Guns of the Magnificent Seven (1969) User Reviews

Why Do I Own The DVD?

[ashew · 6/10 · 21 December 2005]

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

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

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

Not Bad, For a Sequel.

[JohnWelles · 6/10 · 2 December 2009]

After the let-down that was Return of the Seven, it's good to know that the Magnificent Seven are in safe hands again. Dropping Yul Brynner and bringing on Georege Kennedy to pay Chris was a risky move, but it pays off. He may not look anything like the Chris from the previous two films, but Kennedy brings confidence and gravity to the role that strangely deserted the ill-at-ease Lee Van Cleef when he played him the for the final sequels, The Magnificent Seven Ride. There is a Zapata-like plot with Chris freeing a Mexican revolutionary, but to be honest, that's about it for Spaghetti Western influences. A Euro-Western it might be labelled, but it's closer to John Wayne than Clint Eastwood. So, don't expect a bloody, gritty Spaghetti with priests ears being cut off and forced to eat it, but an enjoyable Sunday afternoon western that, while it isn't as good as the original and not a violent, savage and sickening death of beating in sight, as you get in the really good Spaghetti Westerns, it can be liked and remembered with fondness.

The third in the original series of four "Magnificent Seven" movies and shot in marvelous Spanish outdoors

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 16 October 2015]

¨Guns of the magnificent seven¨ (Paul Wendkos,1969) with George Kennedy is a thrilling and truly thunderous sequel next to original and considered to be one of the best . Acceptable following co-produced by US/Spain and filmed in Almeria , Andalucía and Hoyo de Manzanares's Western-film town , Madrid , where were shot lots of Paella/Spaghetti Westerns in the 60s and 70s . This is the third in the original series of four "Magnificent Seven" movies , as The magnificent Seven are back and they don't aim to please . This sequel to ¨Magnificent seven¨ is well played George Kennedy as tough gunslinger named Chris who along a misfit group of gunslingers , all of them set off in rescue a Mexican revolutionary . As one day soldiers of the dictator Porfirio Diaz capture a rebel leader called Quintero (Fernando Rey) . His deputy (Reni Santoni) offers a reward to free Quintero and he sets out to look for Chris , the leader of The Seven for help . Chris is decided to take a squad and strike a blow against the Mexican army and free the captured leader of the revolutionaries . To carry out this assignment Chris has to join a misfit bunch of gunfighters . As Chris and his buddies (James Whitmore , Monte Markham , Bernie Casey , Scott Thomas , Joe Don Baker) , each of whom comes for a different reason , must free a Mexican revolutionary imprisoned by nasty Col. Diego (Michael Ansara) . All of them riding to the rescue of yet another bunch of downtrodden evil people and , at the same time , they get a chance to redeem themselves . Later on , the team develops a plan to secure an enemy attack and to pull off their mission against a fort strongly defended .

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 was 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 . Despite bearing no resemblance to Yul Brynner, including a full head of hair , George Kennedy and subsequently Lee Van Cleef took over the role of Chris Adams , played by Brynner in the first two films . Even Chris Adams' trademark dark clothing is gone , what remains is the steel resolve and affinity for cigars . Here George Kennedy as Chris is pretty well , giving a forceful interpretation . Besides , Monte Markham as well as James Withmore are unexpectedly lithe and other gunslingers are quite well defined . The remaining cast is a great help and they hold the picture together when it looks disintegrate after a promising start as did other follow-ups in the series . Wonderful ensemble cast playing unforgettable , moving roles with nice performers such as Monte Markham , Joe Don Baker , Frank Silvera , Reni Santoni and feature film debut of Bernie Casie . Being a Spanish/US co-production , there appears several actors usual in Spaghetti-Paella Western such as the Spanish Sancho Gracia , Jorge Rigaud and Fernando Rey playing his ordinary role as a good man . Rey is the only actor besides Yul Brynner to appear in two Magnificent Seven films , as he also played a priest in Return of the magnificent seven (1966) . 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 fun and entertaining , although nothing new but displays a slight style . Despite the familiar framework of the screenplay , the interesting dialog is studded with memorably quotable lines and the flick arranges to raise some fresh entertainment from the vintage tale of the septet of Pistoleros . The movie contains some moment of violence and even touching on the relationships between the Mexican villagers and the Magnificent . Colorful as well as sharp cinematography in Panavision and Color DeLuxe by Antonio Macasoli , being filmed on location in Colmenar Viejo , and , of course , Almeria , Spain . As always , breathtaking and memorable musical score by Elmer Bernstein ; 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' . The classic and stirring soundtrack helps highlight the action in the exciting climax . The motion picture was professionally directed by Paul Wendkos , whose works remain undervalued in USA .

