Good concept, poorly executed.

Best movie ever!

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

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!

Director Budd Boetticher did seven Movies with Randolph Scott. This was the first. Film Buffs can argue about which one was the best. It doesn't matter. Pick any one and you are on solid ground. They are all examples of the best of the 1950's overload of Westerns.There can also be discussions, that might turn into arguments, about John Ford and Howard Hawks versus Anthony Mann and Budd Boetticher. This can become more contentious. The Former may have had John Wayne, but the latter had James Stewart and Randolph Scott. Where the distinction becomes clear is the Production. Mann and Boetticher made their Movies with a lot less Money and the economy is irrelevant. Except maybe in the running times. Ford and Hawks tend to huff and puff while Mann and Boetticher brood. That is a clear distinction.This one has some really stunning stuff. The opening shot leads the opening scene and both are remarkable, crisply written, and cunning. The greatness is at hand and there is more in the following hour right up to the most unusual of standoffs. When the Bad Guy says as they face each other down..."whenever you are ready"...we witness a most crackerjack draw and shoot...just don't blink or you might miss it. Talk about economy with style.

In a storyline similar to later Randolph Scott/Budd Boetticher/Burt Kennedy collaborations such as Ride Lonesome and Comanche Station, stoic Scott seeks to avenge the death of his wife at the hands of bandits, while at the same time sheltering innocent Gail Russel and contending with shifty wise-guys Lee Marvin and Donald "Red" Barry.Having recently watched a handful of Boetticher directed movies, he's quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. His understanding of the widescreen image is unparalleled. Even shots with a single actor in frame finds that person in an angle to make full use of the rectangular shape of the screen!Scott and Lee Marvin are great fun to watch. Their contrasting personalities make their on-screen interaction superb. Marvin and Donald Barry steal every scene they're in even though Barry hardly has any lines.The script by Burt Kennedy is no-nonsense, to the point, and full of action, but not without artistic flourishes.Highly recommended.

I might have seen this as a teenager, but if so I don't remember it. Reading others' reviews gave me high hopes when a chance to tape it came up. So, well, it's certainly not bad: it starts and ends with tremendous scenes and has good stuff along the way. But for my taste there are entirely too much shots of them travelling through the scenery, and Randolph Scott does seem to be playing more on a single note than in other films like the Tall T, also shown recently. Lee Marvin's character is interesting and well portrayed. But some of the scenes seem to fall a little flat; the tensions within the group travelling together are unevenly portrayed, and the robbers whose action sets Stride on their trail are barely brought to life at all. The shooting of the husband of Gail Russell's character also seems a rather transparent way of getting him out of the way, which will put the robber leader in just as much trouble as the husband's revelations would have done.Overall, then, I mark this lower than most have done, at 6.