This is film is a textbook example of why remakes of classic films rarely measure up to the originals.  The original, a 1960 western, based itself on the 1954 Japanese classic Seven Samurai, is a marvelous film that made stars of most of its cast and which boasts perhaps the most memorable score of any western movie, ever.  It is beloved not just by western fans but by movie lovers everywhere.  This remake tells a similar story in a similar way and simply does not have the power, or heart, of that original.

Antoine Fuqua’s remake presents a town in trouble, as land baron Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard) takes control of Rose Creek, simply killing anyone who resists.  A widow (Haley Bennett) travels to another town and convinces gunman Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington) to help her.  Chisholm recruits other desperate characters (Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D’Onofrio, Byung-hun Lee, Martin Sensmeier, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo) for support and they rout Bogue’s men in town, then attempt to booby trap the town before Bogue returns with reinforcements.  A climactic massacre follows.

All of this echoes the path of the original — indeed, some of the dialogue is taken directly from John Sturges’ 1960 original — and yet it is hollow here, or at least less effective.  Fuqua devotes less time and attention to the characters themselves, with the result that they are simply not as memorable or empathetic.  Fuqua’s Seven are certainly more eccentric, and ethnically diverse, yet that does not automatically make them as interesting or exciting.  More backstory and screen time would have helped, but Fuqua decided instead to up the ante in the action sequences — which I feel is the movie’s weakest point.

In the original the Seven are pitted against thirty-five to forty banditos led by Calvera (Eli Wallach).  That means each of the Seven is forced to kill five or so counterparts in battle; those odds are tough, and some of the Seven don’t make it.  Fuqua has his Seven battle the same number of bandits — when they first get to Rose Creek!  They even tally their scores afterward!  The climactic barrage boasts no less than two hundred or so fighters Bogue has commissioned to take back the town, which means that, mathematically, each of the Seven is responsible for killing no less than thirty men.  It is overkill in every respect.

I have railed against levels of gratuitous movie violence for a long time, and I must do so again.  Even the 1960 version was pushing the envelope, but at least there the camera lingered on the peril facing the Seven as bullets rained.  The focus was not on killing, but surviving, and some of them didn’t.  Here, havoc and death are emphasized; hundreds of shots showcase men being shot, horses tripping, dynamite exploding, bodies flying and the town being destroyed.  The Seven rarely miss, while their counterparts almost always miss, or are killed before even getting off their shots.  It is ridiculous overkill, and it isn’t realistic, convincing or, for that matter, satisfying.

Taken on its own merits this version of The Magnificent Seven is not bad; anyone who has never seen the original might be impressed, if they don’t mind the excess.  The violence isn’t bloody, which is why this movie massacre is rated PG-13, but the cumulative effect of all that killing is numbing.  Some of these Seven die valiantly, too, but I don’t mourn them the way I did the fallen men from the original.  And nothing can replace Elmer Bernstein’s incredible score (which is, nicely, featured during the closing credits).  So now a new version of this story is available, but for me it will never hold a candle to the great 1960 film — or Akira Kurosawa’s even better 1954 original (which was inspired by the westerns of John Ford).  Those are real cinematic treasures.  ☆ ☆ 1/2.  29 September 2016.