This is a decent though inferior sequel to 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 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 . Although this film revisits the village from the first movie, it was shot in Spain , not Mexico and for once doesn't disgrace the original . 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 .

Under-rated, indeed

[Bilwick1 · 10 January 2006]

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

Best of the "Seven" sequels

[scottandrews · 6/10 · 4 September 2003]

Guns of the Magnificent Seven is by far the best of the sequels to the classic original. The cast is definitely the second best in terms of "up and coming" actors at that time, and viewers will probably recognize most of them. The plot of this one has Chris (George Kennedy) and a new gang being hired to free a Mexican revolutionary from a prison known as "The Rat Hole". Of course, the prison is run by a highly ruthless colonel, who frowns on dissidents, and tortures and kills for pleasure.

The gang here is an eclectic bunch, each with their own specialty. Although considering more than half the gang gets wiped out in every film, it's beyond me why anyone would still be crazy or desperate enough to join! I guess news doesn't travel over the border much. It's a shame that Yul Brynner didn't do this one (no insult to Kennedy), as it seems more dimension has been added to this character than we've seen before. The character of Keno (Monte Markham) is suspiciously similar to Vin from the previous two movies, but the rest of the gang are wholly original for the series: there's a black explosives expert; a one-armed sharp shooter (who happens to be a Civil War veteran - think of the word play between these two!); an old, fatherly-figure knife thrower; and finally a quiet rope expert who seems to have either cancer or tuberculosis.

What the film lacks in originality is made up for by the characters (and the actors who play them), great action, music and cinematography. The climactic action scene is definitely the second best of the series (although a couple of the gang die way too soon), and the movie moves along at a faster pace then the previous entries. Another interesting note on this entry is that there are parallels within the story to what was happening in the real world at the time of it's release. Racial prejudice, talk of revolution, overly harsh and abusive authority figures, etc. I don't believe any of the other entries touched on modern themes so directly. Yet they don't date the film, and are surprisingly still relevant today.

A couple small complaints: when did Chris's "price" go up to $600 a job??? It was only $100 in the first film and I can't imagine inflation rose that high in a few short years! Although each member is seemingly recruited for their individual expertise, there's no evidence showing any of these skills being used, except as an occasional afterthought. Strangest of all is when Chris says something in Spanish at the end, prompting one of the Mexican children to ask `What did he say?'. I don't know if it's just me, but why wouldn't a child of about 10 understand what was said in his own language?

While the overall execution of this film is standard as both a western and entry in this franchise, it still holds up better than the other two sequels, the earlier "Return of the Seven" and later "The Magnificent Seven Ride". Fans of the `Seven' series, or westerns in general, should find enough excitement here to hold their interest. Just don't go looking for a masterpiece, and accept it as one of the few decent sequels churned out by Hollywood.

