"The Magnificent Seven" was an exceptional remake of Akira Kurosawa's "The Seven Samurai". But, unlike the Japanese film, it was set in the West. Because of a terrific musical score and excellent cast, the film was a resounding success. Now, years later, the studio is whoring out the name in a remake. I know it sounds very harsh, but there is so much that disappoints in "Return of the Seven".

The biggest problem in this film is that of the three survivors at the end of the last film, only one is played by the same actor in both films (Yul Brynner). The other two are played by new actors. These two plus the new members of the group are all lightweights compared the the fine cast in the first film. Think about it--here we have the likes of Claude Akins, Robert Fuller and Warren Oates instead of actors like Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson and James Coburn! The second biggest problem in the sequel is that the film is pretty much the same as the first film. The SAME great music is once again here and the plot is pretty much the same, as the seven rescue the exact same town that was terrorized in the first film! It cheapens the name of the franchise and offers nothing particularly new.

Now the actors do try their best and the film is worth seeing as a time-passer. But, it's just not a worthy sequel to one of the best westerns of the 1960s--it's only a pale imitation. Interestingly, the next film in the series, "The Guns of the Magnificent Seven" is actually a bit better even though NONE of the actors playing the seven are back because at least the plot is a tiny bit different.

RETURN OF THE SEVEN is an extremely lacklustre follow-up to THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN that manages to miss the point entirely and as such comes across as a weak retread of the first film; even the plot's the same. The only good things about this one are the return of the reliable Yul Brynner (who appears to realise as time goes on that the quality just isn't there) and the Bernstein soundtrack, which has been retained for this movie. Otherwise it's a lengthy and long-winded affair with minor actors (apart from Warren Oates, always fun) and a plot that takes forever to get going. And the climax, after all that endless build-up, just doesn't do it.

In some ways, it almost seems unfair to compare a sequel to the original, that we should judge it on it's own merits. However, usually the only reason we are watching a sequel is because of the original, so my review consists primarily in comparison.

The most interesting thing about Return is how hard the makers tried to make it like the original. They were largely successful. Burt Kennedy's direction is good and recreates the visual feel of the original. Of course, Bernstein's score highlights the film. The story, different in particulars, is goes through essentially the same stages: armed men attack the village, the call for help, the gathering of the seven, traveling to the village, defying the villain, the first attack beaten off, a pause where we get to know the characters and their motivations better, the final attack. The only difference is that the villagers do not 'betray' their protectors, as in the Magnificent Seven. A character even sneaks into the enemy camp in much the same fashion as in the earlier movie.

The real weakness of the sequel is the script. Along with the excellent acting and music, the dialogue in the first film was very well written and something of a departure from earlier westerns. It was terse, oftentimes funny, filled with meaning. In Return the delivery and the tone is the same, but the words spoken so solemnly are utterly commonplace and with no humor. Robert Fuller would have been a good replacement for McQueen, but the character is written completely differently and is far less interesting.

The acting, also, is inferior to the first film.

Another problem with the film is the portrayal of the peasants. They are a not characters, as in The Magnificent Seven, but a mass. This film is solely about the 7 Americans riding to the rescue to the rescue of defenseless peasants and at times seems to have a pro-intervention (pro-Vietnam?) political subtext that the in first film, which was a translation of Seven Samurai to the New World, was either absent or more subtle.

All this said and out of the way, film has lots of action, a good score, and Yul Brynner, who is always fun to watch in a western whether it is The Magnificent Seven or Adios, Sabata. Fans of westerns and action films will probably find it entertaining.

Familiar face Emilio Fernandez, who played Lorca, acted in over 70 films, starting in Mexico, and wrote and directed many of them. The relationship between his character, his dead sons, and Chris could have made a very compelling film. Unfortunately it was not expanded on.