The Magnificent Seven (2016)

Rothkopf finds the action-heavy remake succeeds in holding its own against the classic. He singles out its starry cast, led by Denzel Washington.

The critic finds the film not quite magnificent, but a rare remake that delivers and Fuqua’s best since Training Day. They praise Denzel Washington’s commanding performance and the film’s thrilling western imagery and action.

The page content is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be established. No specific praise or complaint is available from the text provided.

Cole finds the film passably entertaining but ultimately disposable and lacking in energy. He praises the explosive, well-organized chaos of the climax, while faulting the direction for never letting the action fully take off.

Jenkins finds it a lively, effective western with some richer allegorical potential, though it does not reinvent the genre. He praises the well-chosen cast and character backstories, while criticizing the sexualized, sidelined role given to its sole female character.

Macnab finds the film slow to build but ultimately a rousing, full-blooded Western. He particularly praises the prolonged final shootout for its brilliant orchestration and practical action.

Turner finds the remake entertaining but unlikely to leave much of an impact or displace the original. He praises the star power of Washington and Pratt, while noting the diverse cast’s characters are underdeveloped.

The review says the film delivers plenty of action but does not match the 1960s classic. It singles out Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt and Ethan Hawke as the remake’s main draws.

Lane finds the reboot largely unconvincing, faulting its borrowed Western conventions and missed opportunities. He singles out Vincent D’Onofrio’s performance as a bright spot.

Grierson finds the remake sluggish and uninspired, with underwritten characters that keep its ensemble from engaging. He praises the sustained excitement of the climactic shootout, while faulting the film for failing to build enough connection beforehand.

McCarthy finds the remake competently made but uninspired and culturally shallow. He gives the climactic action credit for delivering, while criticizing the one-dimensional villain and underdeveloped characters.

Gleiberman finds the remake dutiful and uninspired, with a story that now feels rote. He praises Chris Pratt’s combustible screen presence, while criticizing the film’s noisy, familiar action.

The critic finds the remake slick but forgettable, with little fresh to say and too little emotional investment. Vincent D’Onofrio’s eccentric tracker is singled out as one of its few lively pleasures.

Sexton argues that the remake is an unnecessary, politically updated retread of classics that should have been left alone. He praises the stylish costumes and weaponry, but complains that the film follows an over-familiar trajectory.

Turan finds the remake handsome but lifeless, with little emotional force. He particularly faults its self-satisfied humor, which undercuts the story’s chance to connect with its characters.

Bradshaw finds the remake heavy-handed and joyless, with Denzel Washington notably off his game. He credits its superficial style and competent action, but complains that it lacks jeopardy and that the townsfolk’s acting is poor.

Edelstein finds the remake wan, formulaic, and lacking the grandeur or emotional depth of its predecessors. He praises the Western atmosphere and Denzel Washington’s star presence, but says the action is hard to follow and the characters never meaningfully connect.

The critic finds the remake morally superficial, tedious, and ultimately perfunctory. They single out the climax as stiff and geographically incomprehensible.

Goble finds the film an enjoyable, stylish update that respects the Western rather than pushing the genre forward. He especially praises the cast’s camaraderie and the clear, excitingly staged action, while noting the film’s awkward handling of its historical setting.

Douglas finds the remake entertaining and well served by its ensemble, but overly traditional compared with more distinctive Westerns. He particularly praises the character interplay and the climactic battle.

Pape finds the film engaging in its underdog story but too generic to justify the remake. He singles out Peter Sarsgaard’s harrowing, effectively restrained performance as the villain.

The critic finds the film likable but ultimately too much of a political fantasy to confront the racism its setting evokes. They praise its attentive action and cast, while singling out the brief tension around Chisolm’s arrival as its most complex element.

Hammond finds the reboot entertaining but lacking the gravitas and substance of its predecessors. He praises the diverse cast and Peter Sarsgaard’s villainous performance, while faulting the film’s emphasis on endless shootouts over character development.

Goldberg finds the remake disappointing, criticizing its rote characterization and lack of substance. He singles out the missed opportunity to develop friction between the Native American tracker and the veteran who had killed Native Americans.

The headline signals a negative verdict, describing the remake as bigger, louder and dumber. It criticizes the film for making a classic Western remake bigger and louder without improving it.

The critic finds the remake lackluster, with its action ultimately overwhelmed by an exhausting, hard-to-follow final shootout. They praise the saloon confrontation for its cinematography, editing, and sharp dialogue.

Wilkinson finds the film a hollow, poorly characterized imitation that fails to make its action suspenseful. She praises the action sequences as slick and well handled, but says they lack tension because the characters never engage the viewer.