**1/2 out of ****

The cowards die many deaths... the brave only one

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 18 January 2011]

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

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

Suffers in Comparison to the Original Film

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 1 February 2017]

After a revolutionary by the name of "Quintero" (Fernando Rey) is captured by the Mexican army and his small band is subsequently murdered, a lone survivor named "Max" (Reni Santoni) goes to a bandit leader by the name of "Lobero" (Frank Silvera) for assistance in helping to free him. Although the bandit leader has the men and the weapons, they lack a person with the leadership abilities to complete the mission. Likewise, nobody trusts Lobero to keep his end of the bargain. For that reason, the decision is made to have Max try to persuade "Chris" (George Kennedy) to lead the mission for $600 in gold. Naturally, he also needs some good men he can trust so he recruits a few of them on the way to Mexico. But even then the odds are not in his favor and when Lobero pulls out at the last minute the chances of success decrease even more. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was an okay western which managed to keep my interest for the most part. Of course, it suffers in comparison to the original film, "The Magnificent Seven" but that probably goes without saying . Be that as it may, I have rated it accordingly. Average.

magnificent... props

[luminous_luciano · 7/10 · 19 October 2005]

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

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

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

Mixing In Mexican Politics

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 16 April 2009]

Taking over from Yul Brynner as Chris the organizer of the seven, George Kennedy's services are called upon by yet another Mexican village. But it's not to fight some bandit leader, Guns Of The Magnificent Seven involves the group in Mexican revolutionary politics.

Fernando Rey as an opposition leader is visiting a village to recruit for the revolutionaries when the local army colonel, Michael Ansara, arrests him and several villagers in an effort to learn who is organizing in his area. One of the villagers who's apparently heard about the success of the Seven in a couple of other films rides to look for Kennedy. Reni Santoni and Kennedy recruit a new batch of seven to rescue Rey from Ansara who's a particularly sadistic individual.

The rest of the seven include Monte Markham, Bernie Casey, Joe Don Baker, James Whitmore, and Scott Thomas. As is usual, some survive the final fight, some do not, I won't say who.

The best part of the film is the assault on the fort where Ansara and his troops are garrisoned. It's a well staged battle sequence.

In a bow to history, both real and cinematic, a young Mexican kid played by Tony Davis adopts one of the seven, James Whitmore, as a substitute father. The young man's name is Emiliano Zapata. Of course if the producers had done their homework, they would have learned that the real Emiliano Zapata did not come from the US border area, but was from the other end of Mexico.

Of course the Elmer Bernstein theme, one of the most famous in film history is here as well, you couldn't do a Magnificent Seven film without it. But when all is said and done Guns Of The Magnificent Seven remains a rather routine western.

Don't Recapture Old Flame

[view_and_review · 6/10 · 25 March 2019]

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

What's the same?

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

What's different?

The enemy. The cast. The run time.

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

Formulaic but adequate sequel with Zapata flavouring

[shakercoola · 5/10 · 21 July 2018]

An American Western; A story about the leader of seven mercenaries who are recruited in an attempt to free a Mexican rebel leader, imprisoned by the government for helping oppressed peasants. It was always going to be difficult to re-cast the role of Chris Adams, Cajun gunslinger, leader of the Seven, a part made so famous and so charismatically in the original film by Yul Brynner. But, the gritty, fatherly, gargantuan George Kennedy has a job to do and he takes us with him to rescue a Mexican patriot who is attempting to assist helpless and downtrodden peasants. The film has more expanse than the first sequel - more drama, a breeziness, and the occasional funny one liner. The ensemble cast and others are quite interesting and are entertainingly high spirited and quirky. A touch of class is provided by Fernando Rey. There are some tonal problems when the majestic Elmer Bernstein score is matched with some scenes. All in all, it is a very formulaic western, but it has some good action sequences and plenty of colour.

Great guns!

[ADAM-53 · 9/10 · 3 June 2000]

`The Guns of the Magnificent Seven' is, after the first film in the series, the best of the four `Seven' films. I'm constantly surprised at the number of critics who feel that this is the most undistinguished of the bunch as it is better cast, better written, better acted and better directed than any of the original `Magnificent Seven's other predecessors.

In my book, it easily rates alongside the first. It has a stronger story than any of the others (including the first) and the `seven' (especially Bernie Casey, Joe Don Baker and an excellent Monte Markham, in Steve McQueen-mode as Keno) have a doomed quality about them only matched by the Robert Vaughan character in the original film.

