This movie was boring and plain stupid. - Sorcerer (1977) Discussion

[–] Jericho_One 18 years ago

If you actually paid attention to the movie you'd find out there was no other way of moving the nitro.
Geez...

Oh man, the *beep* piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it.

reply

[–] synapse256 18 years ago

Please explain to me why transporting the stuff on a 4 ton truck with blownout suspension was safer than carrying the boxes on a stretcher or some other 2-man shock reducing device.

reply

[–] choatelodge 18 years ago

Do you really think that the movie shows you every one of those miles? Do you really expect readers to believe that men could stretcher carry crates of dynamite for over 200 miles, over hilly and treacherous terrain in a couple of days?
Did you stop to think before posting that ridiculous proposal?

The film shows the toughest parts of the drive. These parts are necessarily slow. The rest is fast, including the stretch where the tire blows.
Can you see men running 20 miles an hour, and I suppose blowing a running shoe?

Think, man.

reply

[–] synapse256 18 years ago

Who cares how far it was, obviously if the road was smooth enough to drive then drive it. You cant tell me they wouldn't have been safer taking that *beep* out and walking it to the end of a tough section and driving the trucks up later, it would have been safer and SAVED time.

Anyways the whole movie was just dumb, watching a truck go .2 miles an hour for half the movie is boring as hell i don't care if it was necessary or not and there was definitely parts where it wasn't.

reply

[–] Jericho_One 18 years ago

Would it have saved time? Unloading the trucks and then loading them up again, having to take extra care with the boxes? Think, man.
If you don't like this flick, why bother posting about how dumb, how stupid, how boring it is?

Oh man, the *beep* piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it.

reply

[–] synapse256 18 years ago

Do i have to explain physics to you? No.. i'll just use your words think, man... think, man. Yes think. If riding around in the back of an ancient truck doesn't blow them up then you'd have to try pretty hard to blow them up by picking them up by hand. How long does it take to unload/load 3 boxes???

And i love your last sentence, the signature of all people who have no argument. Obviously these message boards are only meant to praise a movie you liked. Actually i don't usually post on forums but after being drastically misled by this movies imdb page about the quality of this movie, i felt obligated to make at least some statement to how crappy it really was, and what a waste of time/rental it was for those who don't turn their brains off while watching a movie.

reply

[–] Jericho_One 18 years ago

LOL, since we're using each other's sentences, and actually "you don't usually post on forums", since you've been "drastically misled by this movie's imdb page" about the quality of it - actually, so drastically misled that you "felt obligated to make at least some statement to how crappy it really was, and what a waste of time/rental it was for those who don't turn their brains off while watching a movie", ask for a refund, or better, since you feel so affected by this flick, why don't you sue Friedkin and the studio for damage?

Oh man, the *beep* piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it.

reply

[–] synapse256 18 years ago

Thanks for proving once again that you have no argument. Now the next step, recognition that you have no argument, this is the part where you refrain from posting pointless and really stupid comments like "sue the studio" and just choose not to post. I know you'll get there eventually.

reply

[–] Jericho_One 18 years ago

My argument is simply that this is a pretty decent flick. Although I consider it not as good as the original "The Wages of Fear" (One you probably haven't seen, since you are very easily bored, so you're more into renting something that provides you an immediate thrill), it's a pretty good remake with an excellent soundtrack and a nice plot. While the plot is simplistic and straightforward (something you're definitely not used to, since you're easily bored), it's actually pretty effective and solid. It's not that unbelievable, although we must keep in mind that this is a movie after all.

Now, again, if you paid attention to the movie, you should know that they first planned to transport the nitro by helicopter, but the vibration would be fatal.
You said that they took very little nitro in the trucks. Well, if you were paying attention, you should know that they were carrying more than enough nitro(actually, it is said in the movie that they only send two trucks in case one of them gets blown on the way, wich happens - and one box of nitro does the job on the oil wells).
Then, the boxes are placed in earth in the back of the trucks, in order to prevent them from moving.
I agree that realistically, there are a few incidents in the movie that in real life would probably cause the nitro to explode. But those incidents are there to increase the tension, wich is one of the main assets of this movie.

Pointless and stupid comments? Let's Put this stuff in a stretcher and run 200 miles with it! How's that for a stupid and pointless comment?LOL

In the end, It seems to me that the one with no argument at all is you.

