Am i the only one who thinks this is an awful remake?….
-
Edward_de_Vere — 9 years ago(July 01, 2016 02:54 PM)
-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 — 9 years ago(July 02, 2016 09:08 AM)
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 -
-
CalibMcBolts — 9 years ago(August 25, 2016 07:57 AM)
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 -
Edward_de_Vere — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 08:16 AM)
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. -
popvoid — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 07:38 PM)
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.
-
SealedCargo — 6 years ago(April 18, 2019 04:25 AM)
i prefer it to the wages of fear. i got no feeling those men in that movie were desperate at all. everyone acted like they were in a charlie chaplin film.
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/ -