As the leader of the group, Chris, George Kennedy is excellent. He is both powerful and commanding, and more believable than either Yul Brynner or Lee Van Cleef were in the role. Sure, he's not as suave and `cool' as Brynner, but his Chris is a lot more interesting. Kennedy is an actor capable of delivering much tension and underplayed anger, and in this role he serves up plenty of each. The plot (the seven must rescue a Mexican bandit revolutionary from an evil army commandant) is skilfully executed by director Paul Wendkos. The action sequences are lively and made even more so the excellent (as ever) Elmer Bernstein score, which is played at an even more upbeat tempo than usual.

On the whole, this film would easily be at the top of my list of favourite Westerns, along with the Anthony Mann/James Stewart thriller-westerns of the 50s. It is certainly a cut above the score of cheap Italian/Spanish/US genre films that usually - and somewhat incredibly to my mind - seem to command greater respect in the field than they deserve. This is classier stuff than some critics would have you believe and deserves to be viewed as an enjoyable film in its own right rather than simply as a sequel to a great film. Indeed, in many ways it might have played better as a sequel to Richard Brooks' 1966 film `The Professionals' than as a follow-up to `The Magnificent Seven'.

No Yul, But Still A Good Sequel Nevertheless

[FightingWesterner · 7/10 · 1 June 2010]

Still riding high from his Oscar win for Cool Hand Luke, George Kennedy steps into the role that helped make Yul Brynner a bona fide western star. Thankfully George kept his hair and doesn't attempt an eastern European accent, taking the role of Chris Adams and making it his own.

It's nice to see him at this point in his career, getting to play the hero instead of the amoral guy or the villain.

Although no match for the original seven, a neat cast of familiar character actors, including James Whitmore, Joe Don Baker, Bernie Casey, Reni Santoni, and Fernando Rey are still a whole lot of fun to watch.

Like all the sequels to the original Magnificent Seven, this is basically just a good, solid studio B-western, with a healthy enough budget, picturesque locations, excellent Elmer Bernstein score, and some well-staged action scenes. However, some fans of the Mexican Revolution themed sub-genre of spaghetti westerns might find the storyline a bit familiar.

My favorite part is early on, with Monte Markham's near hanging, George Kennedy's introduction, Markham's trial by horse, and subsequent shootout. It's a really compelling sequence.

Was it restrained acting or boredom . . .

[inspectors71 · 5/10 · 16 May 2016]

I saw from George Kennedy in this pale and inconsequential sequel to The Magnificent Seven? I can't make up my mind on this.

Kennedy had a shallow but pleasant repertoire of gimmicks in his acting. He radiated a pensive, pent-up fury that would boil over when he played a good-guy. His words would tumble out when provoked, and you knew the baddie would be taking a light shower when he got in the antagonist's face.

I think that made him very believable. Unfortunately, it doesn't (he doesn't) seem to fit in this lazy, quiet Seven Samurai Go to Mexico Again outing. When confronted with one atrocity after another, perpetrated by evil Mexican soldiers against virtuous Mexican peasants, you're waiting for that fire to light.

It probably fits the story of the character Chris, but you want some evil-doer to suffer a bit while Kennedy clenches down on his cigar.

Director Paul Wendkos is no John Sturges, but he understands the basics of what made the Seven so appealing, and he keeps the movie moseying along to its inevitable shootemup climax.

Lots of great old character actors here. Monte Markham does a Steve McQueen impression and fails (but we forgive him). Bernie Casey and Joe Don Baker bring along their respective backstories, and they do their The Defiant Ones shtick (more forgiveness). James Whitmore is an old knife-fighter, and I appreciated his yearning to drop all this killing stuff and go home.

Michael Ansara is bad (behavior), Reni Santoni is worse (performance), and I'm sorry, I loved the little part of the worthless bandito leader, Frank Silvera. What a sleezoid!

I kept wondering where I had seen him. It dawned on me--Hombre! "I wud like to know hees nay-ame."

For all its not-even-a-a-blip-on-the-radar-ness, I liked the movie. Kind of like the way I like Mrs. Freshley's Honey Buns from the Dollar Tree.

Totally devoid of anything other than some satisfaction.