Oh man, the *beep* piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it.

reply

[–] choatelodge 18 years ago

As Jerocho said/wrote, it's a pretty decent flick.
Like any movie, you have to suspend your credulity a bit and just accept the premis.
When a viewer starts to get 'attitude' and pick away at a movie, then one wonders why he continues watching it. After all could Indiana Jones really outrun that huge round rock that was rolling after him? Can Arnold Schwarzennegger outrun an explosion for half a block before diving into water to escape the fireball? How could Judah Ben Hur survive in the water after that shipwreck after rowing all day, and still have the energy to pull Quintus Arrius out of the water onto that makeshift raft?

And how can Superman fly and turn corners in the air without any visible way of controlling his direction or speed? If he can just go wherever he wants by willpower then why does he have to lay flat while he does so?

See, you can pick any movie apart if you are having a tanrum. Wha does that accomplish? Give a movie some leeway so that you can just enjoy it.

If you didn't enjoy the second half of Sorcerer synapse256, then that is perfectly permissible and even understandable. It may not be for everyone. Inventing absurdities in the screenplay however, in order to justify your own short attention span and lack of imagination that cannot appreciate motor vehicles that are travelling at less than 20 miles per hour, is ridiculous and frankly just isn't working.

The plotline is just fine. The movie garners a high rating among IMDB fans, reflecting widespread appreciation among a sophisticated audience.

So if you don't understand it synapse256, then you need some different material, that's all.

reply

[–] synapse256 18 years ago

If i can watch movies like Syriana, 2001 Space Odyssey, or Barry Lyndon and come out with very positive sentiments on the films, i don't think my problem is attention span.

I enjoy movies like Indiana Jones, Superman, and even some Schwarzenegger flicks but with those there is a key difference; you have to set the mood for a film or any good story early on and stick to it.

This film started out with gritty realism, and human drama and then transforms into an Indiana Jones style film half way through. That doesn't work for me.

If the plot is so contrived and full of holes that anyone can spot them then you need something else to drive the movie. Some examples of this would be likable characters, drama, romance, comedy, or action. This movie had none of these things.

My point in what has admittedly turned into a rant was only to make 1 thread in a board full of "best movie ever" type threads that acknowledges that this movie was deeply flawed and isn't going to be enjoyed by a large number of people.

Anyways, I didn't think this movie was worth the time, and this argument certainly wasn't either. People can watch it for themselves and decide, I just hope they aren't mislead as i was by the very high rating on a movie classified as "thriller" that in fact had very few thrills. I'm done here.

reply

[–] MannyBam 18 years ago

While i didn't think this movie was all that bad, it certainly was not all that good either. I agree with you the rating here is outrageous. Having watched it i would have expected something in the 4-5 range but certainly not 7.

I agree with you on the plot, it's far fetched and corny and at times very tedious. I also agree this movie had no likable character or anything else going for it.

If your gonna make a movie thats purely plot driven, don't expect people to not scrutinize the plot.

reply

[–] CrunchCameron 18 years ago

Oh stop being modest guys, this movie was frickin excellent. Tangerine Dream did a great score. Dick Bush and John Stephens did some really great camerawork, and although it doesn't call for much, Roy Scheider did a great job filling the role of a guy who has had the life sucked out of him due to extreme circumstances. By the way I love the scene where Scanlon hears that guy laughing maniacally and then looks down at him and he's dead, but the laughter keeps going on.

reply

[–] ClydeBickle 18 years ago

Great *beep* suspense thriller from Friedkin and co., and I fail to see how the idea of trucks transporting nitro is illogical. Why not have a helicopter airlift it? Oh right, turbulence. They covered that. Well, how is a truck safer than a helicopter hitting some turbulence now and then? They covered that too, licensed helicopter pilots would not risk their lives like that for any kind of money, but a group of desperate lowlifes might. The trucks were also filled with dirt, and if you knew anything about physics you would understand that it absorbs the majority of the shock. Now stop trolling and go back to your michael bay films.

"Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!"

reply

[–] JohnnyLoad 18 years ago

LOL!

"Go back to your Michael Bay films." hahahaha! that was a good one!

reply

[–] obliv 18 years ago

the reason they didnt carry the stuff was indeed because having two guys carry it on a stretcher would take a really long time, and the point was to get it to the refinery to try and blow out the fire w/the explosion set off by the dynamite. if they had to carry it, and be carefl and slow over akll that terrain, not only is there a greater chance for humnan error (one of them slips and falls, the stuff drops off stretcher - BOOM-, or any other numerous possible screw ups that could occur, but they would also have to carrry food/water and sleeping supplies for the trip, which i am guessing would take upwards of a mopnth,m at least, and there did ot seem to be any towns or outposts along the way, so they would have to carry what they would use to survive..thus, a big burden further slowing the down.

they used the trucks b/c in that part town theye were the oly vehiclees that could make the trip across the terrain. they demonstrated early on that the nitro was extremely volatile, hence the need to move slowly...not only that, but the oil company didnt give them any better vehicles b/c the drivers were considered expendable...thats why they sent 2 trucks...

