MovieChat Forums > The Magnificent Seven (2016) Discussion > The Sixties Called: They Want Their Clic...

The Sixties Called: They Want Their Cliches Back


Awful. I lost track of the cliches after only a few minutes. I walked in expecting a Western with the hard edge and intelligence of Unforgiven. This is almost like a non-comedy version of Blazing Saddles. So many shots are re-treads of older movies and it's jarring to see people acting like it's a 40's movie made in 2016.


Why? I came into this game for the action, the excitement... Listen, kid, we're all in it together.

reply

I walked in expecting a Western with the hard edge and intelligence of Unforgiven.


... not sure why you would have held that expectation (the intelligence of Unforgiven). I agree that the film is "awful," though.

The director, Antoine Fuqua, clearly studied the classic, hard-edged revisionist Westerns directed by Sergio Leone in the 1960s and Clint Eastwood in the 1970s and wanted to imitate them or pay homage to them in certain scenes and sequences, but his style is so mechanical that the whole exercise comes across as cliched.

Here is part of what I wrote a couple of weeks ago:

At times, the movie seems to want to be a parody, but overall, it seeks to be serious. It fails to find a middle ground between—or an organic braiding of—parody and homage, and instead of achieving genuine homage (to Westerns past), the film uses cliches as homages (or vice versa), creating nothing satisfying for Western aficionados in the manner that director Quentin Tarantino knows how to achieve. I actually believe, based on the movie and the visual 'quoting,' that director Antoine Fuqua is indeed a Western aficionado who has studied many of the genre's classics (both traditional and revisionist), but his paint-by-numbers action style precludes him from attaining any real irony or savvy. And, having seen some of Fuqua's work in the past, I am not at all surprised.

... Overall, Fuqua's film suffers from the same flaws as so many Westerns (both theatrical and on television) since the 1990s, namely that it seeks to adopt the hardened revisionist style forged by directors Sergio Leone, Sam Peckinpah, and Clint Eastwood in the sixties and seventies, only it goes overboard and makes matters too obvious, inorganic, and cliched.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2404435/board/thread/261736706?p=6&d=262843862#262843862

reply

The fact that you put Clint Eastwood's work as a director in the seventies (or at any time) on a level with Leone and Peckinpah tells me that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

reply

Really? So the reality that you severely underrate, or fail to appreciate, Eastwood's directorial talent means that I do not have a clue as to what I am talking about? Could it not be that you are the one who does not have a clue? Perhaps you find praising the directorial work of a major star to be uncool, or because Eastwood's films are not as obviously stylized as Leone's and Peckinpah's, you fail to appreciate them. You are entitled to your opinion; I hope that you would approach your dubious and subjective opinions with a dose of humility.

In the early 1980s, on Merv Griffin's talk show, Orson Welles stated that The Outlaw Josey Wales constituted one of the greatest Westerns of all time, up there with the best Westerns of John Ford and Howard Hawks. Welles also stated, "I suppose Clint Eastwood is the most underrated director in the world today."

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/79824%7C0/The-Outlaw-Josey-Wales.html

Eventually, much of the rest of the world caught on, hence the recognition that Unforgiven later received. Evidently, you never did catch on, but you are not alone, as I would still say that Eastwood is an underrated director, hence his lack of Best Director nominations for his last two films, American Sniper and Sully, both of which amounted to the best movie of the year in my view. Over the last couple of years, the directors who have really failed to receive the recognition that they deserve are, in my opinion, Eastwood and Robert Zemeckis.

Next time, you might share—and explain—your viewpoint without trying to demean someone, which suggests that you are covering up for your own insecurities. In the meantime, I will take Orson Welles' opinion over yours; I think that he knew a little more about filmmaking than you do.

reply

'Mechanical' is a good word for it. I think 'collage' is also apt. It looks like the team sat down and said, "I want to cut n paste x,y,z scenes from a,b,c movies". It's like a Mix Tape.


Why? I came into this game for the action, the excitement... Listen, kid, we're all in it together.

reply

I think 'collage' is also apt. It looks like the team sat down and said, "I want to cut n paste x,y,z scenes from a,b,c movies". It's like a Mix Tape.


... true, and well-put. When a movie is made from the outside-in rather than inside-out, one is liable to see this kind of abysmal result.

reply

hey Kidd - is it really that bad (I was planning to read some of your other posts). I had thought of going to see it or getting it on DVD, but wonder if it's worth it.



"Life is a scam" - Steve McQueen

reply

Hey Doc—sorry that I failed to check back with this thread until now.

Yeah, I felt that this remake was really lousy: robotic, flimsy, uncertain in tone, filled with preposterous dialogue, and ultimately bringing a video game action style to the Western.

If you saw it, though, let me know your perspective.

reply

It was more of a throwback style of filmmaking. Fuqua was mostly paying homage to those Old Westerns, and I needed a bit of old-fashion this year. I liked it.

reply

This, to me, is probably the best way to describe this movie. I really liked it and it felt a lot like the old movies.





Liberals claim to love "others ideas", until they find out people actually have other ideas.

reply