This is far from a classic western or as good as the first one but it is worth a viewing

[kevin_robbins · 7/10 · 27 January 2022]

Guns of the Magnificent Seven (1969) is a movie I recently watched for the first time in a long time on Tubi. The storyline follows a small town that is consistently taken advantage of by a band of outlaws. Together they form a group that initially intend to face the outlaws themselves but quickly determine hiring a mercenary to help may be beneficial. The mercenary decides to create a team to go head-to-head with the outlaws.

This movie was directed by Paul Wendkos (The Burglar) and stars George Kennedy (Cool Hand Luke), Joe Don Baker (Congo), Bernie Casey (I'm Gonna Git You Sucka), James Whitmore (The Relic), Monte Markham (We are Still Here) and Frank Silvera (The Appaloosa).

I actually liked this movie more than the actual sequel to the Magnificent 7. The acting is very good as is the dialogue and the depth of the characters. Cassidy was a great character addition. The storyline and circumstances are well set-up and is followed by the recruiting sequences which are always fun. The ending shootout is solid but not outstanding and the ending is worthwhile.

Overall this is far from a classic western or as good as the first one but it is worth a viewing. I would score this a 6.5/10 and recommend watching it once.

The second sequel is the most weird, funny and violent

[Cristi_Ciopron · 6/10 · 27 December 2007]

In a word, this is the Kennedy/Rey sequel. I liked it more than the first sequel (the one with Oates, and where Rey was a priest—in this one he is Quintero, a respected political and revolutionary leader). This one seemed to me the most politicized one. Anyway, the small army is funny and certainly more likable than the one in the previous film—here, we get Chris (played by a fat blonde slouch); PJ (a romantic loner, probably sick with _phthisis); Levi; Keno; Cassie (a Herculean punchy Afro—American); Slater (a fake Buffalo Bill, and a Southerner that will learn to appreciate the values of racial tolerance, etc.); Max (this is the Mexican element).So, it's a pretty multiracial army. A few of them survive at the end. As I've hinted in a paragraph below, Valerii made a similarly themed comedy western, much better crafted. And if you appreciate political history, I see no reason why you shouldn't appreciate fully the presence of Emiliano Zapata as a kid in this G. Kennedy/Rey movie.

The two sequels are both Spaghetti western approaches. The second sequel might look slightly more stupid than the first, one could concede that, but it's certainly more funny and less ugly.

One wouldn't exaggerate if he would state that the best thing in the Kennedy sequel (or, the second sequel) is the machine-gun—a machine-gun, a fortress—this reminded me of a Valerii comedy made with Coburn and B. Spencer.

The decision of replacing Brynner with …Kennedy was sinister. Poor Kennedy must be here the most ridiculous lead in a heroic part in a Spaghetti western. And, as in the Oates film, here as well one gets the impression that the actors disliked each other, or hadn't a very good time together—lack of chemistry, some might call it.

This approach is sometimes funny; otherwise, it's insulting in its naive (let's hope) underestimating of its audience.

There is a certain change of perspective; in the McQueen film, the army was one of elite gunmen; in the first sequel (the Oates/Rey one), the gunmen are convicts, lowlifes, outlaws, anyway—nothing very fine (this was Burt Kennedy's way of amplifying—hundreds of peons and vaqueros, and a few bums as gunmen). The G. Kennedy film marks a return at the elite model—we understand that Levi, PJ, Cassie, Slater are legendary. Max is willing to learn (he is, if one might say so, the new Chico, the Chico of this film …); and Keno is simply weird and spooky.

Kennedy is involuntarily funny and dis-likable throughout the film. But after he does his job, he surely looks as pleased as Punch.

The McQueen film and its two sequels have practically one thing in common: the Elmer Bernstein score, so that the sequels could almost be qualified as Bernstein—exploitation.

Both the sequels have, in essence, the nature of a commando action film.