yeah, they would have to blow up the log across the road...they could nt move it any other way, and they did have this explosive handy , why not

i personaly thought it was veryh suspenseful...not in an action hero type way, but i really felt that 'slow burn' of knowing that the slightest bump might set off the nitro...

tyou are entitled to your opinion, but i thought it was really good. not as good as wages of fear...but i doubt youd like that eitherm, as its essentiall the same story...

yeah, i liked it...that doesnt make me an idiot...to each his own

reply

[–] nickt030 17 years ago

synapse256,

You were not misled by the "very high rating" that you refer to. You are just pissed off because you are part of the minority of viewers that disliked the film. Either that, or you are just being a troll!

reply

[–] gayspiritwarrior 17 years ago

>>My point in what has admittedly turned into a rant was only to make 1 thread in a board full of "best movie ever" type threads that acknowledges that this movie was deeply flawed and isn't going to be enjoyed by a large number of people.<<

But you haven't done that, because it HAS been enjoyed by the majority of those who've seen it. No movie pleases everyone. All you've done is demonstrate that you're part of a minority that doesn't like this "deeply flawed" one. I'm sorry for you that you had to sit through a boring movie. I hope that turns out to be the worst that ever happens to you.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

reply

[–] karv-1 16 years ago

If you take a look at the box office numbers that this film took in at the time of its release, you'll realize you're not picking apart a smash hit here anyway. So what is your point? I think that the people who did enjoy this movie are appreciating it now for its directing, acting, musical score and overall atmosphere because they don't make many movies with this kind of feeling and sense of tension to them anymore. You should spend more time tearing apart films that deserve it, like the last Die Hard or Indiana Jones movie. Films that people aren't going to acknowledge 30 years from now because they REALLY DON'T deserve it.

reply

[–] sgraham-15 17 years ago

And, check it out...the guy who didn't like Sorcerer fulfilled his own prophesy!

reply

[–] seashellz 10 years ago

i actually don't know why helicopters were not used-surely the bumpy washed out roads were no softer-bit then that would be a 20 min trip with no drama

reply

[–] tonyvidal 10 years ago

I don't know if anyone else on this thread has thought this through, but why in the world would you haul unstable, defective nitro through the jungle, taking at least a week or longer to rehab some nasty old trucks first when -- wait for it -- you could simply order some new, stable explosives, nitro or whatever,and have it airshipped in overnight from Miami. DUHHH!!! Despite this gigantic plot hole, I still loved the artistry of the movie. Friends used to watch it at the Nuart in West LA in the pre-video days. It was easy to get a contact high there, if you know what I mean....

reply

[–] obliv 18 years ago

you know, you are welcome to your opinion, but i have long been bothered by the criticism of 'this is stupid" for movies that are clearly produced and made by intelligent people. maybe you didnt like it. maybe t could have been better. but it is ot "stupid", as in appealling to and produced by and for stupid people.

there are movies that are for stupid people...norbit, being a recent example. ace ventura anoother. ernest goes to camp. iron eagle 3. kickboxer. i could go on.

but not sorcerer.

and i know you didnt do this, synapse256, so its not aimed at you... but the best is 'i didnt get it...this movie was stupid..." YOU didnt get it and the MOVIE was stupid?

if you are reading this, please think about it before you use 'stupid' or 'dumb' as a descriptor in the future...i will continue to harp on it. hopefully, we can change it

reply

[–] dubdub_80 18 years ago

why didnt they just call ups

reply

[–] Byzantine15 17 years ago

To OP:
"I honestly was rooting for the damn trucks to just blow up so the stupid movie could be over"

If you want the movie to be over, turn off the player, get up and leave. No more movie! It ain't complicated.

reply

[–] Strangerhand 10 years ago

It is for synapse256, waaay too complicated. What a lame wussified piece of bitch-*beep*! There's way too many of his ilk trolling the IMDb!

reply

[–] Huntauk 16 years ago

to obliv -

i wouldnt worry about the half baked opinions of the average viewer, most classics such as this receive poorly developed criticisms based on very little other than that the film wasnt as accessible to them as much as Highlander 2, Robocop3 and the films you listed. if you think the OP here needs pulling up go to Night of The Hunter forum and see the idiotic comments of a certain pleb im dealing with right now, people like this seem ten a penny right now.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xanadu_dan 10 years ago

Versace, you really need to be more careful with your spelling, grammar, and punctuation if you want to demonstrate an IQ in the 90th percentile. Other than that, "good" and "bad" are subjective opinions whose truth only extends as far as the person holding that opinion. Anyone can like or dislike whatever they want to, there's no correct or incorrect to that.

reply

[–] Strangerhand 10 years ago

You have like a 90 I.Q.? Ah, boy! I wouldn't brag about that if I were you. 

