03 October 2016
SEVEN DOWN
The basic plot of Seven Samurai has been re-worked so many times in so many wildly different contexts that it's frivolous to complain about one specific remake. Of course, nobody had to make The Magnificent Seven in 2016, and it's no shock that it's not remotely as good as The Magnificent Seven of 1960, but since it's here regardless of those facts, one might as well acknowledge that it does stuff which isn't devoid of interest. For one thing, it takes a fair number of elements from Seven Samurai that the original Magnificent Seven didn't bother with when it first transposed the plot of Kurosawa Akira's samurai epic into the American West. And hey, that's a worthwhile to approach it, if an approach needs to be made.
And so we find once again the brutally familiar basic stakes: an agrarian community being threatened with violence hires a gifted warrior to protect itself, and he arranges for six other outsiders and misfits to join in; together, they inspire the farmers to stand up for themselves, even it be at the cost of the warriors' own lives. There are few wrinkles to knock the dust off for 2016 audiences: one is the film's ethnic polyglot, with the seven consisting of three whites - one Irish, one Cajun, one unspecified - an Asian, a Comanche, and a Mexican, all under the general leadership of African-American Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington). Another is the attempt to make this some kind of populist declaration of All of Us against The Landowners, with the villain given a rather unsubtle speech about how capital, violence, the apparatus of religion, and political power are all snarled up together, though this theme is expressed so meekly that I think it would have been better for the film to have avoided it altogether, than to raise possibilities it had no interest in exploring. At least the racial dynamic, however flimsy, is more or less a throughline given the occasional references to the white characters' histories in the Civil War and/or as Indian hunters. For the most part, though, the film's energy is focused entirely on being the burliest, most robust action movie it can, and whatever sociological insights creep in do so largely incidentally.
It is not, by and large, a very inspired film, though sometimes it gets there in spurts. It's reasonably well-cast, with Washington getting to play yet another in the list of highly competent badasses that he's been steadily adding to his résumé ever since 2001's Training Day, the first time he worked with Magnificent Seven director Antoine Fuqua. And if there's not really anything Washington does here that he hasn't done elsewhere, the fact remains that he's an A+ movie star of the first order, whose powerful charisma and sense of screen authority do all the work necessary to hang a whole movie around him, and whatever "acting" comes into play are merely a bonus. The cast is fleshed out by Chris Pratt (as sarcastic alcoholic gunman Josh Faraday), Ethan Hawke (as theatrical ex-Confederate and Chisolm's great friend Goodnight Robicheaux), the great Korean star Lee Byung-hun (as knife-wielding Billy Rocks), and newcomers Manual Garcia-Rulfo (as bandit Vazquez) and Martin Sensmeier (as exiled Comanche warrior Red Harvest - the name of a Dashiell Hammett novel unofficially adapted by Kurosawa as the samurai film Yojimbo, which I hope isn't a coincidence). They all inhabit their roles fine, if largely without distinction; Pratt, in particular, feels like lazy casting for the part of an anachronistically quippy action hero/comedian, but that's not really his fault. The only standouts in the movie are, in general, the actors who have decided to be in something other than a straightforward Western with the stern masculine sobriety typical of Fuqua: one is Vincent D'Onofrio, who plays old mountain man & legendary soldier Jack Horne as a kind of addled, violence-prone Santa Claus, confused and happy and generally in a much lighter, zippier picture than the one he's actually meant be in. The other is Peter Sarsgaard as Bartholomew Bogue, the villainous landowner who drives the plot; he plays the character as a strange, hambone caricature, all sweaty, bug-eyed intensity and a distinctly kinky edge of desperate excitement, as if he finds the idea of committing violence to be positively arousing. It's peculiar enough that I'm not even sure if he's "good" in any meaningful sense, but in a film of highly proficient mediocrity, being bugfuck crazy is enough to add some necessary flavor.
