know this guy's just a leader of these bandits

and he's coming in and he's doing a lot of the

things we've seen in some of these other western

films right like he's taking advantage of people

who are scared of him but he's not like you could

understand the the villagers fear and you could

understand why they like they don't want to do

this but they're also scared of the repercussions

but i i thought they balanced the line well of

him also being just a normal obviously a bad

guy but like he's believable in that like this

person could exist and this is not like a hollywoodized

villain and so i appreciated kind of the dynamic

there where yeah he does have some power because

there's nobody that stood up to him but that's

really the only thing that has kept him in power

is fear and intimidation but not i don't know

he he does some things right I'm not saying he's

a bad guy still, but he's not as ruthless and

over -the -top terrible as you could have made

him, if that makes sense. Speaking of Spaghetti

Westerns, we saw some of the villains in there

where they're just shooting people left and right

with little disregard. I think he... he understands

that he needs the villagers as well so he's not

he's going to take food but he's also going to

leave them enough because he needs them to be

able to still survive to bring him more food

so right and not that he makes good points but

he's like well you know i can't we can't farm

we're not farmers so what other choice do we

have he has some good lines too about it you

know regarding them being sheep which we see

repeated in the next movie that comes back up

as well so yeah I agree like he clearly is an

evil dude but he at least the decision making

or like his reasoning like you buy it it doesn't

feel like it is playing it up to the point where

he's just super super evil just because and doing

things like just shooting people with a little

disregard. He has purpose behind his actions,

and you never wonder why anyone would ever follow

him, considering how little care he has for the

people around him. So I thought it was a good,

balanced performance overall. Yeah, I agree 100%.

My last question on this one for you is, I know

it's a product of its time, and it came out in

1960. Do you think it's problematic that all

of our seven gunslingers are white men? Or did

that not bother you at all? Not for this time

period, certainly. I think it... Well, I mean,

Charles Bronson, I don't know his ethnicity,

to be honest with you. I believe he... I do think

he has... I don't know what his full ethnicity

is. In the movie, he was supposed to be part

Mexican. I don't know if that's actually the

case or not. But I didn't necessarily have an

issue with it, because I think... certainly at

the time when it comes like in the time that

this is portraying obviously we did there were

black cowboys that that's not a question but

i do think it it makes sense in the sense of

like that would be uh there's still racial divide

you know like at at this period i don't know

right i guess i mean more of like uh i don't

i guess i'm thinking more of like and i don't

i'm not saying i thought this i'm just I know

I could see this being a critique more of like

the white savior, I guess is, is kind of, yeah,

I think in a way, I think that certainly is a

valid critique because it kind of, you know,

it is the ultimate white savior story. I think

it saves itself a little bit, you know, being

the fact that it's based upon, it's taking the

story from seven samurai. So it's like, it has

that, that basic, that base of it. And in the

fact that at the, in the end, It's almost as

much of a critique of these men who come and

save the day and showing that their lifestyle

certainly makes them heroes in some way, but

also short -lived lives. But I do think the white

savior critique is valid. It's there. It is a

bunch of white people literally coming to save

the town. But I think at least it tries to add

something to it in the sense of that act is not

without. repercussions nor is it like it's not

saying that they're superior it doesn't glorify

it necessarily it goes out of its way to show

how they're not in some way so I think that makes

it especially for this era a little bit more

advanced than your typical story Yeah, I can

see that too. I probably agree with that. So

I think it's tough to get too much more into

the 1960 version without kind of doing some comparing

and contrasting. So are you ready to move on

to the 2016 version? Yeah, let's go to the 2016

version, which is I think the most recent film

and also makes me sad when you realize 2016 was

10 years ago. But let's get to that version.

All right, let's let Dan lay the groundwork for

the facts about the 2016 version. We'll come

back with our thoughts. Seven Samurai ain't got

nothing on this. Eh, well, maybe it does, as

we turn our attention to the 2016 version of

The Magnificent Seven. This time around, we open

on a frontier mining town where a ruthless industrialist

Bartholomew Bogue, and with a name like that,

what else could he be, terrorizes the townspeople

in order to seize control of their land and mining

rights. During a tense church meeting, Bogue

murders several citizens, including Matthew Cullen,

and burns the church to the ground. As a warning.

