The Magnificent Seven (2016) Movie Review - Modern westerns have never been so.... western!

There's a common misconception that westerns are dead these days. While it's true that modern cinema has evolved beyond the classic "rootin tootin" simplistic western formula of the old days, and thus they won't be as frequent as they used to be, many western movies of this generation have managed to reinvent and revitalize the genre to keep it alive. Films like the True Grit remake, Unforgiven, and Django Unchained have become box office smash hits by taking a darker, more intense take on the genre. Now, the director of Training Day and The Equalizer has conjured up a remake of a remake, The Magnificent Seven, which combines the grittiness of today's modern westerns with the fun, energetic tropes of the classic westerns (including the Man with No Name trilogy) with surprisingly outstanding results.

The film starts off with an industrialist named Bartholomew Bogue, played by Peter Sarsgaard, invading a small town in an attempt to buy out their land. Once they refuse, he and his army run the people out of their homes, killing many people in the process. This is when a woman named Emma Cullen, played by Haley Bennett, seeks the help of a bounty hunter named Sam Chislom, played by Denzel Washington, who then rallies up a team of six other gunslingers to run Bogue and his men out of the town.

The film follows many of the classic western tropes; snarky lines, gun-slinging shootouts, stand-offs, you name it; while adding so much energy and charisma to the formula that it can't help but feel fresh. The actors all have great chemistry, the dialogue is riveting and often times hilarious (partially due to some strong, crisp delivery from the actors), and there's many beautiful landscape shots that add to the style. Alongside that, though, there's two shoot-em-up scenes in particular (one in the middle and an epic climactic battle towards the end) that are thrilling and impressively choreographed. This is exactly how I would want to see a modern western.

If there's one thing that keeps the film from reaching the heights of, say, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly or Once Upon a Time in the West, it would definitely be the pacing. Films like the aforementioned kept tension as well as style building by taking the time to breathe inbetween certain lines. This movie, on the other hand, feels very overcut and quick, as if the filmmakers needed to reduce a 2 1/2 hour movie to barely over two hours and spliced a lot of space between lines. On the flip side of that, though, I guess the aforementioned did what they did for dramatic purposes, and this was clearly going for a more fun and riveting action-based western.

On those merits, The Magnificent Seven is an awesome, well-constructed flick with very charismatic and riveting performances, thrilling action, and tons of energy to go around. If this ends up being the western that brings the genre back to the modern swing, I'll have at it! Highly recommended!

Sully Movie Review - Robert Zemeckis' Flight in TV movie form

Clint Eastwood, once known as the man with no name, has been putting his directorial emphasis on telling many true stories as of late, which, as many people know, is a risky business, not just because of the backlash a film can get for getting many details wrong (which, yeah, this film's already received much of that as is), but because in order to get an audience invested, there has to be an emotional weight to it. Getting this aspect right has been a roller coaster for Clint; J. Edgar was an unfocused, scattered biopic that didn't have very much emotional weight due to the story not holding much emotional weight to begin with, but American Sniper, polar opposite to that, was an emotionally powerful look at PTSD. Sully lands somewhere in the middle of that, maintaining focus on one event rather than trying to tell a person's life story, but also suffering from some stiff, almost lifeless execution that makes for a pretty forgettable experience.

For those who don't know, the film centers around Captain Chesley Sullenberger, who, on January 15th, 2009, piloted US Airways Flight 1549 taking off from an airport in New York City. A mere three minutes after takeoff, the plane gets bombarded by a group of geese, which causes engine failure. After much analyzing, Sully, as he's called, decides the best option is to land the plane in the Hudson River. His efforts save everyone on board, and he's dubbed by the press as a hero. However, not too long after, investigators come after him and try to make it look like he could have taken a different course that would have resulted in less damage to the plane. The resolution to that, if you don't already know, I won't spoil.

All the pieces are in place for a pretty powerful drama. The set-up reminds me very much of Robert Zemeckis' 2009 film, Flight, except whereas that was more of a character study in which a man goes through the turmoil of an emotional experience and suffers the consequences of his drinking problems, Sully plays out like an investigative drama in which we constantly look over an event and the audience, along with the characters, attempts to determine if a better outcome could have come about. Honestly, the choice to adapt this story was a much smarter decision from Eastwood than just saying "I'm gonna  make a movie about J. Edgar Hoover!..... And that's all I got."

Where the film falls short, however, is in its execution. The film feels very much like a TV drama, being very straight-forward, dull, and lifeless. Everybody talks about the emotions of the situation rather than conveying emotions, and every performance is flat and forgettable. Tom Hanks is a talented actor who recently gave an emotionally hefty performance in Captain Phillips, but comes off very stiff here. Even during the flight failure, he seems rather calm, cool, and collected about the scenario. Even in Saving Private Ryan, a film where he plays a Captain in the military, he conveyed SOME emotion. I got nothing but stiff monologue from Sully! And yes, as you probably heard, the investigators are the most obvious villain stereotypes you could get in a film like this. I almost expected one of them to have an eye patch, or a least a cigar.

So, would I recommend the film? Well, if you're familiar with this incident and have been following this film for a while and want to see the event conveyed in film form, I can't say there's anything terrible about it that makes me say you should stay away from it. It tells the story it needs to tell, and plot-wise, it does have a pretty flowing narrative. However, if you're like me and you want to get invested in the representation of a historical event through an emotional experience, this will definitely be underwhelming for you.

My rating: