This movie was boring and plain stupid.
-
Huntauk — 17 years ago(May 19, 2008 12:02 PM)
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. -
xanadu_dan — 11 years ago(April 14, 2014 02:48 PM)
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.
-
Strangerhand — 11 years ago(March 16, 2015 12:18 AM)
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 -
estcst-3 — 18 years ago(July 27, 2007 07:36 AM)
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. -
HorodyskiJ — 18 years ago(September 04, 2007 07:47 AM)
"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. -
gtichris — 14 years ago(November 15, 2011 04:27 AM)
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 -
kwon-4 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 06:40 AM)
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 slowlynot only that, but the oil company didn't give them any better vehicles b/c the drivers were considered expendablethats why they sent 2 trucks
They would have to blow up the log across the roadthey 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!
)) -::-
. .))
((. . -::-
-::- ((..>> Porsch Lynn -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(May 19, 2008 06:33 AM)
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
-
NostalgiaDrag — 17 years ago(May 29, 2008 07:01 PM)
^
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. -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(May 29, 2008 08:01 PM)
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
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 17 years ago(July 25, 2008 05:52 PM)
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 -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(July 28, 2008 12:42 AM)
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
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 17 years ago(August 06, 2008 04:27 PM)
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. -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(August 06, 2008 04:33 PM)
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
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 17 years ago(August 06, 2008 08:08 PM)
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 -
jon-gwynne — 17 years ago(August 06, 2008 08:15 PM)
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
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 17 years ago(August 07, 2008 03:29 AM)
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