Matthew's widow, Emma Cullen, refuses to surrender

the town and travels west, looking for men capable

of standing up to Bogue's private army. She eventually

hires a bounty hunter and warrant officer, Sam

Chisholm, who takes a personal interest in the

mission after hearing Bogue's name. Chisholm

begins assembling a team. Of dangerous but highly

skilled fighters, the cocky gambler Josh Faraday,

a traumatized Civil War sniper in Goodnight Roche,

a knife expert in Billy Rocks, an outlaw in Vasquez,

a mountain man Jack Holm, and a Comanche warrior,

Red Harvest. They arrive in the town and quickly

drive out Bogue's hired gunman in a chaotic street

battle that gives the frightened townspeople

hope. for the first time. Knowing Vogue will

return with a much larger force, the group spends

days training the citizens to fight, building

barricades, laying traps, and fortifying the

town. Along the way, The movie spends time showing

the personalities and fears of each gunfighter.

Roche struggles with severe trauma from the Civil

War and loses confidence in his shooting ability,

while Faraday hides his growing attachment to

the town behind humor and arrogance. Chisholm

gradually emerges as a moral center of the group,

though hints suggest that he is a deep personal

vendetta. against bogue bogue eventually rides

back into town with a heavily armed army leading

an enormous final battle that dominates the last

section of the film explosive sniper fire gatling

guns and street to street combat turn rose creek

into a war zone one by one members of the seven

sacrificed themselves protecting the townspeople

eventually bogue flees into the ruined church

where chisholm confronts him alone It is revealed

that Bogue previously destroyed Chisholm's family

and nearly lynched him years earlier, making

the mission deeply personal. Chisholm overpowers

Bogue, but before Bogue can draw a hidden gun,

Emma shoots and kills him herself, finally avenging

her husband and reclaiming the town. In the aftermath,

the surviving townspeople bury the fallen gunfighters

as heroes, while a few surviving members of the

Seven ride away. as legends denzel's character

appears to have some historical inspiration specifically

bass reeves the first black deputy u .s marshal

west of the mississippi known for his tracking

skills and bringing thousands of outlaws to justice

This is quite the complicated production history

and spent years in development, but it started

to come together when director Antoine Fuqua

came on board and brought Denzel with him, who

of course he worked with on Training Day. Denzel

agreed to do this as long as they were going

to do a gritty, real -life western that was more

old -school, and that was certainly seen in production,

where they built an enormous set in Louisiana

rather than relying heavily on digital sets.

The climactic battle caused massive destruction

to that set. Many of the buildings were literally

blown up during filming. They purposely used

a lot of practical effects, dust, smoke, real

squibs, to give it that old school feel. The

Gatling gun sequence near the end involved extensive

prosthetics and careful stunt coordination, making

it one of the most technical difficult parts

of the movie. The cast also went through extensive

weapons and horseback training, so they can do

some of their stunts as well. It paid off for

the most part. Critically, the film received

mixed but positive reviews. It has a 64 % on

Rotten Tomatoes currently, and the positive focused

mostly on the action as well as the quality and

chemistry of the performances, while the negatives

focused on the lack of depth of the story. It

was somewhat successful on the box office as

well. It made $162 million worldwide. It did

open at number one in North America its opening

weekend, making $34 .7 million, which is... pretty

hefty for a Western of this time period and did

far better than other flops like the Lone Wanger.

But where do Kevin and I stand? Do we prefer

the original or extra crispy? Back to us to discuss.

All right. So the 2016 version of the Magnificent

Seven, obviously, like I said, it's almost 60

years after that 1960 version. So we're going

to. Obviously have complete new cast, complete

new makeups of the characters and things of that

nature. Some differences in our settings and

our motivations and things of that nature. So

we're definitely going to get a different feel

here. Before you give your thoughts, Dan, to

me, another reason why this set of films reminds

me of 310 to Yuma is I feel like... both of them

had a modern version that was a little bit more

interested in sitting with the characters taking

its time not necessarily being slow but but having

a concerted pace as far as like how we're going

to do things and both 310 to human magnificence

7 with the modern version go a little hollywood

on us as far as that goes so what was your take

on the the modern version starring mr denzel

washington Yeah, so it's actually almost where

I was going to go with it, because I do think

a lot of it is very similar in how this is executed.

