The logical errors contained in this story abound: Why is it necessary for so many senior officers to appear in a mere cadet simulation (the Kobayashi Maru)? Why use live explosives in a simulator? Are these officers actors in their spare time (it certainly looks like it; Spock in particular hams it up)? How could Starfleet and their cartographers not realize that an entire planet is missing in the Ceti Alpha system? How could Chekov not realize this since he’s a trained navigator? Why didn’t Chekov realize that the Ceti Alpha system was the system in which Khan and his clan were marooned by his former captain (even assuming he wasn’t aboard the Enterprise during the 1st season, he would have certainly gotten word from the rest of the crew, in particular from his Helmsman buddy Sulu)? How did the multi-ethnic supermen of “Space Seed” turn into a bunch of blond Aryans? Why would Scotty melodramatically bring his wounded nephew to the Bridge instead of Sickbay (which is one of the lamest scenes in Trek history)? Why does the ear slug simply leave Chekov instead of killing him as the creatures did to twenty of Khan’s people? How could Kirk not notice that Spock, his right-hand man, had left the Bridge? Why doesn’t Spock just put on an environmental space-suit before entering the radioactive chamber? I could go on but I’ll have mercy. As great as these errors are, they could be ignored if the story itself was compelling.

Sure, the Joker's great & scary and the tone is perfect, but the story doesn't have much drive. I've seen it twice and don't get the hype. I think it's relatively dull.

I tried to watch this a few times over the years and could never complete it, but I finally forced myself to do so. Yes, it has rich themes that are fun to interpret and evaluate, but the melodramatic story isn't compelling and contains annoyingly one-dimensional characters. Leigh would've received a Razzie if the movie were released a mere decade later (although I'm not blaming her as she did the best she could with the seriously flawed script).

There are also numerous eye-rolling elements, like the absurd dimming-the-lights component, particularly in light of Leigh's beauty, regardless of age. Or how about the lame excuse for an off-screen character's suicide? I understand that they had to change this from the original play due to the moral codes of the time, but they failed to make it remotely believable.

Check out "The Night of the Iguana" (1964) or even "The Fugitive Kind" (1960) if you want to see a good B&W melodrama based on Tennessee Williams' works.

I get that it tries to be the Bizarro Christmas movie (taking place in a working class neighborhood, the leg lamp, etc.), but it's just not that good and sometimes stunningly bad.

The tone and F/X (for that time) are great, but the story and characters are almost non-existent. The only time it drums up suspense is during Hal's revolt. Some parts are dreadfully dull, like the opening ape sequence, which needlessly goes on forever. It's an iconic film, though, and certainly worthwhile, just be prepared to be bored for long stretches.

This three-hour fantasy features a diverse cast of colorful characters, quaint beings and settings, moments of genuine wonder, dark ee-vil creatures, high adventure, thrilling brutal action, a superb score, magnificent locations (forests, mountains, rivers, etc.), and wondrous CGI sets. The film LOOKS and SOUNDS so great that it’d be sinful to give it a lower rating.

There are problems, however, at least for those who aren’t uber-fans of Tolkien. For one, the opening is hindered by prologue that is overlong and convoluted, not to mention unnecessary. The bulk of it could’ve been conveyed later via flashback, which they do a little bit anyway. Secondly, the story takes forever to build any drive. Thirdly, except for maybe Frodo and Gandalf, the characters are shallow and I didn’t care much what happened to them. Fourthly, main protagonists getting seriously wounded and everyone else expressing their melodramatic concern gets redundant.

Fifthly, there are only two females in the main cast (Liv Tyler as Arwen, a half-Elf princess, and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, a royal Elf); unfortunately, their parts aren’t much more than glorified cameos. “Mythica: A Quest for Heroes” (2014) cost LESS THAN $100,000 to make, which is a mere fraction of the $93 million it cost to make this blockbuster and the filmmakers knew enough to include a couple of prominent babes as key protagonists in the story.

Despite these negatives, I like much of “The Fellowship of the Ring" (just not the first act or the two sequels), but it's no where near as good as the hype makes it. The trilogy degenerates with "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" being progressively worse: The central battle in "Return" is curiously similar to the Battle at Helms Deep in "Towers" and is therefore redundant. Then the entire trilogy comes down to someone hanging from a cliff. Seriously? (This was already done at the end of "Fellowship" and beginning of "Towers").