I'm certainly no dumb or stupid

*StrangerHand whistles to himself, eyes rolled up toward the sky, trying to pretend that he didn't just read that*

reply

[–] estcst-3 17 years ago

The whole time i am just thinking why the hell don't they just pick the crates up and carry them, it would be faster than this and safer too!

Actually, it wouldn't have been and since this is your major argument with the whole film your post means little.

They've only shown you the parts of the journey that were slow. Aside from these parts it's likely that the trucks were moving ten times faster then a couple of guys carrying crates.

BTW: Have you even bothered to consider that this would have required at least two dozen guys to carry this stuff? Two guys carry at a time just as one guy can drive at a time but it's easy enough to switch drivers if you need to. The guys carrying it would get tired and need rest. While they're resting they are falling behind the guys who would have to take over. They'd need to catch up or have other guys walking with them to carry it even further on. You would be talking about six guys per crate if you had guys following with them, at least six! They had a hard time finding four guys to do this job. Not to even get into the actual carrying of the crates. Have you ever carried 40 or 50 pounds for hours? Do you think this stuff is light?

If anything is full of holes it's your logic.

reply

[–] HorodyskiJ 17 years ago

"Why not have a helicopter airlift it? Oh right, turbulence. They covered that. Well, how is a truck safer than a helicopter hitting some turbulence now and then?"?

Did you actually PAY ATTENTION to this scene? Nothing was said at all about turbulence, and the word was never even used. They talked about the lateral vibration from the rotors of the helicopter translating to the cargo being slung beneath. If you've ever sat in a helicopter, you can easily feel the constant vibration in your butt the whole time, and this would definetely start unacceptable motions in any cargo sling hanging from the helicopter. Delicate machines they ain't. Your entire point is based on something which was never said, and just assumed by you.

reply

[–] nickt030 17 years ago

The OP is a troll.

reply

[–] gtichris 13 years ago

just rechecked twice (sorcerer is on you-tube) "about 20 feet down there would be no vibration , but there's a problem with the turbulence" is quite clear @ 8:07 part 3 of 10. It appears that YOU are the one who should "PAY ATTENTION"

yeah buddy

reply

[–] kwon-4 17 years ago

Wow, I just watched this and i had hard time even paying attention to it.

The beginning is great, introducing all the characters and the trouble that they get into that they have to leave their homes to escape.

Once the actual truck driving part starts the movie goes way down hill. I have never seen such a tedious, implausible plot in my entire life. I was bored to tears and constantly asking myself, what the hell?

First of all the trucks themselves, they are each transporting a very small load of nitroglycerin in these huge trucks. The whole movie is these trucks like inching there way across perilous terrain. The whole time i am just thinking why the hell don't they just pick the crates up and carry them, it would be faster than this and safer too!

Then the scene where they are clearing the road of the fallen tree. I was like oh my god please don't tell me we have to watch them clear the road, but yep, we have to watch them clear the road. They call this entertainment!?!

I don't know how the hell this movie has a 7+ score. I mean i wasn't around when this came out but i like to think i have an open mind and i enjoy a lot of older movies, but this was almost unbearably boring. I honestly was rooting for the damn trucks to just blow up so the stupid movie could be over, and the characters could die like the dumbasses they were for trying to transport this stuff that way. They were asking to die the whole time, i wish they could've just got on with it...

The reason they didnt carry the stuff was indeed because having two guys carry it on a stretcher would take a really long time, and the point was to get it to the refinery to try and blow out the fire w/the explosion set off by the dynamite.

If they had to carry it, and be careful and slow over all that terrain, not only is there a greater chance for human error (one of them slips and falls, the stuff drops off stretcher - BOOM-, or any other numerous possible screw ups that could occur, but they would also have to carrry food/water and sleeping supplies for the trip, which i am guessing would take upwards of a month at least, and there did not seem to be any towns or outposts along the way, so they would have to carry what they would use to survive..thus, a big burden further slowing them down.

They used the trucks b/c in that part town they were the only vehicles that could make the trip across the terrain.

They demonstrated early on that the nitro was extremely volatile, hence the need to move slowly...not only that, but the oil company didn't give them any better vehicles b/c the drivers were considered expendable...thats why they sent 2 trucks...

They would have to blow up the log across the road...they could not move it any other way, and they did have this explosive handy.

There was this 'slow burn' of knowing that the slightest bump might set off the nitro.

Hope this helps!