I think of all the remakes we've done so far,

these two have the biggest differences in both

storyline, like the plot, they change a lot,

and also just the style and execution of it is

very different. And, you know, Antoine Fuqua

as a director, you know, is one that I'm very

hit or miss with. Like, I do really like Training

Day, but he's also done a lot of stuff that I

am not the biggest fan of that doesn't really

click with me. And he's even done like the Equalizer

films, which I have liked. I think those are

good for what they are. And like certainly the

partnership with him and Denzel has gone really

well. And this cast is pretty incredible. You

know, Denzel Washington being the lead. Chris

Pratt, which I know a lot of people hate Chris

Pratt for different reasons. I still like the

guy. I'm in Parks and Rec for life, so I still

see Andy. Ethan Hawke, who I'm a huge fan of.

Vincent D 'Onofrio, who just shows up randomly

in a lot of different places. But overall, really

saw it. Even people who have come back and become

bigger stars, it was interesting seeing Luke

Grimes being the sheepish young Luke Grimes.

yeah it's being like the sheepish like uh person

from the town like oh he doesn't know what he's

doing because i'm just i have seen yellowstone

and enjoy it and so it's like he's the opposite

he's like kind of the exact opposite of this

character so kind of intriguing there it's almost

like a yellowstone prequel but i do and similar

to 310 to yuma it does take a lot of out the

window a bit and i think it one thing i didn't

mention with the original is like i do think

you get a good sense of why those individuals

are magnificent you understand who they are their

motivations it goes out of its way and to show

that they are generally good people uh making

in like because they they make a point of like

how much they're going to get paid and how little

that is compared to what they're used to but

there is they see the the benefit of the responsibility

of this opportunity and what what it actually

means with this i never feel like i get a sense

of why anyone's doing much of anything outside

of chisholm who we learn more about by the end

and i do think too ultimately, or the original

wasn't. And I'm not against changing things.

I think it makes sense. But I think a lot of

the changes make it less interesting. And the

cast here, they feel, to make a wrestling comparison,

why not? It just popped into my head. It was

like, you know, when you get the original NWO,

all come together and make sense and then you

try to repeat that magic with a lot of like try

it again with the new black and white or when

they try to do it like in wwe with like poker

t was part of it i'm going way too in depth with

that comparison but it's just trying to build

that same idea but with individuals that people

know so and recognize but the characters behind

it aren't necessarily as there or at least they're

not as connected so i still had a lot of general

fun with it though i do think the action is well

done i especially that that final sequence it's

nice seeing like old school like practical effects

being used in this era and even if the performances

aren't as or I should say the characters aren't

as dynamic I do think these actors are having

fun with it and doing the best they can with

the material that they're given so generally

I enjoyed it but I'm far more mixed on this probably

out of maybe like the only movie I was less I

had a lower feeling on was Django at this point

so it's you know I would still it's fine it's

enjoyable I just think pairing it to the original

it doesn't have the same type of execution but

how about yourself I know you saw this before

you said it was your fourth time so you had it

was it even better I don't know and again perhaps

on rewatches I'll enjoy it more but I'm curious

now that you've seen the original where does

your opinion stand I think one of the things

that had it one of the reasons why I was attracted

to this film originally and why It was one that

I watched a little bit more often than most.

