This message has been deleted.

I'm afraid that the OP has never watched the real masterpiece on which Friedkin's film based his remake,
Le Salaire de la Peur
, with the extraordinary performance of Yves Montand in his prime, because he would at least have mentioned that
Sorcerer
is a remake of a film already and securely in the IMdB top 250!
Part of the merit one attributes to any film is its originality and the ideas used to tell the story, and for that part already, Clouzot's film is clearly the winner, evidently. To provide a just evaluation of
Sorcerer
before entering it in the competition for the Top 250, Friedkin's movie should at least have contributed a very clever alternative scenario, something blatantly amiss with his remake. An extremely contrived and far too elaborate prologue to explain why the four men turned out to end up together in the middle of nowhere did not succeed to convince me (and many reviewers as well) that I should suspend my disbelief. There's a huge gap there and the viewer has a hard time relating to the rest of the story because of that gap.
Le Salaire de la Peur
did a much, much better job at that by far and large: so why didn't Friedkin use a comparable starting point? It would have been easy and much more effective to introduce variations on the same theme instead of trying to reinvent the wheel as Friedkin tried with his jungle story. I suppose it was not enough for the Exorcist's director's ego to use a good, proven framework . he had to remake everything, even if that meant giving a new title aimed at confusing everybody !
Really,
Sorcerer
is a good flick, as confirmed by most people (at the time of writing, 7.7 is not a bad IMdB mean rating at all by any means, and if anything, it is just a little too high). However, it is not even in the same category as
Le Salaire de la Peur
at all. I would strongly suggest the OP to watch the latter movie - which is deservedly among IMdB Top 250 at #170. He would perhaps understand why a good many critics do not come up with the word masterpiece when referring to
Sorcerer
, unlike its predecessor.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I believe that the high current rating of
Sorcerer is
is artificially inflated by the fact that a likely majority of people voting at IMdB were not yet familiar with a B&W "foreign" 1953 movie which is probably only watchable with subtitles (unless one knows French - I do) when they saw Friedkin's movie, and were enthused by the subject matter itself, which always counts significantly in one's evaluation of any film.
Is it safe? What is safe? Is it safe? Yes, very safe? Is it safe? No, not at all! Is it safe? Aaahh!

while it's a good film, it has flaws. the last hour should have been the entire film.

I agree, it would be in my top 100 filmsmaybe even top 50. The film's an underappreciated masterpiece that's aged terrifically.

Totally agreed.

sorry this film is definitely NOT a masterpieceit's barely a great movie. I'm not surprised sorcerer bombed in theaters.

If IMDB were a legitimate site for rating films,
Haha I heard that! And I would not argue with that point! hehehehehe
Friedkin wasn't/isn't considered among the greatest filmmakers of all-time for nothing! And I gave
Sorcerer
[1977] 10 of 10 stars, easy! Wow, what a movie!
It's like I can't believe I somehow waited all these years to finally see it! And while it's not really a mainstream film (as already mentioned by other posters), it IS a must-see for lovers of cinema hehehehe

If IMDB were a legitimate site for rating films, yes this is a top 250 selection.

Well-said, Italianjust finished it and it blew (no pun intended) me away.
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez

/Signed
"Nobody knows anybody, not that well" - Miller's Crossing