It's a passable action movie, at least: Fuqua's tendency to favor fast cutting that punctuate gunshots gives the film a distinctly modern edge that doesn't really suit the Western setting. Even so, the first major setpiece, in which the seven first come to town and quickly make work of Bogue's 20-odd mercenaries, is a completely satisfying, impressively protracted piece of action choreography, with each of the heroes being given their own distinct fighting style, even if they're all filmed in the same "one size fits all" aesthetic. It's a nifty bit of building character through movement that is exactly what I'd have liked to see from a Magnificent Seven remake throughout, and even if it's just here for a bit, that's better than nothing.
"Better than nothing" is, alas, generally the nicest thing that can be said about the movie. It's simply not doing anything: Fuqua has never been so impersonal in his use of style. I suppose it's neat that the film manages the rare feat of making the American West look ugly, by allowing cinematographer Mauro Fiore to shoot the Arizona and New Mexico with an overcooked palette of color correction that makes the landscape look like it has been indifferently crayoned-in with harsh blues and greens that only vaguely resemble the natural world. That's easily the most distinctive thing about The Magnificent Seven, but even negative aesthetics can only go so far to cover general blandness. It is a perfectly functional, watchable movie, and there's never really any reason to actively avoid a Denzel Washington action picture. There's also no particular reason to seek this one out, sadly, and while it never embarrasses itself as a remake of a remake - it is very, very easy to imagine a worse Magnificent Seven than this - it's so flatfooted as a movie qua movies that it hardly matters.
5/10
And so we find once again the brutally familiar basic stakes: an agrarian community being threatened with violence hires a gifted warrior to protect itself, and he arranges for six other outsiders and misfits to join in; together, they inspire the farmers to stand up for themselves, even it be at the cost of the warriors' own lives. There are few wrinkles to knock the dust off for 2016 audiences: one is the film's ethnic polyglot, with the seven consisting of three whites - one Irish, one Cajun, one unspecified - an Asian, a Comanche, and a Mexican, all under the general leadership of African-American Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington). Another is the attempt to make this some kind of populist declaration of All of Us against The Landowners, with the villain given a rather unsubtle speech about how capital, violence, the apparatus of religion, and political power are all snarled up together, though this theme is expressed so meekly that I think it would have been better for the film to have avoided it altogether, than to raise possibilities it had no interest in exploring. At least the racial dynamic, however flimsy, is more or less a throughline given the occasional references to the white characters' histories in the Civil War and/or as Indian hunters. For the most part, though, the film's energy is focused entirely on being the burliest, most robust action movie it can, and whatever sociological insights creep in do so largely incidentally.
It is not, by and large, a very inspired film, though sometimes it gets there in spurts. It's reasonably well-cast, with Washington getting to play yet another in the list of highly competent badasses that he's been steadily adding to his résumé ever since 2001's Training Day, the first time he worked with Magnificent Seven director Antoine Fuqua. And if there's not really anything Washington does here that he hasn't done elsewhere, the fact remains that he's an A+ movie star of the first order, whose powerful charisma and sense of screen authority do all the work necessary to hang a whole movie around him, and whatever "acting" comes into play are merely a bonus. The cast is fleshed out by Chris Pratt (as sarcastic alcoholic gunman Josh Faraday), Ethan Hawke (as theatrical ex-Confederate and Chisolm's great friend Goodnight Robicheaux), the great Korean star Lee Byung-hun (as knife-wielding Billy Rocks), and newcomers Manual Garcia-Rulfo (as bandit Vazquez) and Martin Sensmeier (as exiled Comanche warrior Red Harvest - the name of a Dashiell Hammett novel unofficially adapted by Kurosawa as the samurai film Yojimbo, which I hope isn't a coincidence). They all inhabit their roles fine, if largely without distinction; Pratt, in particular, feels like lazy casting for the part of an anachronistically quippy action hero/comedian, but that's not really his fault. The only standouts in the movie are, in general, the actors who have decided to be in something other than a straightforward Western with the stern masculine sobriety typical of Fuqua: one is Vincent D'Onofrio, who plays old mountain man & legendary soldier Jack Horne as a kind of addled, violence-prone Santa Claus, confused and happy and generally in a much lighter, zippier picture than the one he's actually meant be in. The other is Peter Sarsgaard as Bartholomew Bogue, the villainous landowner who drives the plot; he plays the character as a strange, hambone caricature, all sweaty, bug-eyed intensity and a distinctly kinky edge of desperate excitement, as if he finds the idea of committing violence to be positively arousing. It's peculiar enough that I'm not even sure if he's "good" in any meaningful sense, but in a film of highly proficient mediocrity, being bugfuck crazy is enough to add some necessary flavor.