I'm not a big movie rewatcher. Really, the only

reason I would rewatch a film is to watch it

with somebody who hasn't seen it. Typically,

most of the time, I'm not going to rewatch a

film just for my own purposes. I'm going to watch

it with somebody because I want to show it to

them. I want to see their reactions. I find some

joy in that or whatever to kind of... expose

them to new things or just kind of see how they

like things and if it's the same or not but i'm

not like someone who's just going to go back

and watch things on my own so i think some of

those rewatches maybe were with other folks but

one thing that it has going for it that that

is the type of movie that i would re -watch in

some respects is i do enjoy not only the assembly

of the team even though i think it was done better

in the original But I do enjoy these team concepts

like you talked about where it's like we're creating

our own Avengers team or we're creating our own

wrestling faction or whatever comparison you

want to make. So that works for me in most of

these situations. I do really, and this is probably

coming back from just my love of MacGyver and

watching that TV series so much as a child, but

I do enjoy, like a big part of MacGyver is he

gets out of things without weapons, right? So

he is very big on, on booby traps and different

ways that he can use his environment and things

to like increase his odds against sometimes what

seems like an insurmountable situation or foe

or whatever the case may be so i do like the

aspect of this one that they are coming up with

like all the different booby traps right they're

coming up with all the different ways that they're

going to try to shrink down the number deficit

and they're not going to resort to jango style

we're just going to pull out like a machine gun

out of a paper bag and just surprise everybody

with it and just you know like it doesn't work

like it works a little bit better when i know

they've had some time and i know they've like

thought some of this stuff out and they've they've

set some of this stuff up now i get like when

you do that sometimes you risk the the critique

of you know would all of those things have worked

just like they do obviously there's some movie

magic and the fact that you know they come across

all the things and they work the way they do

and this that and the other but um so so those

types of things i find enjoyable and i do think

it's shot well enough and the action is decent

enough and the actors are good enough that it

has some fun in rewatch ability or like kind

of just like going along for the ride now watching

it in conjunction with the other films that we've

watched and you know even coming specifically

off of this 1961 there are definitely it's different

when you're comparing it to other things right

like if you're just watching it in a vacuum for

what it is and you're just having fun with it

I think you can maybe come away with a different

take but having watched it right after the 1961

now I'm in this like mode of thinking about the

two in conjunction with each other and it does

come down quite a few pegs when you do that So

I think number one, I feel like the setting of

the poor Mexican farming village and kind of

that community and how they interact with the

Magnificent Seven works a lot better than this

mining town and how they interact with the Magnificent

Seven. So I liked that kind of the setting. I

liked just the general bandits led by Eli Wallach's

character versus like this. what everybody seems

to do in this time period which is you know just

the greedy ruthless industrialist or like capitalist

or whatever like to me that becomes the the man

with the twirling mustache right like it's it's

just not as yes that exists i'm not saying court

you know the corporate world and and some of

the capitalism and doesn't doesn't present some

of you know some super greedy people that you

know could even become president and things of

that nature but um but you but you have Unless

it's done really well, sometimes that can just

lose its character because it becomes the stereotype

instead of the character, I guess. So that doesn't

work as well for me. In the first one, you have

this idea of growing fond of the community and

interacting and interlacing with them. This never

came across as more than, to me at least, than

truly hired hands or mercenaries. like yeah it's

a revenge story and it's hired hands and i don't

know how much i mean i know you get some interaction

with luke grimes character and and uh emma um

what's what's her name's i'm gonna say the wrong

name um emma cullen in this film like you get

some of that obviously but i don't feel like

there was quite as earned as as far as the connection

to the community and and like you know the first

one i mentioned you're really killing out of

necessity right like you're doing it because

you don't feel like you have any other odds you're

not getting enjoyment out of it but you're doing

what needs to be done in this given the situation

this one they're comparing kill count like it's

killing for sport at this point and in this one

and i guess some of those moments are funny and

played for laughs and adds to like the camaraderie

between the seven but it shades the action a

little bit for me in comparison So I think I

still get some guilty pleasure out of it. I could

watch Vincent D 'Onofrio. I could watch a whole

movie based on his character in this film. Some

people may think it's over the top and whatever.

I'm here for it. Sign me up. I will watch that.

The way he does his inflections in his voice

and just his whole characterization of that.

