Taken as a movie by itself, Antoine Fuqua’s The Magnificent Seven is fine. There are things it does very well, and it leans heavily on the casting of Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, and Vincent D’Onofrio, who waddles away with every scene he’s in. Like the original Magnificent Seven in 1960, this film exists in the planet-sized shadow of Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai, and like the original Magnificent Seven, it’s solid, sturdy, movie-star dependent entertainment and nothing more.
I’m fascinated by just how many times this story has been bent or twisted or overtly remade. I am particularly fond of the variation in which the group who is approached to defend the village from the bad guy turns out to be frauds. Three Amigos! and Galaxy Quest are both terrific examples of that version of the story. Maybe my favorite straight-up retelling of the original film is Takashi Miike’s 13 Assassins, and like every good remake or riff on the original, the thing they get right is creating a good enough bad guy and a big enough challenge to make the eventual showdown feel like a real payoff.
There was a moment where Zack Snyder was trying to get Lucasfilm to commit to a standalone Star Wars film that would have been a straight-up retelling of Seven Samurai, but there’s already a pretty great Seven Samurai/Star Wars mash-up in the first season of Clone Wars, an episode called "Bounty Hunters.” Instead, Snyder’s doing his Seven Samurai riff with Justice League, and I think his love of the basic bones of the thing may make all the difference.
The truth is, I just don’t like Fuqua that much as a filmmaker. I think this might be his most purely entertaining movie. The script, credited to Nic Pizolatto and Richard Wenk, doesn’t really land the big punches. Peter Sarsgaard minces and slithers as the bad guy, but a good example of the ways the film fumbles would be an early scene in a church. Sarsgaard gets up in front of everyone and brings up a kid and makes an elaborate point with a jar of dirt and it makes no sense and doesn’t come across as particularly menacing. At least, not until he burns down a church and starts shooting people. Enough of the film works that I would recommend it, and you will get exactly what the previews are selling. But it’s not really a Western in that it doesn’t have anything to say about the West, either as history or as metaphor. It is more concerned with other Westerns than any authentic vision of the American West, and casting Denzel in the lead means the first scene plays closer to Blazing Saddles than Django Unchained. Denzel’s tongue is firmly in cheek as the film starts, and then gradually eases back into place as the film gets more and more serious.
I’m guessing it opens big, and people will enjoy it generally, and I’ll even give them a little extra credit for not worrying about the franchise and telling a story that ends pretty conclusively with this film. But it’s product. It’s slick, it’s fun, and it’s product. This is pretty much MGM’s only move at this point, cranking out remakes of recognizable titles they own, and it seems fitting that they’re remaking slick studio product as slick studio product. Just don’t ask for anything more.