Les colts des sept mercenaires

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.

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.

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!

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 ****

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.