It's a passable action movie, at least: Fuqua's tendency to favor fast cutting that punctuate gunshots gives the film a distinctly modern edge that doesn't really suit the Western setting. Even so, the first major setpiece, in which the seven first come to town and quickly make work of Bogue's 20-odd mercenaries, is a completely satisfying, impressively protracted piece of action choreography, with each of the heroes being given their own distinct fighting style, even if they're all filmed in the same "one size fits all" aesthetic. It's a nifty bit of building character through movement that is exactly what I'd have liked to see from a Magnificent Seven remake throughout, and even if it's just here for a bit, that's better than nothing.
"Better than nothing" is, alas, generally the nicest thing that can be said about the movie. It's simply not doing anything: Fuqua has never been so impersonal in his use of style. I suppose it's neat that the film manages the rare feat of making the American West look ugly, by allowing cinematographer Mauro Fiore to shoot the Arizona and New Mexico with an overcooked palette of color correction that makes the landscape look like it has been indifferently crayoned-in with harsh blues and greens that only vaguely resemble the natural world. That's easily the most distinctive thing about The Magnificent Seven, but even negative aesthetics can only go so far to cover general blandness. It is a perfectly functional, watchable movie, and there's never really any reason to actively avoid a Denzel Washington action picture. There's also no particular reason to seek this one out, sadly, and while it never embarrasses itself as a remake of a remake - it is very, very easy to imagine a worse Magnificent Seven than this - it's so flatfooted as a movie qua movies that it hardly matters.
5/10
7 comments:
Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.
Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.
Goddamn. I know you're busy as all hell these days, but part of me was hoping you'd make a series of reviews on versions of Seven Samurai before reaching this movie. Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven '60, Battle Beyond the Stars, maybe a Film Experience post about the series Samurai 7, and then you'd reach this film.
ReplyDeleteAlas, that was asking too much, but at the least a review for Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven '60 has always been a review I'd hope to be surprised one night with.
Also am I alone in being surprised at which picks were the ones who survived this film?
ReplyDeleteI would have felt the three remaining gunslingers would have been very easy to predict, but lo and behold...
I had a whole big thing planned, and it was going to be called "Seven Times Seven", and there were going to be those four plus the new one plus Seven Magnificent Gladiators, and I do not recall the seventh. But boy, was September not the month for it. Even when I just bumped it down to Seven Samurai and the original Mag Seven, I still couldn't find the time.
ReplyDeleteAnd I completely agree on the death list. I was confident I had the survivors picked out, and I only got one right.
Re the death list: that's a good sign, at least. It's only fun in a sardonic way when you can rattle off an order of death 20m in.
ReplyDeleteAlso, sounds like a great list! You're still going to do Seven Samurai sometime, right? ;)
I too was wondering about your take on the 1960 version, Tim. In anticipation of this remake I scoured the archives, looking for any little nugget of a mention. Alas, I assume we'll get something at some point.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really care to see the archetypal Greedy Land Baron plot that's been recycled through generations of westerns once again rear its head. It struck me as a superficial ploy to make this decidedly modern film seem more old school than it is. Still, it's an archetype for a reason, and it works reasonably well here, even if its not stimulating in the slightest. I enjoyed the titular seven and even felt sympathetic when some of them died. It may not be the greatest character work but I was definitely sad to see them go, so that has to count for something. The decision to only develop the future coffin-fillers as characters (save for one) was a cynical move, but it worked.