This is a decent Medieval flick with some excellent parts, plus Patrick McGoohan de-shines as the villain Longshanks, but it butchers history and is no where near the masterpiece some claim it to be. I'd watch 2006's "Tristan + Isolde" or 2001's "Attila" any day over this.

Marginally better than "Braveheart" and I somewhat like it, but it's still no where near where the hype puts it.

Best Picture? Unbelievable. It's just not that good, although it's okay.

Yes, it's an iconic Western with memorable parts, awesome style & a great score. It is on my Best Westerns list, but best movie of all time (as it's often placed)? I don't think so. The (non)characters are caricatures; it's also ridiculously overlong.

Sure, the first half hour is great, but the rest of the movie leaves a lot to be desired, not to mention the eye-rolling, melodramatic scenes (remember that lame dog tag sequence?).

I can't tell you how disappointed I was with Tim Burton's film! Yeah, the costumes, sets, cast and cinematography were great (hence my 4/10 rating), but the story was unrealistic, goofy and, worst of all, dull; in other words, it siphoned! Tim Burton is outstanding with visuals, but he didn't take the Batman legend seriously and, most importantly, he failed to incorporate an interesting story. What good is a BORING film that looks great and doesn't take its subject seriously? This is a quintessential example of style over substance.

Most of the high ratings of this film are from people who saw it when they were kids and they're just nostalgic. If they viewed the film objectively as an adult, with respect to the true Batman of the comics, they'd have to admit that it's not a good interpretation.

Oh, I suppose it could be enjoyed on some level as a sort of an ALTERNATIVE Batman; a friend of mine who's in the comic business said this was the only way he could enjoy it.

Sorry, I don't get the hype.

Not funny, just stupid, intentionally offensive and phony. As far as the latter goes, the last part with Pamela Anderson was totally contrived and goes against the very directive of the movie -- to film people without their knowing it and showing their responses to the weird and idiotic Borat character.

The story keeps your attention but you'll roll your eyes at the idiotic misunderstanding where Baby's father assumes Johnny's the one who got his partner pregnant and, for some strange reason, no one sets him straight. Not to mention, the characters always say the wrong thing at the wrong time, which perpetuates the misunderstanding. Also, the sexual union of Johnny & Baby is both premature and unbelievable in light of the time period, Baby's age -- 17 years-old -- and her upbringing. Frankie Avalon was once asked about his early 60s "Beach" movies if the male-female relationships were as "squeaky clean" as portrayed and he answered (paraphrasing): "As a teen back then 'going all the way' wasn't even considered an option." The obvious exception would be disreputable kids from the "other side of the tracks."

Moreover, the fact that Johnny is having sex with the doctor's daughter, a minor at that, can't win any points in his favor. Hence, even without the misunderstanding there's little reason for the father to warm up to Johnny. So why does the doctor show respect for Johnny at the end -- a dude who's fornicating with his daughter and is clearly much older than her as well, at least five years (although, in reality, Swayze was 34 during filming). Such blatant flaws smack of lazy writing and are offensive to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

If you can ignore these stoo-pid elements, however, the film is entertaining. The dance sequences shown in the staff area are akin to vertical sex with clothes on. I guess that's why it's called "Dirty Dancing," huh? Yet this is another flaw of the movie -- these dance sequences are so amped-up and choreographed they shout to the viewer via megaphone: "This is A MOVIE; it's NOT REAL." Nonetheless, Grey's a cutie, Swayze's The Man (like, say, Elvis) and the lush Appalachian locations are outstanding.

The plot of a genius janitor is great and I thought I'd like the film more than I did, but a couple of things really bog it down.

For one, Will Hunting is so smart he's stupid. Doesn't he know that smoking will destroy his body and send him to an early grave? But that's the least of his shortcomings. He's arrogant and unnecessarily mean. For instance, Professor Lambeau visits him in jail and Will's first words are, "What the *beep* do you want?" Could anyone be that stupid? How about, "Hi, I'm Will. Who are you, Sir?" I get it -- he's from a tough neighborhood and was abused as a kid, but 99% of guys from tough neighborhoods who were abused as kids don't talk unnecessary sheet like Will does in this film.

