I'm going to jump right into my criteria for watching any movie:
1. Do I believe the story?
Not really, kinda, maybe, if I'm suspending disbelief as I do for animation, perhaps? So many unbelievable elements to it -- the token Indian threat; screaming Hollywood from the Joshua Tree National Park (or nearby) in the first 5 minutes; one minute we're in the desert, next minute we're in a torrential downpour, and more. The whole setup was so rigged, I actually found myself paying close attention to sunlight & shadows on the cardboard characters' faces. Questions such as: How can that guy see in the desert with the sun in his eyes? Are they really travelling south, based on which way the shadows are cast?
2. Do I care about the story?
No way! I don't think I had ever seen a Randolph Scott movie before, unless in childhood. But that song has been with me all my life, "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott, ridin' them trails alone?..." So I figured I'd check out Randolph Scott hunting down 7 bad guys, just for a look. Otherwise, I wouldn't have lasted more than 15-20 minutes. By the end of the film, I didn't really care how things turned out. Without spoiling, I will say I was mostly engaged in predicting what would happen (as opposed to simply watching what happened) -- I got 100% of my predictions right!
3. Do I believe the characters?
Not really, with one exception: Lee Marvin's character, Masters. I hated him -- and since he was the villain, that's exactly the way I was supposed to feel about him. A nasty old scoundrel from the Wild West. Yep, I believed Lee Marvin!
4. Do I care about the characters?
No. I wanted to care about Randolph Scott, 'cause he does seem like a cool dude type, right from the start, and his mission was righteous. Naturally, Mrs. Greer is pleasing to the eye, and Gail Russell did the job she was hired to do, but nothing more. On a positive note, I did care about Lee Marvin's Masters. He was the villain, and I was rooting against him, as I was supposed to. A pretty straightforward villain, but very well played, nonetheless.
Overall, I'm disappointed, with the exception of Lee Marvin's performance -- the only reason I scored this movie 4/10 and not lower. I strongly disagree with the 7.5 out of 10 rating which enabled me to watch the movie. I believe that average rating to be exaggerated sentimentalism. Indeed, even I began by giving this movie 6 out of 10 -- but realized I had done so for two reasons: (1) I almost felt duty-bound not to give it a lower rating, given its status as a "classic western"; and (2) I know IMDb applies a weight to ratings -- which works in the case of Bollywood and such -- but I honestly felt that giving "Seven Men From Now" the rating I truly felt would somehow diminish the value of my vote. The more I think about it -- even the title is contrived. Most or all negative connotations of "Hollywood" as being a contrived industrial production of cinema as opposed to art, are present in this movie, with the exception of Lee Marvin's performance.
My recommendation: Don't waste your time with this one!
1. Do I believe the story?
Not really, kinda, maybe, if I'm suspending disbelief as I do for animation, perhaps? So many unbelievable elements to it -- the token Indian threat; screaming Hollywood from the Joshua Tree National Park (or nearby) in the first 5 minutes; one minute we're in the desert, next minute we're in a torrential downpour, and more. The whole setup was so rigged, I actually found myself paying close attention to sunlight & shadows on the cardboard characters' faces. Questions such as: How can that guy see in the desert with the sun in his eyes? Are they really travelling south, based on which way the shadows are cast?
2. Do I care about the story?
No way! I don't think I had ever seen a Randolph Scott movie before, unless in childhood. But that song has been with me all my life, "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott, ridin' them trails alone?..." So I figured I'd check out Randolph Scott hunting down 7 bad guys, just for a look. Otherwise, I wouldn't have lasted more than 15-20 minutes. By the end of the film, I didn't really care how things turned out. Without spoiling, I will say I was mostly engaged in predicting what would happen (as opposed to simply watching what happened) -- I got 100% of my predictions right!
3. Do I believe the characters?
Not really, with one exception: Lee Marvin's character, Masters. I hated him -- and since he was the villain, that's exactly the way I was supposed to feel about him. A nasty old scoundrel from the Wild West. Yep, I believed Lee Marvin!
4. Do I care about the characters?
No. I wanted to care about Randolph Scott, 'cause he does seem like a cool dude type, right from the start, and his mission was righteous. Naturally, Mrs. Greer is pleasing to the eye, and Gail Russell did the job she was hired to do, but nothing more. On a positive note, I did care about Lee Marvin's Masters. He was the villain, and I was rooting against him, as I was supposed to. A pretty straightforward villain, but very well played, nonetheless.
Overall, I'm disappointed, with the exception of Lee Marvin's performance -- the only reason I scored this movie 4/10 and not lower. I strongly disagree with the 7.5 out of 10 rating which enabled me to watch the movie. I believe that average rating to be exaggerated sentimentalism. Indeed, even I began by giving this movie 6 out of 10 -- but realized I had done so for two reasons: (1) I almost felt duty-bound not to give it a lower rating, given its status as a "classic western"; and (2) I know IMDb applies a weight to ratings -- which works in the case of Bollywood and such -- but I honestly felt that giving "Seven Men From Now" the rating I truly felt would somehow diminish the value of my vote. The more I think about it -- even the title is contrived. Most or all negative connotations of "Hollywood" as being a contrived industrial production of cinema as opposed to art, are present in this movie, with the exception of Lee Marvin's performance.
My recommendation: Don't waste your time with this one!