A 'not-so' Magnificent Seven

Back in the day, when I was beginning to understand Hollywood flicks, one had to rely on video rentals as there was no concept of torrents. I remember watching Terminator 2, which was shown a good six months after its international release in 1992. There was True Lies, Hard target, Mission Impossible and many others. There were few cinemas and lots of time on our hands.Despite a lot of re-runs, mostly dubbed Chinese imports, however, I never had a chance to watch a Western in cinema.

The specialty of a Western is that it grows on you with the passage of time. Even Sergio Leone’s ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ took me a second viewing to grab its mood, feel. Its best ingredient – ‘revenge’– is revealed in the climax; most Westerns with John Wayne, and later Clint Eastwood, had this element.

The moment I entered the cinema in 2016 to watch The Magnificent Seven, asbona fide a Western as there could be one, I was expecting an ambiance-encumbered flashback from the ‘60’s. The original ‘Seven’ had Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn and James Coburn, against Eli Wallach as Calvera, which was an instant all-time classic. In that movie, a group of seven is hired by peasants to protect their town from further looting, at the hands of Calvera and his forty men, for just 20 dollars. They had nothing to lose, but a lot to offer.

The way Brynner’s character of Chris Adams recruits the men, is second to legendary. These guys successfully managed to protect the town, with lesser number of kills throughout the movie.

The movie was itself an Old-West style remake of Japanese classic Seven Samurai, made by the inimitable Akira Kurosawa; in Bollywood, there was a standardized, and equally long version, directed by RajkumarSantoshi, called China Gate.

The passage of 56 years may have changed the amount of gore one expects from a Western. The cinematic demands of blood, action and close ups have changed over the six decades. It’s true that Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood have changed the ‘Cowboy’ movie standards, but even they refrained from unnecessary ‘deaths’in their movies.

In the remake of the ‘remake’, the town of Rose Creek is under the deadly control of industrialist Bartholomew Bogue, and the character played by Denzel Washington, Sam Chisolm, a loner, is hired by a lady to protect the town. He recruits seven men to do the job but the way he recruits them was unimpressive.

The cast is good with Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D'Onofrio and Byung-hun Lee shining out as 5 of the seven. The induction of a Chinese, a Mexican and Comanche in the cast certainly benefits the otherdiverse, international, film markets (Lee, for example, is a South Korean super-star), but the storyline lost its way somewhere in between the travelling.

These seven were asked to defend the town of Rose Creek, but the current-requirements ofcinematic destruction and computer generated graphics in current movies, took them to a different level. At moments it seemed that there was all out call for the destruction of the town they were asked to defend. May be they believed that ‘the best way to defend is (to) attack’.

There is a lot of similarity between this film and the Westerns during last fifty years. The leader was hired on the request of a lady whose husband was killed by bad guys and the main lead had ‘other’ problem with the meanest of them (a reference from Once Upon a time in the West); Also, the ‘main guy’ was a survivor as he was not completely ‘hanged’ when they had the chance (a nod to Hang ‘em High).

Westerns like ‘Cowboys and Aliens’ and ‘The Lone Ranger’ also had a good cast, but one cannot recommend them for a second viewing. This current-version, directed by Antonine Fuqua (director of Training Day, which won Danzel Washington his second Oscar), has well-shot action sequences, a plausible reason to be engaged, afitting climax, and a heavy cast. It deserves a second viewing, as it has that thing of growing on to you.

I would recommend two things…. One, enter the cinema believing it’s an altogether different film and not a remake of a ‘remake’. Treat it as a separate Western with lots of action and style. If you manage to do so, you would enjoy the 140-odd minutes, (the end credits are the best, that’s a guarantee).

With a fast life adopted by Karachi-ites, and a sufficient number of cinemasto go to, unlike the 90s and most of them showing Hollywood flicks, even supporting genres like Westerns, but at awkward timings, people may not get a chance to watch this film at the big-screen, but I would recommend them to watch this not once but twice at home, when they have time on their hands.