The incredibly redundant Seven return

[Coventry · 3/10 · 3 April 2011]

I've always been a big fan and personal admirer of George Kennedy. He's a number of great things. He's a severely underrated actor who appeared in a large number of cinematic milestones but hardly ever received any recognition for it. He's a versatile actor who can effortlessly adapt to every possible genre as well as to every possible type of character. He's a hard working and unpretentious actor who starred in massively budgeted blockbusters as well as in cheap B-movies. I also tell you what he's not, though … George Kennedy is NOT Yul Brunner and therefore cannot carry the leading heroic role in a western, especially not when this particular western franchise already outstayed its welcome. In fact, George Kennedy is not a leading actor; period. He's at his best in a major supportive role. Standing in the shadow of the hero but still essential to the plot, like his roles in the "Airport" series.

"Guns of the Magnificent Seven" is a fairly worthless and time-wasting western, and that is definitely not George Kennedy's fault. As said already, the franchise was clearly dried out in the first sequel already and thus far all the follow-ups are redundant and uninvolving rehash of the original John Sturges' classic. Yet again, some poor Mexican schlemiel is seeking the help of Chris Adams because a malignant Colonel is exploiting the defenseless farmers in his community and this time even kidnapped their revolutionary leader. Yet once again Chris Adams seeks out six fellow gunslingers to ride with him, a process that already consumes 40 minutes of the entire film, and comes to the rescue. And, finally, once again the seven supposedly relentless hired gunman develop a deep sympathy for the pathetic Mexican villagers and sacrifice their lives for their well-being. Yawn. This third entry in the series is incredibly boring most of the time, because Chris' plan of action exists mostly of … waiting. I was actually rooting for the drunk Mexican posse leader who continuously referred to the Seven as greedy cowards. None of the (not so) magnificent seven characters is even remotely worth talking about and the big bloody finale, set in an allegedly maximum security prison were all the guards take Sundays off to spend the day in bed with their wives, is overlong and unexciting.

There came one more sequel after this one, namely "The Magnificent Seven Ride!" with no less than Lee "the Bad" Van Cleef reprising the role of Marshal Chris Adams. I am still going to check that film out, mostly because I'm a Van Cleef fan boy. And, quite frankly, because I bought the Magnificent Seven box set, so I already paid for all four movies anyway.

Very familiar and not nearly as good as "The Magnificent Seven".

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 28 March 2013]

I was going to say that "Guns of the Magnificent Seven" isn't as good as the original, but the original would be Kurosawa's "The Seven Samurai". Well, the original American remake of this film, "The Magnificent Seven", is pretty much what you're getting here--but with a much less exciting cast. Otherwise, it's very, very familiar--like a remake of the remake! While George Kennedy, Joe Don Baker, Bernie Casey, James Whitmore and the rest try, you can't help but think that they are a second-rate cast compared to Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, James Coburn and the rest in "The Magnificent Seven". This is especially a problem because Kennedy is supposed to be playing Brynner's character--a man who looks and acts nothing like him!! Kennedy is a fine actor--but not nearly as menacing and intensely cool as Brynner. I tend to think of him as the nice-guy character from "The Dirty Dozen" or the likable lug from "Cool Hand Luke". Heck, they even forgot to dress Kennedy's character up in black! As for the rest, it's pretty much the same--nice actors but that's all. The music, by the way, is exactly the same as in the first film. The only real differences were the bad guys--federal troops instead of just bandits AND the racial element which was included in the 1969 version since race had become a HUGE national issue between the films. Overall, a very entertaining but stale film. It's just not different enough and seems like a remake of "The Magnificent Seven" instead of further adventures of these men. It is, however, marginally better than the previous film "Return of the Magnificent Seven".

"My cousin said seven is a lucky number for you lot."

[lost-in-limbo · 5/10 · 11 December 2010]

A competently crisp, but flat instalment to the series. Those who have seen the previous films, would go in knowing what to expect as the material establishes the same formulaic staples from the moralistic backhand (fighting for a purpose) to the well-oiled action set-pieces (the big climatic showdown). "Guns" is the second sequel which saw George Kennedy (who isn't too bad) taking over Yul Brynner's role and filling those boots was going to be a big task. While it looked good with some striking scenic location photography, inventively sharp camera angles and a sprawling score that thunders away, the hardy action is rather lightweight and uninspired, while the pacing was uneven and the characters have little more than a minor sketching. A strong cast is evident (James Whitmore, Joe Don Baker, Monte Markham and Bernie Casey) but their portrayals don't have much of a mark say like the original feature did. Distinguishable, but forgettable. Casey had some presence and Baker was the only one to sightly stand out as a gunfighter with a limp arm. A modest western foray.