give me more of that like i love that i love

d 'onofrio and and this is one of my favorite

roles of his so like i you get some of that right

like you get to watch denzel you get to see some

of chris pratt's you know comedic stuff you get

to see even hawk bring a little drama to it you

get vincent d 'onofrio just being batshit crazy

um i don't know really what do you get that much

out of young hung lee and manuel garcia rufo

and martin sensmeyer you know the the the three

people they brought in i guess to be diverse

in this um and to be a little bit more modern

i don't know a little bit here and there but

i don't know if the ensemble works as well like

they work individually but i don't know if they

work as well as a group as what we got in the

original one so i find it interesting you know

watching this indirect comparison would make

me come way down on this one compared to if i'm

just if i just watched like the modern 310 to

yuma and this and like a couple other modern

westerns and that was my only background of like

talking about the films i don't think it falls

down as much but it does for sure after watching

the 1961 for me yeah and it's interesting because

like you know you mentioned brung hun lee who

like i think he also was brought in for like

international audiences for sure because he's

you know a pretty big star internationally And

still kind of is he was in the kpop team in hunters

last year, you know in a few other films I saw

the devil a movie I'm a big fan of but like I

think I did like the inner you say like I can

watch a whole movie with the novice character,

which is the same I could even watch a movie

with Ethan Hawke and Brungle these character

because I feel like there's you think in a sense

there's history there and Like I mentioned like

I do think the actors are bringing a lot to the

characters even if the script doesn't like even

you know you see hawk going through what's clearly

like ptsd even chris pratt i thought brought

a lot of humor uh i think i do like his character

i had a hard time figuring out like what was

driving him like what he obviously was there

because he wanted to get his horse in a way so

i don't know but that ultimately like you know

the little magic element of his character give

Yeah, and they all had a little bit different

attribute or gimmick along with who they were

to let them stand out a little bit. And I do

think seeing them come together was a fun experience.

Vincent D 'Onofrio certainly comes on screen

and makes his presence known immediately. But

again, I don't know. You mentioned how they're

just basically mercenaries, which is... I don't

know why he's deciding to do all this, like why

he's risking his life going as far as he is.

So that's, you know, it does feel like almost

like a script that was meant to be something

else. They're like, oh, you know what? This isn't

going to work. We can rework this enough and

make it a Magnificent Seven remake and get it

made. And I don't know if that was what happened

or not, but it feels like that. It feels something

that feels tacked on. But at least, like I said,

the performance is there. And one thing I will

say, Give credit to for Antoine Poucault. Like

even when he is good when it comes, like I do

like the way he puts action together in films.

Like I mentioned, like the Equalizer films. I

think he did the Olympus Has Fallen movies. And

there's a whole bunch of those films I don't

like. But I do feel like he does bring that old

school action that has a sense of physicality

to it. The use of practical effects. I do feel

like I'm looking at real things happening. And

even though this is 10 years old at that time,

it's still, it's refreshing. So I do want to

give it credit for that. And I think it shot

legitimately well. I was a little surprised by

the fact that, you know, this is the guy that

helped get Denzel his second Oscar with Training

Day. Denzel legitimately in Icon. How did you,

what was your overall thought of his performance?

I'm curious because in the way, and what he did

in this film. i feel like i'm a hard person to

judge denzel like he is so far up the list of

like my favorite actors of all time that i i

don't know if i can watch one of his roles like

unbiased like without bias like i i just feel

like he's always his style of line delivery just

has me like it doesn't matter he could be like

literally it's one of those you know obviously

people say this all the time but it's like one

of those or he could be like reading the phone

book and somehow i would be like all on the edge

of my seat like what's he gonna say next Probably

just the next name that comes in the alphabet,

but I would be there for it. So I did find myself

not being as head over heels about it this time

as I had been in previous watches. I don't know

what caused that exactly. I still was a fan.

But there was some parts of me where I was like,

I remember liking his character more than I am

as I'm watching it this time. And I couldn't

quite put my finger on it exactly. Maybe I was

just distracted by trying to watch other things

and kind of comparing and contrasting what I

had just seen. Or his killer sideburns. That

too. That too. For sure. And I don't know. He

gets some cool lines and he gets some cool moments

and things like that. But I kind of go back to

what you were talking about with... why some

of the folks are doing it and why some of the

actions happen and i feel like too often in this

film the answer is probably because we needed

to get to from here to from a to b like yeah

we why did that person do that well because we

had to move to this next sequence or we had to

get to here like versus like an actual character

motivation which i think is where this film kind

of suffers the most i think you're right though

from like a a shot perspective and like the visuals

and all of that stuff and the action choreography

and things of that nature and the practical effects.

I think that's all where it's, where it's strong.

What did you feel about Denzel? I would never

say like, I don't think he's ever given a bad

performance. It's like, you know, like, you know,

it's like a bat. It's like Michael Jordan, like

a bad night for him is scoring 20 points and

10 rebounds. But I guess I was hoping to get

that like standout scene. Maybe it's because

I'm thinking a training day and like he has so

many great standout moments in that and But I

also wonder if that was purposeful because he's

like, you know, there's a lot of people in this

movie I want to give them the opportunity to

shine too I could see that and he was playing

more the facilitator in some ways and so that

could also be it like It's not he's magnetic

when he's on screen, of course, and he does a

lot of really solid action But yeah, that was

just the thing. I was looking for that scene.

