Nathaniel Nelson / Winonan

It seems these days all Hollywood can do is make sequels and remakes, and this year has been no exception. From the middling remake of “Ghostbusters” to the dreadful remake of “Ben-Hur,” the theaters always seem to have some kind of rehash in the screens. After these last few bombs, it’s a wonder executives keep green-lighting them, but maybe they were onto something after all. “The Magnificent Seven” might not be a perfect remake, but it’s an exemplary popcorn film that manages to make the Western genre approachable again.

The story of “The Magnificent Seven” isn’t anything new, or even unique to the “Magnificent Seven” franchise. In fact, the John Sturges 1960 original was a remake of Akira Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai,” which has been remade as everything from a space opera to a an animated series. That’s not to say the story is bad, of course. The tale of a group of villagers giving everything they have to a group of heroic renegades for their help is as timeless as it is entertaining. Director Antoine Fuqua’s depiction is easily the most simplified and streamlined version yet, lacking the complex character development of Kurosawa or the moral ambiguity of Sturges, but it still makes for a fun ride.

Speaking of characters, this is one place where the film absolutely shines. Every character is cast to perfection, with Denzel Washington leading what might be the best action ensemble since “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Now, to say these seven characters aren’t clichés would be a bit of a stretch. But that’s part of the fun! If you’ve seen any number of westerns before, you’ll be able to immediately catch on to these classic archetypes. Chris Pratt plays to his comedic strengths as the snarky gambler Josh Faraday, Vincent D’Onofrio’s Jack Horne is a welcome departure from Wilson Fisk, and bringing in Lee Byung-hun (of “The Good, The Bad, The Weird” fame) as an assassin is a stroke of genius. The rest of the cast, including Ethan Hawke and Haley Bennett, deliver fine performances, if a little subdued.

There is one notable problem with using these archetypes, though: westerns were pretty racist. On one hand, this is Texas circa late-1800s, so the subtle racism makes sense. Also, I have to give Fuqua props for having one of the most diverse casts of the year. But when looking at today’s political climate, it would’ve been nice to see a bit of a departure from the classic themes. It’s modern, yes, but it still has a ways to go before it could really be considered progressive.

Now, you can’t make a “Magnificent Seven” film without plenty of action. Thankfully, Fuqua delivers in spades. This is an action movie through and through, and it doesn’t let you forget that for a second. Even the first scene involves some real hard-hitting violence, which helps to set the tone for the rest of the film. Fuqua’s got a knack for action sequences, and for the most part, this film is no exception. The final battle is a bit manic at times, and despite Fuqua’s efforts, it can be easy to get lost. That said, seeing seven renegades and a town of sloppy gunslingers go up against an army and a Gatling gun is an absolute blast.

Not all is magnificent, however. Fuqua’s direction leaves a lot to be desired, for one. He seems to want to emulate classic Western directors like Sergio Leone and John Ford, but instead of homage, it comes out as shoddy imitation. There’s also this oddly glossy and digital sheen to the whole movie, which doesn’t belong anywhere near a western. The biggest problem, I’d say, is just an overall lack of experimentation. This film is as safe as you can get, and when going up against the three hour perfection of “Seven Samurai” and the seminal 1960 “The Magnificent Seven,” you need to bring something new to the table.

All in all, Fuqua and crew did a solid job updating this classic, with a few caveats. The cast is wonderful and the action is astounding, but an overall lack of new ideas causes the film to stumble. “The Magnificent Seven” is absolutely a western for the 21st century, but not in the vein you might expect. It sacrificed some of the more technical aspects of the western in favor of modern day bombast, and in turn, failed to add anything that the Coen Brothers’ “True Grit” or even last year’s “Slow West” didn’t already do better.

This being said, I would give the movie three out of five stars. If you’re looking for something new and wildly imaginative, look elsewhere. However, if you’re in the mood for two hours of spectacle and shallow bombast, you’re in the right place.

-By Nathaniel Nelson