In fact, too much of the cussing rings untrue. Will and his three friends from South Boston (including Ben Affleck) use the f-word practically every other word and it strikes an inauthentic chord. Yes, I get it -- they're trying to act like hooligans from a rough neighborhood -- but they try too hard and it comes off contrived.

I should add that I hail from a hooligan-oriented neighborhood where the gang cussed, drank & smoked like sailors, but even we could construe eight words together without throwing in the f-bomb. I have no problem with realistic cussing in films; in fact, I prefer it. But when it's so over-the-top that it seems artificial it detracts from the drama.

Furthermore, Damon doesn't LOOK like a tough guy from the wrong side of the tracks (neither does Ben, but he's a little better). Matt's miscast because he just looks too soft with his baby-face. I think he knew this because he tries too hard to be a tough punk, and it shows.

The fact that the main protagonist is thoroughly unlikable takes away from the story. Who cares about some disrespectful punk who doesn't care to better himself, genius or not? As a result, the drama isn't nearly as compelling as it could've been. When Sean (Williams) finally gets Will to break at the end, I wasn't much interested.

The film was a box office hit and hailed by critics. Roger Ebert, for instance, gave it a perfect rating. I didn't see it until 27 years after its release, far removed from the hoopla of the period, and found it decent at best, although somewhat amusing. An example of the film's limitations can be seen when Cronauer performs in the presence of the troops in the second half; the sequence is somehow unconvincing. Nevertheless, there's an unexpected twist in the third act that piqued my interest and the movie is a necessary companion-piece to films like 1986's "Platoon" in that it provides the non-grunt, political side of the infamous conflict.

The graduate enters into a fling with Mrs. Robinson and then her daughter. Yeah, that's a good plot (rolling my eyes).

It has some entertaining elements but the tone is flawed. It's clearly a parody, but some people take it serious because the tone is so uneven, spanning from comedy to tragic drama. In any case, it's just overrated.

I like this movie, but it's typically at (or near) the top of cinephile's best films lists. It's not even close to being that good IMHO.

It was fairly entertaining and visually spectacular, but the ending ruins everything.

***SPOILER ALERT***

He ate 'em all (rolling my eyes).

This is a good movie if you have a liking for tall blue-skinned people in a cartoon. The plot rips off "Dances With Wolves."

Imaginative space fantasy? Very much so. Iconic? Absolutely. Too kiddie-oriented? Yes. Overrated? Definitely. Blasphemy? I don't care.

I like it, but it was definitely overhyped at the time. Remember how Elaine Benes felt about it?

When I first saw it in the theater in 2003 the film struck me as too long for such lightweight fare (2 hours and 23 minutes). It also struck me as boring and forgettable for some reason. I decided to see it again recently and came away feeling the exact same way. What makes it boring and forgettable? I don't know, it's hard to pinpoint. Maybe because it's too drawn-out; light film fare like this works best at around 80-95 minutes. Maybe it's because many of the characters are unable to die because of the curse, which naturally creates a lack of suspense. Mostly it's because the story and characters, although fun, are absurd and superficial. Also, I suppose it's too much to expect to glean some morsel of depth or truth from a film like this.

This one wasn't a hit, but it's hailed in some circles. The Utah wilderness locations are picturesque and the score is pleasant, albeit dated; it sounds exactly like what it is: early 80s New Age music made for an historical fantasy film about Native Americans. And whereas the Cheyenne and Crow characters look generally authentic, they somehow appear too clean, like they put on their brand-new Native clothing a few hours before filming; in other words, it smacks of fantasy more than reality. The depiction of Natives in "Jeremiah Johnson" eight years earlier was noticeably superior. Another negative is the usage of white dudes in major Native roles and Asian boys as Indian children, but I guess they had to do what they had to do to get the film made. And, besides, Howard has Indian-looking facial features despite the color of his eyes and I wouldn't be surprised if Remar had Native blood in his veins. As far as the Asian boys goes, didn't Native Americans originate from Asia in the first place? In other words, they're acceptable substitutes to genuine Native Americans.

Despite the negatives, this is definitely a beautiful film; I just wish the story was more realistic and interesting, like the depiction of 17th century Natives in 1991's excellent "Black Robe," one of my all-time favorite movies. Although a lot of the story in "Windwalker" is good, there are a lot of comic book elements and it's at times fantastical. Moreover, the story raises questions, like how does this elderly man, just risen from death or near death, kill and skin a bear? And how long does it take him to tan the hide? It looked like a day.