Is there a scene from this movie that would be

on his sizzle reel that you would show? Probably

not. I think the closest you get is in the beginning,

which is something that you're looking for more

throughout. But I think when he comes out of

the bar, if I'm remembering right, he comes out

of the bar, the first scene with the note in

his pocket or whatever. I think that's probably

the height of his... stuff in this film which

is weird because you know you usually don't get

it like right out of the gate so but i do think

like as far as the sizzle reel i don't know if

you get you might show a visual of him being

in the group of seven walking towards the camera

but i don't know if you're you're pinpointing

a line or a scene for a sizzle reel it certainly

looks great stylish and also too like we mentioned

with the original you had that great chemistry

even if it was manufactured between brenner and

Queen, and clearly they were trying to go for

something similar here with Denzel and Chris

Pratt, but it was never there. They never felt

like they had any like that bond or anything

like that. You didn't buy the history like you

did with Yul Brynner. You bought that Yul Brynner

had history with multiple characters or multiple

individuals that he was bringing along for this

trip. Here you get that slightly with Ethan Hawke,

but other than that, like i don't know if i ever

bought like the the big history between denzel

and any of them like it was more like i heard

of this guy like let's go get him which yeah

that that that's the sense i got too like i do

think you mentioned like ethan off certainly

one where you get a bit of that and he probably

has the biggest arc here i did feel like they

like they would his return though i was i was

hoping like his return would have to something

more, but, you know. I guess it doesn't in the

original one either, though, if you're kind of...

No, it doesn't. So it's true. If anything, he

fares much better. But you mentioned Peter Sarsgaard,

who's an actor I generally like, but you're right,

he's going full ham. There's no subtlety in anything

he does. And I get it. You have to make him seem...

insane because why else would he come to this

town in the first place and yeah it just loses

the believability that I got with Eli Wallach's

character though like Eli Wallach's came across

way more authentic to me like yeah I don't know

it becomes almost like honestly this has more

in common with the Avengers than it does those

type of films than it does like the magnificent

seven and the way like it forms the team it like

the the the villain and executed and but uh the

other thing too was like the the mining piece

and like how that was incorporated that seemed

like strange like the i don't know there was

it's just like almost from like from go like

from peter sarsgaard first appearance where he's

just like shooting down people and whatever burning

the church or whatever i don't know if that all

happens at the beginning i'm probably getting

confused but i just felt like no that doesn't

yeah from go it's just like all of a sudden we're

just like we don't even know the guy yet and

we're already just like elevating him to like

evil beyond evil where i felt like with eli wallace

character like it was more subtly like slow not

slowly necessarily but like it was like brought

in and waves and like we're kind of understanding

why he has these people intimidated more from

a mental standpoint versus like this we're intimidated

by this guy because he's actually batshit insane

and burning churches and just like shooting people

left and right like i don't know like it just

didn't work for me as much one of the you know

biggest changes with this we brought it up with

last one where we had the mexican mexican village

and perhaps there was concern with you know avoiding

the white savior story so that's okay let's change

it makes sense But we get kind of two different

places here. We have the mining location and

then this town. What did you think of that change

and how it impacted the film overall and just

how it was handled? That's one of the things,

like I said, just from jump, I didn't like as

much. I liked the authenticity of the farming

village. I think it made it more believable that

the folks didn't know how to shoot guns and didn't

know how to protect themselves. It's easier to

buy farmers that can't protect themselves than

miners. Maybe that's a silly distinction, but

I don't know. Miners are used to dealing with

explosives and things of that nature. I know

it's not a one -to -one comparison, but I don't

know. I just didn't quite enjoy it as much. I

know there's the white savior part, but there

was something about this being complete outsiders.

and how they learn to interact and appreciate

the mexican farming village and when it's this

other group of just like diverse folks that we

don't really get a background and then they're

helping this mining town like there was something

missing by changing that dichotomy it's helped

a little bit i guess by emma cullen's character

in a way because i guess it does give us like

this strong female agent like that's her own

agent or whatever you want to however you want

to phrase that and like I guess that adds, like,

some element to this one that you're not getting

in the 1961. But overall, I just felt like the

setting of the first one did the movie more favors

than the setting in the second one. Yeah, I think

part of it, too, is, you know, with the farming

village, you understood, like, why those individuals

have, like, they've been there for generations.

