Scott LeBrun It's inevitable that any sequel to a classic like "The Magnificent Seven" is going to represent a drop in quality. The script (by Larry Cohen) is definitely on the routine side, and its gallery of characters are mostly nondescript. There's still entertainment value in the "assembling men for a mission" theme, and some of the actors here get a chance to shine. Burt Kennedy's direction is certainly adequate, and the action scenes are well executed.Yul Brynner returns to the role of Chris. He's approached by Petra (Elisa Montes), the wife of Chico (Julian Mateos), a former member of the Seven. Petras' and Chicos' village is raided by a group of bandits who kill some of the men, but abduct most of them for some unknown purpose. The villain responsible is Lorca (Emilio Fernandez), who is not an entirely unsympathetic character. Chris reunites with Vin (Robert Fuller, taking over for Steve McQueen), and brings together associates such as Frank (Claude Akins), Colbee (Warren Oates), and Luis (Virgilio Teixeira); he's also joined by the hard luck young man Manuel (Jordan Christopher).Admittedly, this setup was indeed more fun with the original gang of characters, who had a little more personality than this bunch. That's not to say that guys like Akins and especially Oates don't have their moments. Oates is certainly a joy in the role of a shameless horn dog. Fernandez is good, but again, he's no match for his predecessor Eli Wallach. Fuller is reasonably likable, but he's no Steve McQueen. At least there's a nice part for Fernando Rey as the well meaning priest who disapproves of Lorcas' methods.Elmer Bernsteins' theme music still resonates, and the widescreen photography is first rate. The pacing is adequate; this is the shortest of the "Seven" films at a fairly trim 96 minute run time.Decent entertainment for undemanding Western fans.Seven out of 10.

Jackson Booth-Millard The first film, a remake of the classic Japanese classic Seven Samurai, was indeed a magnificent film, and you wonder if it needed any sequels, as it turns out, three sequels were made, and this was the first. Basically Chico (Julián Mateos), one of the original seven men is living in the Mexican village that they helped defend from the gang of bandits, but a new one is making its way into the town. The leader of the gang wants to build a church to commemorate his dead sons, and he kidnaps three villagers for labour, so Chico now needs to get a new team of gunmen together. He starts first by getting the other former members of the seven, Chris (Yul Brynner, the only original cast member) and Vin (Robert Fuller, replacing Steve McQueen) on board, and they go to get other recruits. They return to town with the four other men, a playboy, an avenger, a highwayman and an orphan, and once again, with the help of the villagers, they fight off the oppressors. Also starring Warren Oates as Colbee, Jordan Christopher as Manuel, Claude Akins as Frank, Virgilio Teixeira as Luis, Rodolfo Acosta as Lopez, Elisa Montés as Petra and Fernando Rey as Priest. Brynner does I suppose still do a good job, I didn't really take much notice, to be honest, the only thing to take notice off is how similar it is the film very film it is following, there may have been the odd change in story and events, and the Oscar nominated music by Elmer Bernstein is still fantastic, but the original is way better, but not a terrible western sequel. Okay!

Coventry The first of three follow-ups to the John Sturges' western classic "The Magnificent Seven" is a prototypic sequel if there ever was one. It's a totally redundant and uninvolving rehash of the original that you nevertheless don't mind watching purely for popcorn entertainment value. The plot is almost identical, the lead actor reprises his role although he doesn't seem all too happy about that and some of the original characters are there as well albeit portrayed by different, inferior actors. I had some personal reasons for desperately wanting to see the film, including this being one of the first scripts written by Larry Cohen and Warren Oates in one of his pre-Peckinpah roles, but I could have guessed "The Return of the Seven" would be a forgettable and second class western. A large posse of bandits have kidnapped Chico (who suddenly looks a whole lot more Mexican than in the original film) and the rest of the male population in the original village to works as slaves. Under the reign of a man named Lorca, they are forced to build a church monument in honor of his executed sons. Chris and (a different) Vin round up four more trigger-happy gunslingers to save the day. Most of the sequences in this film are actually shameless copies from the highlights of the original. The recruitment of the shooters goes a little quicker, but they still use the same counting gestures. Why is it that cool stuff from the originals always looks silly in sequels? Chris' character also has become some kind of all-knowing, philosophizing prophet. He speaks the absolute minimum, but nonetheless makes people question themselves. Usually he just goes standing next to them and they begin talking wholeheartedly about their lives and issues. Chris merely just replies with one sentence but apparently this is enough to make them contemplate everything all over again. The other characters, on the other hand, are colorless and dull. Vin and Chico are only shadows of what they used to be and the others are merely just caricatures. Claude Akins as the silent and embittered loner and Warren Oates as the sneaky womanizer to name just two. The shootout sequences are pretty boring and unexciting. Elmer Bernstein's music is still a joy to listen to, but also that is exactly the same as in the original.

rooprect This movie had potential. The script was not bad, and it presented an interesting dark atmosphere with themes of suicide, patricide, regrets, and--as Chris says--"10 years of going nowhere". It's a sharp contrast to the original MAG7 which was bright, humorous, and even the bad guy was lovable.It's a very interesting change of tone, and if they had developed the characters more, maybe I would've liked it.But instead they waste far too much time on gratuitous (and ridiculous) battle scenes, poorly edited together. At one point you see a horse fall, and 5 seconds later you see the same scene again. But not many people would notice that, since there are already 2 dozen horse trips (I'm not exaggerating), and by then we've already dozed off.Which leads me to the title of my review. This film was extensively cut due to animal cruelty, so chances are (if you decide to watch it) you'll get the watered down, kiddie version. There's a bullfight where the matador stabs the bull, and suddenly as the crowd erupts cheering, there's no bull, just the matador in an empty arena. Like wow, maybe the bull was a Jedi, I dunno. More likely, the scene was cut.Later there's a cockfight scene where, in the original version, one of the birds gets horribly mauled before a crowd of cheering Mexicans. This was cut. But we still see enough to get pretty annoyed.But by far the worst scenes are the horse throws. One after the other, you see horses' legs get yanked, sending thousands of pounds of horse onto its head. In one scene, a horse gets thrown, and then while it's squirming on the ground in paralytic convulsions, an explosive goes off right under its neck.This film was made in 1966 when Hollywood was just starting to regulate animal brutality on film. This is probably one of the last flicks where you can see it happen. So if that sort of stuff it floats yer boat, check it out & you'll get a mild thrill. But if not, you'll either be irritated or flat out bored.