MovieChat Forums > Sorcerer (1977) Discussion > Am i the only one who thinks this is an ...

Am i the only one who thinks this is an awful remake?....

posted 8 years ago by CalibMcBolts
15 replies | jump to latest

Am i the only one who thinks this is an awful remake? The original, Le salaire de la Pleur, has taken over #54 on my top 70 favorite films of all time list, i love that movie, it is near perfect filmmaking. But the remake 'Sorcerer', by William Friedkin, is absolutely terrible. There are so many situations in this film that they shouldve died, but miraculously didnt... The original is filled with nailbiting suspense, and gritty realism. This movie is not realistic at all, it throws logic and basic science out of the window many times...

They stripped 'Sorcerer' from pretty much every good thing the original has.

-The opening 40 minutes of the original is some of the best esthablishing of character, atmosphere, location, setting, and mood in any film ever. and in the remake the opening 40 minutes is an incompetently made, incoherent mess. I had no clue who the 4 characters were going to be, how they ended up in that hell hole of a city and how they ended up in each others truck. That is made clear in the original, not in this *beep* pile however. I had no clue what the point was of the first 40 minutes, it felt completely unnecessary and couldve been scrapped, it didnt establish anything.

-The 4 main characters of the original, are unique and memorabe, Mario, Luigi, Bimba and Mr Jo, i can name them off of the top of my head, from 'Sorcerer', i cant even name 1 character's name, and i just saw the movie. Every character is bland and forgetable

-They completely changed the ending, the ending of the original is one of the most poignant and best endings to a movie ever, and such a PERFECT wrap up, to the story. The ending sums up perfectly what French 50's avan garde filmmaking was, and how nihilistic most french filmmakers were during that time

-In the remake you do not feel any companionship or love, between the characters, they barely interact with each other, in the original they have a bond, which is soo great.

-and above all, 'Sorcerer' is unbearably boring. You would think a remake that came more than 20 years after the original was made, that it would be faster paced, and more exciting. Well, no. The original is one of the best thrillers ever made, 'Sorcerer' is unforgetable crap. I have no clue how Academy Award winner William Friedkin, an absolute master, couldve made this *beep*

Have fun, tearing me apart in the comments

Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

-The opening 40 minutes of the original is some of the best esthablishing of character, atmosphere, location, setting, and mood in any film ever. and in the remake the opening 40 minutes is an incompetently made, incoherent mess. I had no clue who the 4 characters were going to be, how they ended up in that hell hole of a city and how they ended up in each others truck. That is made clear in the original, not in this *beep* pile however. I had no clue what the point was of the first 40 minutes, it felt completely unnecessary and couldve been scrapped, it didnt establish anything.

If anything, Sorcerer provided more information about the characters' backgrounds than Wages of Fear, we see the details of each character's backstory in the beginning of the film. It also spells out how they wound up in hiding in a South American hellhole and why they wound up driving a truck of TNT. Did you miss the first few tracks of the disk?

-The 4 main characters of the original, are unique and memorabe, Mario, Luigi, Bimba and Mr Jo, i can name them off of the top of my head, from 'Sorcerer', i cant even name 1 character's name, and i just saw the movie. Every character is bland and forgetable

I agree that the characters in Wages of Fear are more likeable, but so what? Who says that the characters in a film have to be likeable?

-They completely changed the ending, the ending of the original is one of the most poignant and best endings to a movie ever, and such a PERFECT wrap up, to the story. The ending sums up perfectly what French 50's avan garde filmmaking was, and how nihilistic most french filmmakers were during that time

Sorcerer also had a nihilistic ending: only Jackie (Scheider) survives the drive, and it's pretty clear that he's doomed too, since the hitmen hunting him show up at his bar upon his return.

-In the remake you do not feel any companionship or love, between the characters, they barely interact with each other, in the original they have a bond, which is soo great.

In Sorcerer, they dislike and distrust one another, which is actually more realistic. A bunch of desperadoes in hiding who get thrown together by chance aren't likely to bond and be close friends from the get-go (though after pulling through the dangerous ordeal, they do start to feel loyalty towards one another).

-and above all, 'Sorcerer' is unbearably boring. You would think a remake that came more than 20 years after the original was made, that it would be faster paced, and more exciting. Well, no. The original is one of the best thrillers ever made, 'Sorcerer' is unforgetable crap. I have no clue how Academy Award winner William Friedkin, an absolute master, couldve made this *beep*

Friedkin has made far worse films than this. Pretty much everything he's made from the 1980's on has been a cut below his 70's work, including Sorcerer.

[–] CalibMcBolts 8 years ago

If anything, Sorcerer provided more information about the characters' backgrounds than Wages of Fear, we see the details of each character's backstory in the beginning of the film. It also spells out how they wound up in hiding in a South American hellhole and why they wound up driving a truck of TNT. Did you miss the first few tracks of the disk?