As for the style, glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the modern kinetic action movie style really does not suit this type of film. By and large it was fun to see the Golden Age of Hollywood's bread and butter get mismashed with the 2016 balls-to-the-wall CGI approach, but the latter obviously wins out. Still, Fuqua obviously loves westerns, even staging what has to be the first honest-to-God standoff in a big budget western from the new millennium. Two men in a dusty street, glowering eyes, sweaty hands above their pistols: it's generic like everything else, but the traditional western has been so neutered by revisionism over the years that I was genuinely shocked to see it at all. Still, this film doesn't feel like a western, but I didn't really expect it to. The most recent films to strike that great western ambiance for me were Open Range and the 3:10 to Yuma remake, the latter falling prey to some modern thriller tropes at times (man, Hollywood REALLY has lost faith in the western: the best we can get these days are remakes and Tarantino films, which are a genre all to themselves -- my brother-in-law, who is ignorant of the original films, even told me that he expected this new film to be more like The Hateful Eight).
The casting in and of itself was not all bad. It might just be me, but I think Chris Pratt's variations of Andy Dwyer are wearing a little thing. We've seen Andy trade quips with Rocket Raccoon, train Velociraptors and now he's a shootist -- if this keeps up I have a feeling that we'll see a retread of the classic "fluff movie star seeks to prove himself as a real actor" narrative with Pratt. Washington was sturdy as always, D'Onofrio was a highlight, and Hawke was decent but could have been better if his character were given more to do (though I greatly enjoyed his reunion scene with Washington, which I interpreted as a meta reference to Training day). Byung-hun, Garcia-Rulfo and Sensemeier are more differing killing styles and backgrounds than characters, so their performances are rather moot. I found Sarsgaard positively grating: his character is barely a factor in the film at all. He's a catalyst and nothing more with not a single interesting contribution to the narrative. He seems to all but disappear after making his initial appearance, even sitting out the majority of the final action scene. Yeah, yeah, he doesn't get his hands dirty -- we had the rather obvious scene of the child putting his hand in the jar of dirt to show that. But would it be too much to ask for a villain that ISN'T a coward? Worse, I found his crazy man scene-chewing to be boring and generic in and of itself.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the biggest issue I have with this new film is that of the town itself. So much time is spent roping up the seven and shooting people that there was little to no time to actually develop the dynamic between the gunfighters and the residents. One of my favorite scenes in the 1960 film is when the shootists decide to return to the village -- a suicide mission by all accounts -- as they had become invested in the town's plight and its people. I just didn't feel that need for any one of the new seven to make the ultimate sacrifice here (much less charge a gatling gun head-on in what has to be one of the stupidest movie sequences I've ever seen in my life -- what was the original plan here?), and it rang hollow. Washington's ultimate motivation is revealed (itself also a western cliche), but that's about it. Everybody else just tags along with a "sure, why not" attitude and when things get serious, we're supposed to buy that they've bonded enough to lay down their lives for each other and a group of people that they barely know. We see each of the original seven bonding with the townsfolk in the 1960 film, and it's so much more believable that they would go back, even when their friends betrayed them out of fear.
Eh, I give this new film a 7/10. It probably doesn't deserve it, but it stimulated me in a vanilla way. There's some good stuff here and it's a blast to watch, even if it never approaches the grandeur of a great western. I have some complaints but very little of the film actually rubbed me the wrong way -- as you say, a lot of it is just basic. But it was an entertaining sort of basic that I bought into as a starved fan of westerns and good action cinema.
I find the 60 versión positively cringe-inducing, and I hoped this to be better, actually. Well I haven't seen it, so it might happen for me yet.
ReplyDelete