´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:- ((¸¸.•.>> Porsché Lynn

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 16 years ago

I'm glad I'm not alone. When Friedkin is at his best, there's no one like him. But "sorcerer" is crap.

The story is ridiculously implausible, the screenplay is incoherent the soundtrack is beyond annoying and the editing is appalling.

-
Hillary Clinton: She can't even run her own life, I'll be damned if she'll run mine

reply

[–] NostalgiaDrag 16 years ago

^
The idiot above has valid criticisms, I think. The story is of course "ridiculously implausible" because it would've been much more plausible to, as one genius previously posted, "carry the nitroglycerine by way of stretcher". It's like... TRUCKS? ARE YOU SERIOUS? That doesn't make any sense. This reminds me of another classic Friedkin flaw. In his later film, TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA, which was pretty good throughout, had a huge crippling flaw: in the airport scene when the CIA agents went to check the money John Torturro used to pay for his plane ticket they asked the desk lady if they could borrow a pencil to see if the bill was conterfeit... well what if she had a pen? WHAT IF SHE HAD A PEN? Good premise but this ridiculously implausible scene made it difficult to take the film seriously.

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 16 years ago

The story makes no sense at all. Friedkin might just as sensibly made a movie about a guy who swims the Atlantic Ocean in two hours and shot it in "real time".

There is no way to safely transport nitroglycerin in those conditions - it doesn't matter how you carry it.

However, if you insist on having nitroglycerin (and there's no earthy reason to do so), it is ridiculouly easy to trasnport the components by whatever means you choose and make fresh nitroglycerine at the site where it is needed so you don't have to transport it at all.

However, if you really want to blow out a large oil fire with explosives, there are any one of a number of compounds that are easily manufactured and much more stable than nitroglycerin. Why not bring any one of those in on a plane and have the fire out in hours rather than days?

The premise of the movie was moronic.

-
Hillary Clinton: She can't even run her own life, I'll be damned if she'll run mine

reply

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

If you knew anything about making nitro you'd know that your statement is stupid.

Now, what are these other "compounds" that are "easily manufactured and much more stable than nitro" (at the time in the picture)?

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 16 years ago

If you knew anything about making nitro you'd know that your statement is stupid.

Actually, I do know how to make nitroglycerin.

Now, what are these other "compounds" that are "easily manufactured and much more stable than nitro" (at the time in the picture)?

The picture was set in the 1970s...

But even if it wasn't, TNT has been manufactured commercially as an explosive since the 1900s.

-
Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus

reply

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

But even if it wasn't, TNT has been manufactured commercially as an explosive since the 1900s.

Wrong. This from Wikipedia:

TNT can be safely poured when liquid into shell cases, and is so insensitive that in 1910, it was exempted from the UK's Explosives Act 1875 and was not considered an explosive for the purposes of manufacture and storage.

It wasn't available "commercially" until the mid 20's (as far as I can tell) and it wasn't easily available everywhere.

In case you didn't know it, some products are hard to get in other parts of the world besides the USA. People still use nitro in many places that TNT isn't available because is too expensive, or they unable to obtain it (import restrictions). The point is, it is not outside the bounds of reality that TNT was unavailable in the place they were in the film.

Try suspending reality once in a while, or are you going to complain about The Dark Knight because there is no such person as Batman?

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

PS What is the point of posting your block list as your signature? Are you bragging, or afraid that the people you're blocking won't know it, so you have to inform them in your sig line? Seems absurd to me, but then that's just my opinion.

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 16 years ago

Wrong. This from Wikipedia:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TNT can be safely poured when liquid into shell cases, and is so insensitive that in 1910, it was exempted from the UK's Explosives Act 1875 and was not considered an explosive for the purposes of manufacture and storage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what are you saying... that because the British government exempted it from the Explosives Act of 1875 it wasn't an explosive?

Give me a break.

In case you didn't know it, some products are hard to get in other parts of the world besides the USA.

Yeah, but toluene, nitric acid and sulfuric acid aren't among them. In any case, TNT is only one of a bunch of options they would have had other than nitroglycerine.

Try suspending reality once in a while

I don't mind suspending reality, I just don't like being asked to suspend common sense.

It was a crap movie even when you look past the absurdity of the concept.

-
Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus

reply

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

So what are you saying... that because the British government exempted it from the Explosives Act of 1875 it wasn't an explosive?

Yes. That shows that it's true potential (at that time) as an explosive wasn't KNOWN (or widely understood). This from Wikipedia:

TNT was first prepared in 1863 by German chemist Joseph Wilbrand[3] and originally used as a yellow dye. Its potential as an explosive was not appreciated for several years mainly because it was so difficult to detonate and because it was less powerful than alternatives.