Ali MacGraw's character comes off bizarre and annoying ("Hey preppy" -- "preppy" "preppy" "preppy"). O'Neal's character, on the other hand, I found to be an all-around likable guy -- tough, but very nice at the same time, filthy rich yet undeniably humble and respectful. In any case, it's overrated.

Totally overhyped.

Ditto.

A cartoony action flick seriously lacking the depth and overall greatness of the original or the 2008 one (see my review for details, if you think I'm crazy).

I can't believe the overhype of this lame movie. Garbage.

I saw it once and never want to again. I guess it's just not my cup of tea.

So raunchy it becomes a turn off. "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" blows it out of the water.

They were still trying to find their footing with this one; the next two are fairly entertaining despite the juvenile, bathroom humor.

Admittedly, this one's cerebral, entertaining and iconic. To put such an intricate movie together and make it entertaining took genius, so I give credit to the Waschowski brothers, um, I mean sisters (rolling my eyes). The casting is great and Carrie-Anne is stunning throughout (I usually don’t like short hair on women, but she’s an exception). For me, though, the Waschowskis made it too comic booky. They tried too hard to be cool. The posturing characters in their slick black outfits & sunglasses scream “Yeah, right.” Plus the Messiah angle is old hat.

Just five minutes of this makes me reach for the off button.

The first hour consists largely of a tedious, never-ending wedding scene. The last hour involves scene after scene of people blowing their brains out in Russian roulette gambling games in Vietnam. Sandwiched between is the the grueling Vietnam torture sequence of POW's De Niro, Savage and Walkan. While these scenes are well done and utterly unforgettable, the film as a whole isn't anywhere close to the hype.

Only see this film if you want to be bored and see scene after scene of people blowing their brains out. See "Apocalypse Now" (the original version, not "Redux") if you REALLY want to catch a great 70's Vietnam War flick.

I believed the hoopla in July, 1996, and was severely let down. There's too much goofiness & silly patriotism (and I'm patriotic, although I can't stand the Federal government) and the idea of a human being expertly flying an alien spacecraft into the alien lair provides some serious "Yeah, right" moments.

This is a notable Western with numerous positives. I like it, but some people tout it as "the best Western ever made." No way. It's too slow and overlong for its simple plot. For instance, a man getting down from his horse to approach another man is made out to be a mind-blowing epic event. Absurd.

Nevertheless, it's a must see Western; just put on a pot of (strong) coffee.

I've only seen the original 1977 "Star Wars," so I'm not the best person to appraise this installment, but – as a relative 'outsider' to the franchise – I was easily able to follow the characters & their story and was entertained enough to give this an okay rating. It's a fun space fantasy adventure highlighted by the iconic characters who are 38 years older. Daisy Ridley as Rey doesn't do much for me, however; I find her bland, albeit serviceable. Boyega and Isaac fare better as likable Finn and Poe. Driver plays a good villain, but he's too young for his high ranking in the First Order, although I'm sure being Darth's grandson made it possible.

The best parts for me are the numerous awe-inspiring visuals and locations, Harrison Ford and BB-8. But these people who are claiming this is the best film ever made are guilty of serious overrating. At the end of the day it's flashy kiddie-oriented space fantasy with little meat on the bones and I have no desire to see it again.

There's this ongoing myth that "Spider-Man 2" is one of the greatest superhero movies. While Doc Ock is excellently realized the movie is severely flawed by two subplots: Since when are Spider-Man's powers dependent upon Peter's confidence level? He received them via a radioactive spider bite, which has nothing to do with faith/belief. And what about the stoo-pid subplot where Spider-Man's identity is revealed to a dozen New Yorkers on the subway train with the implication that they're going to keep mum about it. Why sure!

Touted as a masterpiece and one of the greatest Westerns, I've seen "The Searchers" twice and was disappointed each time. Sure, the Monument Valley locations are breathtaking and the cast is great, but the story leaves a lot to be desired. It's just not that interesting and there's very little momentum. On top of this we get sequences, characters and dialogue that seem to be stabs at comedy, which (1.) aren't funny, (2.) are awkward because the main story is a serious drama/adventure in a Western context, and (3.) make some of the characters out to be dimwits (note to the writers: just because someone lives in the wilderness it doesn't automatically make them doofuses).

