MovieChat Forums > The Magnificent Seven (1960) Discussion > The good, the bad and the idiotic (SPOIL...

The good, the bad and the idiotic (SPOILERS)

posted 6 years ago by Wuchak (8734)
5 replies | jump to latest

Despite the contrived plot, based on Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" (1954), you can't beat the lusty score, the superlative locations and the excellent main cast (the villagers, by contrast, are mostly weak). Unfortunately, the movie's ruined by hokey script flaws. For instance, Chico (Buchholz) is able to effortlessly infiltrate Calvera's bandits, utterly fooling them, even though there were only 32 of them by this point (rolling my eyes). Even if Calvera & his brigands failed to make out Chico's face, which is a big IF, his dialogue & accent would've given him away. Keep in mind that he was just an unseasoned teen.

Another prime example is the village leaders' sudden cowardly turnaround (i.e. betrayal), which totally contradicts their earlier resolve (!). Yes, I realize they learned that the bandits weren't run off and that they were going to return to the village out of desperation, but there were only like 30-32 bandits left at this juncture and the combined forces of the seven gunmen and the fighting villagers now had the opportunity to annihilate the thugs for good. The sad thing is that both of these script hitches could've easily been fixed, but this kind of lame writing reflects too many Westerns before the 60s when the modern Western came to the fore with "One-Eyed Jacks" (1961), "Hombre" (1967) and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (1969).

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

Even though I can see where you are getting, westerns aren't generally reputated to be realistic. Most westerns have over-the-top characters put in arguably idiotic circumstances which are more kind of a pretext to show badass shootouts.

Of course, some are more plot-driven (the Man with no name trilogy for instance) and take more time to build the tension. But usually, they have major plot flaws which make them look somehow ridiculous.

So, yeah. I get your point and would tend to agree with it, there are many westerns which have far bigger issues.

This being said, I absolutely love the genre for what it is: mostly entertainments with a slow pace.

[–] Wuchak (8734) 6 years ago

Yeah, I'm a huge Western fan. And I didn't mean to give the impression that I look down on pre-60s Westerns because I'm a fan of numerous classics from that era: Stagecoach, Buffalo Bill, The Sundowners (1950), Shane, North to Alaska, Duel in the Sun, The Last Frontier (aka Savage Wilderness), The Big Country, The Last Wagon, Bend of the River, The Far Country, The Man from Laramie, The Ride Back, Jubal, The Law and Jake Wade, etc.

I suppose you could nitpick any of these Westerns -- and any flick, really -- but what makes them great or near-great is partially due to great writing or potent themes (usually both).

The Law and Jake Wade features serious writing flaws right out of the gate: At the beginning Jake (Robert Taylor) enters the jailhouse early in the AM and the sole person guarding Clint (Richard Widmark) doesn't even hear that someone entered the facility until Jake sticks a gun to his back. Why sure! Furthermore, Jake doesn't seem to be doing a lot to disguise his identity when the town's a mere 60 miles or so from the hamlet where he's the sheriff. Wouldn't law officers in one town be relatively known in others in the general region? So Jake's taking an unbelievable risk in openly breaking Clint out of jail without a disguise (a simple scarf hiding his face would've solved this issue). These types of problems in scripts – particularly old Westerns (pre-60s/70s) – insult the intelligence of viewers and loses their respect. There are numerous 50's Westerns that are guilty of these types of eye-rolling contrivances and plot holes.

Yet The Law and Jake Wade overcomes this problematic opening with the strength of the rest of the movie and the themes thereof. The Magnificent Seven, by contrast, reveals its questionable writing much later in the film -- especially the villagers inexplicably turning yella and betraying the titular heroes -- and just ruins the movie (for me). Their sudden change of heart doesn't make sense and reflects lazy writing.

[–] Wuchak (8734) 6 years ago

It's obvious that some Westerns are rooted in realism (Stagecoach, Shane, Hombre, The Long Riders) while others are more rooted in myth or the supernatural or comedy (Buffalo Bill, Leone's mid-60's Eastwood trilogy, Pale Rider, American Outlaws), but the latter isn't an excuse for lazy, eye-rolling writing. The 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma, for instance, has mythic qualities (e.g. Wade whistling for his horse while captive in the train at the end), but practically all the criticisms and supposed plot holes leveled at it can easily be explained due to great writing.

[–] PaladinNJ (21510) 5 months ago

Well said. Just entertainment no documentaries.

[–] BeaSouth (3288) a year ago

I agree Chico waltzing into Calvera’s encampment was ridiculous. The writers could have avoided that by having him recon without being seen and simply overhear the conversations and report back. Some of the villagers losing the will to continue fighting did not bother me because many of them were earlier skittish and reluctant upon the arrival of the Magnificent Seven when Chico lambasted them. So, the handful of sheepish villagers seemed consistent with earlier behavior.

The silliest part for me was when the three boys caused Bernardo to expose himself and get killed from some anonymous, unseen shooter. This was particularly bad because it was edited to flow directly into a scene with Chris, Vin, and villagers standing, guns lowered in the middle of the village with a battle obviously over. It made no sense for a gunshot to occur from somewhere at that point and no shooter ever seen or eliminated by Chris or Vin.