You can't just leave. You know, you're a farmer.

Like, it's not easy just to go someplace and

start a farm. With a town like this, it's hard

to understand why anyone would not just go. What

does this town have? It's probably not that old.

What role or professions do these individuals

have? Some of them were, I guess, farmers, but

not all of them. If they're hunters, they should

at least be a little bit more capable. I think

the justification of why they would be as inept

in the element of being able to defend themselves

as well as why they are so beholden to this area

it doesn't hold as much water compared to the

original because the the if anything like i was

gonna say because the first one the magnificent

seven still come across as believable people

that aren't necessarily glorified or set up on

this pedestal compared to the others it's just

that they have a different background right like

they're more familiar with guns they're a little

bit better shot like they're a little bit more

experienced with gunslinging and that type of

thing but they're not like these avengers right

like they're not the superheroes and in this

one it's it's played differently where it's almost

like we are glorifying each one of these guys

as like bigger than life in different aspects

right like the one guy can you know like byung

-hun lee's character with his knives and you

know vincent d 'onofrio i guess with those you

know like they each have their different thing

that's like they're less coming across as just

normal people that are just using their life

skills to help these individuals out as avengers

that are coming in to like so i felt like that

made it a completely different dynamic in a way

as far as like how that interaction goes Certainly.

I think that's a good point. And you bring up

a good point regarding Hilly's Bennett character

and what she does bring in. She does bring a

different dynamic, but I think in a way, you

have these two competing revenge stories, and

I don't know if you needed that revenge element

of Denzel's character. I get it. It seems like

a shortcut of... before you keep going with that

how do you feel of the tactic that directors

do sometimes where they don't bring the motivation

for the character in until the final scene or

the final line or the final shot like do you

feel like at times that does a disservice to

the performance throughout if we're not able

to like understand that earlier on compared to

like just at the end being like oh yeah and this

was his motivation the whole time I think it's

tricky because I think it's difficult when it's

the main character, when it's in here. But I'll

be thinking back to the previous Western retrospective.

We had Charles Bronson's character in Once Upon

a Time in the West. We knew something was driving

him, but we didn't know the complete history.

And I thought that was very effective. So it's

like, why did it work really well there and not

here? I think we at least got glimpses of it

in that other one. Like, we knew something was

driving him. This one, I don't think there's

enough breadcrumbs. You know he knows his name.

You know he has history with him. You know he...

Clearly there's something there, because he knows

him very well. But I think when the twist comes

across as a sixth sense twist, it doesn't work

as well for the motivation in this setting compared

to something where it's like, you don't have

to telegraph it, but I feel like you've got to

give us a little bit more than what they did.

Because otherwise, it's just like at the end,

you're like, oh, well, let me completely rethink

how I was viewing that character. But I've already

gone through the experience, so I don't know.

And it's also because it's not like he set out

originally to do this, right? He was brought

into it. So the logic of this movie is that he

has this history with this individual who also

is controlling this town who then he ends up

meeting with someone from that town. Very coincidental.

Trying to get him. Yeah, so there's... I mean,

coincidences happen in movies all the time, but

I guess it's... It's almost like this revenge

meant so much to you that you really just bothered

to get to it now just because this thing happened

to happen. So the fact that it wasn't driving

his decision -making from the beginning, it just

became like, oh, well, I guess I can kill two

birds with one stone. And then when it's revealed,

I don't think it's revealed in a way that's all

that memorable. really great things about Once

Upon a Time in the West. It is revealed so effectively.

Here, not as much. And also, because I don't

think necessarily, like I said, you need it.

It makes them, if anything, it makes them feel

less magnificent because it's a decision based

purely on revenge. Well, it takes the noble aspect

out of it to me. Yeah, so it hurts them in a

way, which I will say I did like the fact that

in the end, It wasn't him getting that revenge.

It did circumvent those expectations. So I did

like that piece. I did like the fact that it

gave it to... Emma Cullen's character. Emma Cullen's

character rather than him. So that was a good

choice in my opinion. But yeah, I just don't...

