There's nothing magnificent in "The Magnificent Seven"

For my part, it isn't really much of an issue if a film is something that we've already seen countless times before (because after all and whether we like it or not, repetition is part of the nature of cinema). As long as the film is impeccably entertaining or manages to be bold and revolutionary in its own way or perhaps both, I can still regard it as something that can hold on its own, despite treading a familiar and common theme or plot. Antoine Fuqua's "The Magnificent Seven" (2016, USA) mostly leans towards the former. Essentially a "remake of a remake", it may lack the grit of the John Sturges Western pic or the depth of the Akira Kurosawa classic, but it is entertaining nevertheless, which is something that primarily counts in a popcorn flick, especially if it's the kind churned out by Hollywood. If there are dashes of inspired auteurism here and there (which Fuqua's film thankfully has), then it might be regarded as a welcome blessing. 

So what do we have in this one? A town in peril, a greedy, merciless and violent industrialist (a mobster by any other name), a Western setting (a late-19th century American frontier) and a band of unlikely heroes tasked to protect and save the townspeople from eventual perish. This isn't something off the beaten path, that's for sure. But in the hands of such Western maestros as John Ford and Sergio Leone, those familiar elements can be woven into a gripping tale brimming with vigorous yet scarred machismo and existential broodings ("The Searchers", "Once Upon a Time in the West", The Man With No Name trilogy). Fuqua's Western offering does boast an assembly of Hollywood's current A-list actors like Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt and Ethan Hawke (as did the 1960 pic back then with the likes of Yul Brynner, Charles Bronson and Steve McQueen), some fiery gunfight mayhem and some gorgeous frontier landscapes. Fairly enough, these aspects deliver on a purely entertainment level. But if we're to be artistically demanding by finding some kind of genre revisionism that debunks or redefines the Old West mythos ala Altman and Leone or some perceptive multi-character study in much the same way that Kurosawa devoted ample time for each of his seven samurais in the classic epic, then this recent "The Magnificent Seven" certainly falls short of such demands. (In fact, we may even regard the film as doing a disservice to the loftiness of the adjective in its title.) 

The rogue characters of Washington, Pratt, Hawke and Vincent D'Onofrio, among others, may have some underlying personal stories to tell, but these are undoubtedly just second fiddle to the action-packed spectacle of the entire enterprise. Their so-called "back stories", if at all, are there merely for melodrama's sake, without any sense of genuine rage and hurt. It's a good thing that these actors, immensely capable as they are in any other films of much higher caliber, still make the best of whatever they can out of their less-than-vividly written roles (the screenplay is by no less than "True Detective" writer Nic Pizzolatto). Even the main villain himself, played by Peter Sarsgaard with a dopey meanness, is as black-or-black as he can be, without a bit of redemptive trait. Not exactly a bad thing, if only the film was an all-out good guys vs. bad guys gun battle. But since there's still a meager attempt to put shades of gray on the heroes, why not do it as well to the villain? With that, their face-off could've been more meatier. 

These considerations in fact boil down to a more important question: If a remake can't be superior to or at least at par with the original, why bother with a remake at all? What is exactly the logic behind a remake? An indication of creative bankruptcy and lethargy or a respectul reverence to the filmic source of inspiration? Do the moviegoers deserve a remake after all;why not direct them instead to the original source material which, more often than not, is way bettter than the "imitator"? There's really nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a remake, because, for one, it's one way of making us aware of the existence of the original - and far better - source of "inspiration", which in any other circumstances, we may not probably become aware of, thus making it regrettably doomed to oblivion. But if a remake does nothing to enhance the ideas and cinematics of the original, but instead becomes its dismissible underling, then why still bother with one? As he has already displayed in the gritty "Training Day" (also starring Washington and Hawke), Fuqua is one director who is more than capable of handling original material, instead of laying his hands on a supposedly untouchable classic. 

Still, "The Magnificent Seven" is a watchable enough fare. That is, if you know what you're exactly looking for: An entertaining display of a band of well-known Hollywood actors (at least some of them) involved in some good old gunfight spectacle. Nothing more, nothing less. But if you're into something that will linger in your mind long after the credits have rolled, then you're better off searching for those Western masterpieces of yesteryears. 

(The seven unlikely heroes stand up against the enemy in Antoine Fuqua's version of "The Magnificent Seven")