Give me "Stagecoach" (1939), "The Horse Soldiers" (1959), "The Alamo" (1960), "North to Alaska" (1960), "True Grit" (1969), "The Cowboys" (1972) and "Rooster Cogburn" (1975) any day over this mediocre Western. Heck, I'll even take "The Comancheros" (1961), "The Sons of Katie Elder" (1965), "El Dorado" (1966), "The War Wagon" (1967), "Rio Lobo" (1970), "Chisum" (1970), "The Train Robbers" (1973) and "The Shootist" (1976) over it.

There's a great opening shootout and an outstanding closing shootout, the latter a catharsis of blood; in the middle is a compelling train robbery. The material in between these three sequences isn't all that engrossing due to the fact that the characters aren't noble, likable or even redeemable, which is the film's weakness. I get the pessimistic message, but it doesn't change the fact that practically every character is an immoral or amoral dirtbag.

Speaking of which, Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan) has the audacity to repeatedly call the members of his posse "gutter trash" and the like. Well, what is he? A freed-on-condition prisoner who was once a member of the very outlaw scum he's chasing. At least the posse members -- lowlifes that they are -- are on the right side of the law. What hypocrisy.

A lot of dialogue and drama is devoted to character development, but who cares about a bunch of grim criminal scumbags? How can you devote "character development" to people who have no character? That's the problem with the film.

I'm not a fan of found-footage films because they're not entertaining by their very nature. Since these types of movies are supposed to be "found footage" they come across about as interesting as home movies of vacations, except that something weird or horrific is taking place. In this case, the three youths are baffled by the evidence of someone (or something) harassing them in the woods, which gets increasingly terrifying. It starts with mysterious piles of rocks and then stick figures; finally someone disappears and they later hear him/her torturously yelling in the distance.

The movie runs 81 minutes and that's just too long for the content. It could've easily been cut in half and would've been more effective for it, but they obviously had to make it "feature length." The Maryland woods and Heather Donahue's curvy butt can only maintain your attention for so long. The mockumentary "Curse of the Blair Witch" was a great set-up for this film and it's entertaining for what it is, but it's only like half as long. Watching three people stumble around the forest in home-movie quality footage cussing at each other is just tedious and unentertaining. For me, it's a snorefest.

A good example of a movie that takes the "Blair Witch" template and makes a vastly more entertaining movie is 2013's "Another Kind," but that's mainly because it's an actual movie and not "found footage."

This is a "twist ending" flick and, honestly, the film is too reliant on it. The whole movie is just "wait for the twist;" it isn't actually that entertaining to sit through. In fact, most of the dialog is pretty boring; and only had some value in the end. Moreover, the main characters are just foul-mouthed, tough-guy low-lifes, although Spacey's character is somewhat interesting. As such, it's next to impossible to care about them. Let 'em all kill each other for all I care. Yes, the ending is clever in some ways, but everything that goes on up to that point isn't really worth enduring. As far as the twist goes, I was able to pinpoint the identity of the mystery man down to two people; and I was right. But there are some interesting details to the twist that I doubt anyone could figure out without first knowing the ending and then re-watching the flick. But, after watching, I'm not really interested in seeing it again. The story and the characters aren't worth it. The film didn't make me care enough to watch again.

Filmmakers must understand that, for a movie to be enduring, it has to be about the journey not the destination. And, for me, the convoluted journey in "The Usual Suspects" is just dull and laborious. If the characters were worthy and I cared about them I might be more interested, but that's not the case. Then there's something that I experienced a couple of times while observing the five main guys babble back and forth: I had the overwhelming sense that these were just actors playing 'hip' tough-tawkin' hooligans rather than the characters they were supposed to be. This is never a good sign.

***SPOILER ALERT***

I want to emphasize that my low estimation of this film is not based on pretending to "know the twist all along" (as stated above, I was able to figure out who the mystery man likely was, but not the other details). The problem is that the entire movie is based around listening to a guy make up a bunch of stuff. Gee, so all we really know is there was a ship that got torched and Kevin Spacey's character doesn't really have a limp. Okay, thanks for wasting my time with everything else. Great storytelling (rolling my eyes).

Best Picture? Get real. Although it is well-made and generally sustains interest, it's message is garbage.

The main protagonist is a teenage drug peddler. He sees artistic beauty in things like a corpse with its brains blown out.