Yeah, but toluene, nitric acid and sulfuric acid aren't among them. In any case, TNT is only one of a bunch of options they would have had other than nitroglycerine.

How do you know? And we aren't talking about those compounds, we're talking about manufactured DYNAMITE. Get with the program. You don't just toss those ingredients in a bowl and mix well. The ability to manufacture TNT from those compounds requires the skill (and lab to do it). It also can be very dangerous (if you don't know what you're doing).

I don't mind suspending reality, I just don't like being asked to suspend common sense.

How about not suspending the common sense it would take to realize that TNT might not have been available to the people in the movie? Try that.

It was a crap movie even when you look past the absurdity of the concept.

That is your opinion, and considering the film enjoys a 7.4 here on IMDB, it's in the grand minority. Do me a favor and add me to your gauche "block list".

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 16 years ago

Yes. That shows that it's true potential (at that time) as an explosive wasn't KNOWN (or widely understood). This from Wikipedia:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TNT was first prepared in 1863 by German chemist Joseph Wilbrand[3] and originally used as a yellow dye. Its potential as an explosive was not appreciated for several years mainly because it was so difficult to detonate and because it was less powerful than alternatives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(sigh)

I can understand why you'd say that if the only thing you know about TNT is what you read in Wikipedia... However, you're quite wrong.

How do you know?

Because I know more about the history of explosives that what you've read in Wikipedia.

And we aren't talking about those compounds

Actually, we were.

we're talking about manufactured DYNAMITE.

No, *you* are talking about dynamite. I was talking about TNT.

the film enjoys a 7.4 here on IMDB

So what? Popular crap is still crap.

-
Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus

reply

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

I can understand why you'd say that if the only thing you know about TNT is what you read in Wikipedia... However, you're quite wrong.

Oh, and you are an expert on TNT? If I'm so wrong, prove it.

Because I know more about the history of explosives that what you've read in Wikipedia.

We're waiting for you to impart your wisdom. (yawn)

Actually, we were.

No, actually we weren't. We were talking about the availability of TNT.

So what? Popular crap is still crap.

It's not about "popular", it's about quality. Sorcerer isn't what anyone would call a "big" movie, it's just a small movie that has been rated as excellent by those who watch it. Try to understand the difference between "popular" and "excellent" when it comes to the IMDB rating, ok?

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 16 years ago

Oh, and you are an expert on TNT? If I'm so wrong, prove it.

I suppose I should start by explaining to you that there is a difference between TNT and dynamite.

They're two completely different things.

No, actually we weren't. We were talking about the availability of TNT.

So was I. I was talking about the ingredients to make TNT but you didn't realize that because you don't know anything about TNT.

It's not about "popular", it's about quality.

The IMDB rating is nothing to do with the "quality" of a film. There are plenty of crap films rated highly by IMDB. Why? Because the majority of people who visit this site are fanboys who don't know dick about film (or explosives).

-
Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus

reply

[–] dangus 16 years ago

(I thought I'd already posted something on this thread, but anyway...) In retrospect, the core of the plot isn't very plausible. But, Friedkin based his film on the Wages Of Fear, which was based on a book or short story (wasn't it?).

Perhaps in a banana republic festering with guerrillas (sorry, freedom fighters) buying explosives isn't so straightforward. Maybe weather conditions prevented flying in the crates or fresh explosives.

The problem with trying to manufacture explosives from scratch is that if this town is so small that there isn't any place to buy explosives, it's rather unlikely that the local pharmacy or garage will have enough nitric and sulfuric acid to make a useful amount of explosive. And will there be enough ice available at the well site to cool the reactions?

Why not hire a few poor but brave locals to remanufacture the dynamite: cut open the old sticks, dump the keiselguhr into a bowl, add the liquid NG and knead it gently.

Or... get a buttload of tarps, duct tape them into a huge balloon, and fill it with a stoich. mix of oxygen and acetylene.

Mythbusters could devote a whole episode to this movie...

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 16 years ago

Mythbusters could devote a whole episode to this movie...

Hey, that's an interesting idea... I doubt they'd want to get too specific about how to manufacture explosives from common household items, but it would still make an interesting show even with all the ingredients pixilated.

-
Idiot/block list: No_Bama_Ever, kmm39, jack_spicer, John_Merrick, dbblsanta, gallus

reply

[–] chriskunselman 11 years ago

listen smart guy, this movie was a remake of a french film based on a novel. a novel, something made up. regardless, your points about explosives are idiotic mr.explosives expert. it's called expediency douche. yeah, yeah, they could have made their own nitro., they could have used other explosives, they could have eaten fruit loops, but you know what they did what humans do, they made snap decisions w/what they had at hand and using people they didn't give a *beep* about, to stop a crisis from escalating. the fact that you find this scenario so implausible makes me believe you're not familiar w/human behaviour. what planet are you from?