I think that's the fundamental problem with it

ultimately. With The Magnificent Seven is that

it doesn't do enough to show why these individuals

are magnificent. at the end of the day. How did

you feel about the different booby traps and

the different things? I know it works for me,

but I'm a sucker for that. I'm the same way.

Those things are great. The hidden compartments

or the secret plan. Thinking of something similar.

The Last Samurai. We know we have to come up.

We have to be creative. What the secret is. You

get a little bit of the windmills. And the dynamite.

It gives you just enough hints. Of something

is planned. And it all comes together. I'm the

same thing. You get a little of that in the original

Star Wars. With the Ewoks. I was a fan. None

of them were so outrageous. That it didn't. didn't

buy it because like you know just trenches and

explosions so it wasn't like it like this elaborate

mousetrap they had to hit in order for it to

work so i thought it was it was believable enough

and i bought it like i like i said like that

that sequence like had that makes it worth watching

it's just you know i did miss that in the original

one having seen the modern one more i was looking

for that for some sort of sequence where they

had all the like the little secret things and

yeah we never quite get that in the original

one where i was like oh they have a wall and

a net that's that's about as far as they go so

they try to teach them how to shoot that's about

it yeah all right well anything else you have

for this one or do we want to bring this section

of the of the uh Western retrospective to a close.

Yeah, I think we've talked about as much as we

can about Magnificent Seven. I was a little bummed

that I didn't like it quite as much as the modern

one as I had in my mind previously, but like

I said, it was a lot like 310 to Yuma for me,

where once you watch it with the original one,

you do get to see the Hollywoodization of some

of this stuff, I guess. I guess next time we'll

have to... Yeah, watch Seven Samurai, and then

the original Magnificent Seven, and then you

won't like that one. The goal of the show is

to make you less like the movie. Diminishing

return for each movie. But no, I've enjoyed watching

all of these, you know, the original with the

modern one. I think that's something I've kind

of wanted to do for a long time, so we got to

knock three of them out. So I do appreciate that.

Dan, why don't you give the listeners a tidbit

of what's to come here next in our Western retrospective

as we kind of turn a new chapter. Yeah, Western

retrospective is so much harder. Why did we name

it that? I don't know. But yeah, so our next

block are going to be our Overlook Western. So

we did a lot of the most iconic Westerns of all

time. Still some we haven't got to, but we also

wanted to say like, okay, let's get to some that

maybe aren't always on the top of everyone's

list or the most popular. So that will be our

next section, our next three films. Hoping I

pronounced this right. McCabe and Mrs. Miller

by Robert Altman will be our next film that we'll

go over next week. So that will be our first

Overlook Western. And then we have Johnny Guitar.

And then The Naked Spur would be rounding out

this portion of our... Western retrospective

of these three. And then we'll be finishing off

with our revisionist Westerns at the end, which

we'll go into later. But I'm really excited for

these next three because I have seen none of

these. So I definitely overlooked them. But how

about yourself? Any experience with any of these

or specifically McCabe and Mrs. Miller? I think

this will be the first time. Has there been a

film where it was a blind spot for both of us?

i'm trying to remember uh i think some of those

you know the original ones good and the bad and

the ugly yeah okay so yeah all three of these

will be first time watches for me like not only

have i not seen these i don't know anything about

them and i think maybe at least one or two of

them i had not even heard of before so i i don't

think yeah i'm similar to you with that uh i'd

heard of mccabe and mrs miller i i don't think

i'd heard of the naked spur before this Me either.

Hopefully there's no naked Spurs at the game

that I watch tomorrow. Or maybe there is. That

means they won and they're celebrating. We'll

start that next week as we get into our second

to last section before we get into the final

piece. If you've missed any of our previous episodes,

you can always go back and watch as we did cover

some John Ford and John Wayne. collaborations

we covered some spaghetti westerns so feel free

to go back and listen to those and give us your

feedback on what you thought on those films if

you want to get in touch with either one of us

you can search out dan on social media at the

comic concierge you can search myself out at

optimus solo or you can search out the show cinema

geek or the cinema geek cast as well as check

out our hosting website the geek cast radio network

.com but that does it for this episode tune in

next time for another chance to listen to more

of the cinematic