"Very few men have impressed me as you have, Colonel."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 8 February 2014]

It occurred to me while watching that by now, there must be a few decades worth of new movie goers who have never heard the Marlboro theme since cigarette commercials were banned from TV. But you hear it here over the opening credits and repeatedly afterwards as it complements the action on screen. I don't know if the music has an actual real title, but if you were around during the era, you'll know exactly what I mean.

I guess like most viewers, the original Magnificent Seven is the film I like best out of all the permutations. Except for George Kennedy and James Whitmore, the rest of the cast here is a B list of actors that fails to compare with the likes of McQueen, Brynner, Bronson and Coburn. Since the story line is a retread as well, the case for originality goes out the window too.

Still, there were a few novelties, like the Mexican villagers buried up to their necks, which was only the beginning of their torture. The 'cave of the rats' prison sounded intriguing too, but in hindsight they must have been referring to human rats because I don't think I saw any of the furry kind. Probably the best thing going for the picture was the dialog with gems like my summary line and little Emil's "How big do you have to be to die"? But one thing about the story still bothers me, and that's when the Seven ambushed the Mexican soldiers the first time and they wound up surrendering. Why didn't they just ride away?

The series sinks to new low.

[gridoon · 3/10 · 26 October 1999]

The series that began with "The Magnificent Seven" (which was great fun) and continued with "Return of the Seven" (which was nothing more than a poor imitation of the original) sinks to new low with this long, very dull and utterly forgettable third installment. As if McQueen's absence wasn't unfortunate enough, here we have no Brynner, either. George Kennedy has taken his place, but how can we believe that he is the same character when he doesn't look even remotely like Brynner? As for the supporting characters, they fail to stay in the memory.

A truly enjoyable western

[juliahannah13 · 8/10 · 12 October 2006]

The Magnificent Seven films or the original at any rate were something I'd been wanting to watch for years and then Channel 5 ran them all one each weekend. By the time I'd watched the second one I was hooked and bought the box set, other than the original I'd have to say that 'Guns of the Magnificent Seven' is my favourite. The characters develop as the film goes on, one of the best changes is that between Cassie (Bernie Cassie) and Slater (Joe Don Baker) though the first scene where we meet Chris is one of my favourites.

All of the characters are ones that I liked and this film is far superior to the later 'The Magnificent Seven ride' which I thought was a poor last film. The end of the battle scene where you have the jubilation of the Mexican villagers mixed with a shot of each dead member of the seven is a particularly nice final touch. Something I would recommend to every fan of the original to watch.

Only George Kennedy Stands Out

[angelsunchained · 6/10 · 11 November 2019]

Mediocre Western to say the least. Nothing new in regards to a plot except for some sadistic scenes of needless violence. Some really bad acting and overacting, especially from Joe Don Baker. George Kennedy is his usual good self and is the only thing worthwhile about this film. If it's storming or snowing outside, or you are home with the flu, this movie will help kill a few hours. Aside from that, not much to get excited about.

A Solid Dud

[sorbonne · 3/10 · 30 May 2009]

That's right: a solid dud. Lame story, by and large amateurish acting, moving slowly to a predictable end. Kennedy is a nice guy and an alright actor, but in this case he is a total miscast. Our George is not exactly the type of hero who's going to take violent matters in his own hand; a middle-aged husband with a brood, a neat job and a mortgage is more like it. I can think of a few others who would have been more suited for the job: Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, Rod Steiger, Lee van Cleef. Anyway, half-way through I could hardly wait for this thing to finish. This movie is light years removed from the original. The only thing it has in common is the number 7 and the soundtrack. Pfff...yawn.