A neighborhood gay couple is portrayed as blissful and well-adjusted while the two heterosexual couples are miserable and dysfunctional. One heterosexual father quits his job during his midlife crisis and starts an affair with a high school cheerleader (!); the other hetero father is a sadistic control-freak. One heterosexual mother is a materialistic adulterous, the other a zombie. Their kids are lost. It is revealed that the reason the one father is such an abusive hate-monger is because he denied his homosexual tendencies all his life.

The overall message of the film rings loud and clear: Embrace homosexuality and you'll be happy, have a normal family and you'll be miserable. Why sure!

This movie has a big reputation as an 80's teen flick, but I was wholly disappointed. Most of the discussions between the five students from different cliques -- the popular girl, the jock, the Brainiac nerd, the dope-smoking rebel and the neurotic misfit -- come across contrived and unconvincing. Some of the dialogue is actually cringe-inducing.

The hoodlum (Judd Nelson) could've worked as a character, like the Fonz or Vinnie Barbarino, but he's such an annoying, loud-mouthed jerk that he loses all sympathy, particularly when he verbally rapes the redhead on multiple occasions for no ostensible reason. The fact that the two end up together at the end adds insult to injury. Not to mention two others that unrealistically couple up.

It's strange that "The Breakfast Club" is billed as a comedy because there's very little that's funny, although it's occasionally entertaining, like some of the music sequences. Unfortunately, writer/director John Hughes wasn't into the heavier side of rock and so the soundtrack consists solely of bland 80's new wave bands, like his other 80's teen flicks (e.g. “Sixteen Candles,” “Pretty in Pink” and “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”). Don't get me wrong, there are a couple of quality songs, like “We Are Not Alone” by Karla DeVito, but where are the heavier popular bands of 1984, like Van Halen, Scorpions, Judas Priest, Ratt, Dokken, Queensryche, Def Leppard, AC/DC or Motley Crue? Is it asking too much to have ONE song that actually rocks?

But the music is the least of the movie's problems (and isn’t really a problem at all, except that there aren't any heavy tracks). The actors are fine, but Hughes' dialogue is unconvincing. The script needed a serious rewrite.

This is a decidedly dialog-driven dramedy rather than event-driven, which would be okay if the dialog was entertaining or funny, but that's hardly the case (for me anyway). Albert Brooks' character has marathon-length dialogues with several people through the course of the film – his wife, his boss, a casino owner, a job counselor, a hot dog joint manager, etc. – and it's mostly pointless drivel with only a smattering of amusing moments.

Furthermore, director/writer Brooks lacks the charisma to carry a film like this; it needed someone like Bill Murray. There are additional problems, which I won't go into here.

However, I do like the moral of the story, which is driven home at the climax. There are amusing elements throughout and it works as a period piece, but its overall quality isn't anywhere near where the hype puts it. It's an okay, but pedestrian mid-80's dramedy.

I enjoyed the setting (1962), the cars, the music and some of the cast, but virtually none of the subplots interested me. The writing’s unengaging. Combine virtually any four Happy Days episodes and they’re vastly more entertaining story-wise than this ridiculously overrated flick.

This is a fine flick for men who like to dress up as women (rolling my eyes).

Despite the contrived plot, based on Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" (1954), you can't beat the lusty score, the superlative locations and the excellent main cast (the villagers, by contrast, are mostly weak). Unfortunately, the movie's ruined by hokey script flaws. For instance, Chico (Buchholz) is able to effortlessly infiltrate Calvera's bandits, utterly fooling them, even though there were only 32 of them by this point (rolling my eyes). Even if Calvera & his brigands failed to make out Chico's face, which is a big IF, his dialogue & accent would've given him away. Keep in mind that he was just an unseasoned teen.

Another prime example is the village leaders' sudden cowardly turnaround (i.e. betrayal), which totally contradicts their earlier resolve. Yes, I realize they learned that the bandits weren't run off and that they were going to return to the village out of desperation, but there were only like 30-32 bandits left at this juncture and the combined forces of the seven gunmen and the fighting villagers now had the opportunity to annihilate the thugs for good. The sad thing is that both of these script hitches could've easily been fixed, but this kind of lame writing reflects too many Westerns before the 60s when the modern Western came to the fore with "One-Eyed Jacks" (1961), "Hombre" (1967) and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (1969).