Return of the Seven (1966)

This first sequel to "The Magnificent Seven" is a disappointment. It is not a BAD western - there are a few bits of genuine merit to be found here and there. It was given an ample budget so that the production values look pretty good, and director Burt Kennedy captures the Spanish landscape well. He also directs the action sequences fairly well. The main problem, however, is the script (by Larry Cohen, of all people.) While the story runs a half hour or so less than the original movie, it feels like it moves a lot slower, with a lot less action sequences sprinkled in. An even worse problem is with the depiction of the characters. Most of the seven protagonists are given very little detail; we hardly learn a thing about them. It's even worse with the villain - we have to wait until almost half the movie has passed before he makes his first appearance, and while his motivations for what he is doing are kind of interesting, in total there's not enough done to make his character a strong and memorable villain. The best that can be said overall for this movie is that it's not the worse entry in the series - that dubious honor goes to "The Magnificent Seven Ride".

in the franchise of the magnificent seven which itself was a remake of seven samurai this is the second worst film made.only few members return from the original 1960s flick but rest gets wasted just like the original.the story,direction,music & whatever everything is here is even bad then the first film.why did they even make this film this film is only for critics i guess Roger Ebert he is dead but his website is still active i don't know why & specially this nutshell review guy who's user-name is dick-steel on IMDb should watch it,normal people wont like it,even the action is bad here.the dialogs are cheesy enough to make you go mad.overall the return of the magnificent seven 1966 is a failure & a second worst entry in the series.Skipp this film don't waste time & money.

Not the classic as the original, but I like this version better, because acting of Yul Brinner as Chris is more subdued and looks more natural.It's not the all star cast of the first movie, but pretty good none the less. I really think the mood of this movie is better than the first.The story basically follows the plot of the first one. It won't disappoint if you came looking for the repeat of the first movie. I actually liked this one more than the first.Robert Fuller's best role is seen in this movie. He's way too cool.Ironic that Yul Brinner died of lung cancer, and the theme song of this movie was the advertisement music for Marlborough cigarette.

The original title always struck me as a rather overblown definition for a bunch of gun-toting saddle-tramps. Still; their screen presence was at least underscored by a top-quality group of actors to support Yul Brynner. Most were movie stars in their own right.However; this first sequel was a pale imitation, with a group now composed of largely B and C list players, who were more mediocre than magnificent. It was a similar set-up. Brynner's 'Chris' had to recruit yet another team of gun-toting saddle-tramps to sort out the Mexican peasants' problems again. Another tyrant was giving them grief.With the originality and freshness of the first movie now spent, this remake had little else to offer. The budget was evidently very limited. This was reflected not only in the cast, but also in the below-par script, which borrowed much from the earlier classic. It was also more than half an hour shorter than John Sturges' original. Yet we still had a reprise of the agonising and moralising that made even the first a little turgid at times. However, here there was no decent acting, action or location work to balance things up. Filmiing was less expansive. It failed to convey the broad sweep of landscapes that were a great part of the original.Generally; it just lacked imagination. The first movie had been a smash-hit, and this pedestrian sequel was evidently put together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to cynically cash-in on former success. And it shows. There's very much a 'made for TV' feel about it.Not recommended.