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 11 years ago

this movie was a remake of a french film based on a novel. a novel, something made up.

"The Core" was made up too. Doesn't mean it wasn't stupid crap.

regardless, your points about explosives are idiotic mr.explosives expert.

You don't have to be an explosives expert to know it is stupid to transport nitroglycerine by truck - that it would be infinitely preferable to transport the raw materials to site and then brew up the explosive as needed.

the fact that you find this scenario so implausible makes me believe you're not familiar w/human behaviour

Ummm... I hate to break it to you but this wasn't a documentary. If these events had actually occurred, then you might have a point here but since they didn't... you're just talking nonsense.

There are many ways to show that it is possible to manipulate desperate people to do dangerous things by threats and promises. Many great films have been made along these themes... "Sorcerer" isn't one of them.

-
Fox "News": We lie, you panic!

reply

[–] chriskunselman 11 years ago

you ignored the true main thrust of my argument cause you are a douche. it doesn't matter that it doesn't really make sense to you. they didn't give a *beep* about these men. they didn't care if they might have someone at the fire site to mix up nitroglycerine, someone in charge had this idea and they went w/it. how hard is this for you to understand? it doesn't make the whole movie stupid. people have been making poor or irrational decisions since decisions started being made, even people in positions of power or authority. i'm sure now you are an a*shole who is just too stubborn to come off his original position. that's fine, you have to live with you. and p.s. you're documentary angle is what's nonsense. so what, a novelist doesn't write about humans and the human condition as he's familiar w/it. there can be more truth in fiction than you might think. the author assigns motivations to his characters based on what he's observed of human behaviour. you honestly don't think their haven't been way worse decisions made in situations similar to this in real life? it's so easy to sit there after the fact, whether while you're watching a movie or the news, and say oh i would have done this or that, what purpose does that serve but to boost your own ego? there are many implausible things done in movies, just plain stupid things that take you out of the constructed reality, this isn't a case like that. a challenge for you, in the history of the substance of nitroglycerine you find me anecdotal evidence that it's never been transported by truck, i just visited a site about explosives where they write that the transport of nitro. was problematic for years and killed many, but that means they had to transport it.

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 11 years ago

you ignored the true main thrust of my argument cause you are a douche.

Your main argument is idiotic and you're entirely missing the point.

The film is what's called "writer's construct"... that is, it contains a plot that exists only to allow the story to proceed. In other words, the writer said "let's create a lot of tension... how about some guys who have to drive a truck loaded with nitroglycerine on a bumpy road? Never mind that it is a dumb idea that nobody in the real world would even think about trying to attempt..."

It is the ultimate expression of the narcissism of writers - to create a script whose only reason to exist is to justify its own existence.

it doesn't matter that it doesn't really make sense to you. they didn't give a *beep* about these men. they didn't care if they might have someone at the fire site to mix up nitroglycerine, someone in charge had this idea and they went w/it. how hard is this for you to understand?

You keep talking about this movie like it is a documentary or a re-enactment of actual events. It isn't. It is pure fiction and stupid, pointless fiction at that.

a challenge for you, in the history of the substance of nitroglycerine you find me anecdotal evidence that it's never been transported by truck

You want me to prove a negative with anecdotal evidence??!! ROTFLMAO

What a tool.

Listen genius, there was a reason Alfred Nobel developed dynamite and then went on to develop the even safer compound gelignite. Because nitroglycerine is unsafe to transport. Forgot about transporting it by truck, it can't even safely be transported by boat. I grew up in California and there were many infamous examples during the history of the Gold Rush of idiots trying to transport nitroglycerine by various methods and causing massive death/destruction.

http://railroad.lindahall.org/essays/black-powder.html

-
Fox "News": We lie, you panic!

reply

[–] chriskunselman 11 years ago

you proved my point when you said idiots tried to transport nitro. it has happened and happened plenty. so the writer didn't choose something that was beyond the realm of possibility. so you would have done it differently, sfw. what the *beep* does what you would have done have to do w/anything jackass?

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 11 years ago

You're really impervious to reason, aren't you?

Let me see if I can explain this to you in short declarative sentences...

Nitroglycerine cannot be transported by truck. In the real world, those trucks wouldn't have gotten a hundred yards.

In any case, it is stupid idea. Anyone who knows anything about nitroglycerine would have understood that the only way to get nitroglycerine to the site of the fire would have been to transport the ingredients to site and mix them there. Thus, the entire premise of the film is artificial and ultimately self-nullifying.