Why they wound up driving the truck, i have no clue, how they ended up there, i do know.
I felt it provided barely anything, a lot of scenes where i had no clue what was going on, except Schneider's character and the frenchman, i have no clue who the other 2 were. Not basing off of the beginning, nor the rest of the film.
I wish i did, then i wouldnt have to have watched the insignificant first 40 minutes.

I agree that the characters in Wages of Fear are more likeable, but so what? Who says that the characters in a film have to be likeable?

They're also more memorable and significant

Sorcerer also had a nihilistic ending: only Jackie (Scheider) survives the drive, and it's pretty clear that he's doomed too, since the hitmen hunting him show up at his bar upon his return.

Yes that is true, but not nearly as powerful, memorable, and poignant as the original. The ending of the original comes as a shock, and a punch in the gut. Sorcerer's ending is hardly any of that.
Yes nihilistic, not nearly as great.

In Sorcerer, they dislike and distrust one another, which is actually more realistic. A bunch of desperadoes in hiding who get thrown together by chance aren't likely to bond and be close friends from the get-go (though after pulling through the dangerous ordeal, they do start to feel loyalty towards one another).

Yes, for this film it is more realistic, but in context of the original it would not have been more realisitc, because Mario is a friend of Luigi's, and Mr Jo is someone who Mario helps. and Bimba is the one they have the least friendly relationship, which is realistic. In the original it is just as realistic as in the remake

Friedkin has made far worse films than this. Pretty much everything he's made from the 1980's on has been a cut below his 70's work, including Sorcerer.

Yeah, i have heard that after his 70's films he made nothing but poop, but The Exorist and The French Connection are some of the greatest movies of all time, and so is the original film, so i had a bit of expectations because it is a Friedkin film.

Maybe if i hadnt seen the original first, i mightve liked this film more, but because i have, it is obvious that one would start to compare.

Thanks for not ripping my head off, or calling me an uneducated ass, or a troll.

Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] !!!deleted!!! (68022683) 8 years ago

the ending of the original is one of the most poignant and best endings to a movie ever

I always thought that it was kind of ridiculous.

Blind dissent is as foolish as blind patriotism.

[–] rijo 8 years ago

How come youve created a top 70 list instead of say a more conventional top 100? Just curious!
There he goes. There he goes.

[–] CalibMcBolts 8 years ago

Because i wanted to have a list i can fully 100% stand behind, and not put films on there just because i want to have a top 100, and then i only had 70 films i can stand behind.

But, ironically, i just expanded my list to a top 100, because since then i've seen a lot of new great films.

Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

It took a long time for Friedkin to helm something this fascinating again, an obvious labor of love following two 20th Century classics. He can take heart knowing "Sorcerer" has gained a larger, appreciative audience over time.

I'd say that Sorcerer was Friedkin's last great film, and one of the few remakes of a classic film that comes close to measuring up to the original. Some of Friedkin's films from the 80's and beyond are decent and watchable, but I doubt they'll have the staying power of his best work of the 70's.

Francis Ford Coppola and Ridley Scott more or less followed the same trajectory.

No surprise it didn't reach audiences in `77 already starry-eyed by that clunker "Star Wars" (gets worse after each viewing.)

Star Wars should have been made ten years later. Mainstream big studio films of the mid/late 80's tended to be overproduced, juvenile, escapist schlock. The late 60's through early 80's seemed to be the years when everyone was trying edgy and interesting things in film, not just in the arthouses, but in major studio productions.

[–] fleischwolf (294) 7 years ago

I don't know, I really liked Cruising, although it's not a perfect film.

Also, Bug and Killer Joe where both terrific. They're not like his earlier work, more like stage play, especiall Bug, but thought both where great.

Now, Coppola and Scott, I agree, Scotts last great movie being Blade Runner and Coppolas Apocalypse Now, even though Dracula was a stunningly beautiful film, only harmed by stupid casting (Ryder and especially Reeves).

And the ending in Sorcerer was terrific! I mean, you think he's made it and then you see these 2 guys getting out of the car. Punch in the gut! Absolutely great!

[–] popvoid 8 years ago

No. I like both films for different reasons. I absolutely HATED the ending to the original. I actually said out loud in theater, "Oh, come on!" It was a lame ending. Friedkin's ending worked much better for me. I also liked the beginning, to the Friedkin film although you're probably right that it wasn't really necessary. All of that said, nothing in SORCERER made me squirm quite as much as the Clouzot film did, with the possible exception of the bridge scene.

[–] TheArgentinian (6847) 4 years ago

I just watched both for the first time on back to back nights and I have to agree with OP. I didn't give a shit about any of the characters even though WF gave them more backstory. Only Roy S makes this movie watchable.

I do like both ending, though. I prefer the original but I respect WF for not repeating it.

[–] pjl69 (2647) 4 years ago

I think Sorcerer is superior film. I couldn't believe how Hollywood the french film was when I had a chance to see it.

[–] BourbonKing (5760) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] drhouse (79) 4 years ago

"CalibMcBolts Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001";

wtf it's private, make it public