It would be like someone writing a film about a murder which takes place at the California/Nevada border - the murder standing on the California side and firing a gun at the victim who is standing in Nevada and killing him. Then constructing a whole film around officials from California and Nevada wrangling over the legal jurisdiction to prosecute the murderer.

California: But the murderer was in California!

Nevada: So what? The murder took place in Nevada!

California: But the precipitating act occurred in California, if the gun hadn't been fired, the victim wouldn't be dead!

Nevada: Where was the dead guy again?

In reality the federal government could step in and prosecute since whatever legalistic argument about which state can prosecute would be rendered moot by the fact that the crime occurred in the federal jurisdiction - regardless of where the shooter and victim were standing.

Like I said, trying to artificially construct a conflict between California and Nevada would be stupid. - just like artificially constructing a situation which four poor saps would be bamboozled into driving trucks loaded with nitroglycerine over bumpy roads.

The only thing such a story serves to do is demonstrate the ignorance of the writer and director.

-
Fox "News": We lie, you panic!

reply

[–] chriskunselman 11 years ago

your the one impervious to reason jackass. yeah, i get that transporting nitro. by truck isn't done in california, i get that it isn't done anywhere they know better, but at one time it was transported by truck, train, whatever. now this was in the 1800's here in the US, but the movie isn't set in the US is it? and they knew it was a bad idea to transport it by truck, why do you think they picked people they didn't care about and packed the nitro. containers in sand so they hopefully wouldn't move. your previous post mentioned "writer's construct" condescendingly, i know what it means, i'm in the trade a*shole, but once again sfw. you write that as if it has to be a bad thing, it's not like it's a deus ex machina. you just decided you're such an expert on these matters your not going to like the film, fine. you probably don't like movies on douches either.

reply

[–] jon-gwynne 11 years ago

You may have heard the term "writer's construct" eavesdropping on a conversation while you were filling a writer's coffee cup or handing them their car keys at the valet parking stand but until you actually demonstrate some understanding of what it means (or "deus ex machina" for that matter) you should pipe down. Based on the quality of your writing here, getting coffee or parking cars is about all you're qualified to do.

How's that for condescension?

By the way, since you brought it up, the first time I got paid to write was 1977. But, as you said, summoning all the eloquence at your command: "sfw".

To quote George Carlin "If that's your 'best', maybe you'd better keep it to yourself.

Packing nitro in sand was pointless. If what was in those containers was actually nitroglycerin, it would have detonated before the trucks ha gone 50 yards. When I was in college, I knew a guy who made the stuff for fun. He would shatter bricks with an eyedropper loaded with nitroglycerin. As I said before, there was good reason for Nobel (and many others who tried to do the same thing but failed) to develop a method of stabilizing it. First dynamite and the gelignite. It is an interesting story - far more so than that pompous crap that called itself the "Sorcerer" screenplay.

There were a dozen different ways the same basic plot could have been played out - the idea of desperate men being Shanghaid into performing a likely suicide mission isn't particularly original. It wasn't necessary to resort to fantasy as well as cliche to make that film.

-
Fox "News": We lie, you panic!

reply

[–] chriskunselman 11 years ago

you're right, i heard the term eavesdropping on harlan ellison. you're pathetic and your attempt at proving your erudition worthless. include your address in the next response.

reply

[–] chriskunselman 11 years ago

by the way genius, i looked you up on google and if you're using your real name you haven't written anything of note, and if i'm wrong please give me titles. i've looked over your post blog and i realize you don't even really care about movies, you're a politics junkie, so i'm sorry i wasted my time on you.

reply

[–] jsagle 16 years ago

So is your post. And so are you, I suspect.

reply

[–] tstraton 16 years ago

The process of making nitro is extremely dangerous (much more than transporting it) and requires special equipment to keep the reaction from "running away". Poisonous fumes are released throughout the process. So you can't simply make the nitro by mixing a few compounds together when you need it. Or you can try, and blow your butt into the next state.

reply

[–] EvilRyu 16 years ago

Best movie I have seen in a loong time!

Could not look away not for a sec. Thet don't make em like this anymore.

Have u ever felt the fighting presence of another?

reply

[–] Xcalat3 16 years ago

I was kind of disappointed by this

I agree the start was very good but then I got so damn Boring

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

[–] tali1 13 years ago

Other way around for me - boring start then picks ups
Strangely , this film reminds me of The Exorcist -where Friedkin could really do with a Editor who knew how to use a pair of scissors.Frequently.

Hey Witchdoctor, give us the magic words.
ooh ee ooh ah ah, ting tang wallawallabingba

reply