They will just remake it, but that was already a remake of a remake lol, orginality died with the movie "Rubber" in 2010. Psychic Murdering rubber Tire, no ideas are left.
Perhaps, in my humble opinion, people at the end of the '70s was tired of gritty, hopeleless movies, where, also if you fight hard, nothing was achieved. The public liked movies were you can see the protagonists not only surviving, but also win, so it's natural that most movies ended badly at the box office.Do you really think that SW would've been an hit if the Empire would've killed all the rebels ?
I’ve said this b4. I’ll say it again I was 13 when I saw sorcerer the first time…. Lot of subtitles. At 17. It was pretty intense At 20. What a f’n masterpiece. At 57. It’s still a f’n masterpiece.
i was 17 when i saw sorcerer on cable in '98, and it made william friedkin my favorite director. i was pretty chuffed, as the british say, when i read an interview with him and discovered that he considered it his best, and that i had guessed the meaning of the title correctly as per his explanation (fate). but it wasn't meant to be a hit at the box office. i could have told him that. it's not about this or that film that was out that summer.
What a crock. Sorcerer wasn't just beaten at the box office by Star Wars, but by Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo and numerous other films that summer. Star Wars didn't stop Smokey and the Bandit from being a hit.
So what ? Herbie and Smokey are better than Sorcerer ? Do you know how many masterpieces were flops at the box office specially because of dumb people like you ?
#RETROTECH Wars LOL VHS will never DIE as Disney wished they also owned Paramont Plus alongside CBS FOX Tapes LOL, My RED BOX still works at Walgreens LOL
It's not the fault of STAR WARS that SORCEROR flopped at the box office, to be fair it wasn't even a decent remake THE WAGES OF FEAR. It's not even William Freidkin's finest film, THE FRENCH CONNECTION was.
Movies like Jaws and Star War are fun, but they did spell the end of the golden age of 60s and 70s film. In 1980 everything went bad, politics, music, film, and hair.
I found a DVD of it on Amazon a few years back. It's available in many places. Do a search on Google. Hopefully they were able to remaster the film since I bought my copy.
I never heard of Sorcerer until 2008. I was part of an online movie forum. We'd pick a different topic, then each of us would pick a movie to watch for that week. When Roy Scheider died we did a round of his movies. I could not believe I never heard of this masterpiece.
Was a good movie, that’s been made 1,000 times. Star Wars was a whole other thing, never seen before. I mean, it is a space western, but still, nothing like it had ever been seen. I was 11 when it came out, and I was in shock in the theater when it ended. I asked my Dad could we stay and watch it again. He said yes, and we stayed for two more showings. Sorry, but Sorcerer didn’t do that kinda thing for anybody. Still, it’s good, I’ve seen it.
I saw Star Wars in the theater when it came out as a little kid, and while I get why it sold way more tickets, I think way more about Sorcerer these days. It's just a way more sophisticated and nuanced film. Plus that Tangerine Dream soundtrack.
I was eight years old when this was released so i had no chance of seeing it in the cinema but shortly before it’s blu ray release i saw a show that talked about it with a ton of praise and found out that night it was being shown at an art cinema near me. So i book a seat online and so,so glad i did as watching Sorcerer on the big screen was way more than a joy and is one of my fondest memories of watching a movie I’ve in public since my childhood that was thankfully in a time when i never missed anything because i had a father that was a massive cinema devotee and i thank him for passing that on to me
Opinions are like a$$holes...Star Wars was groundbreaking. It changed the way movies were made or presented to say the least. To say it wasn't good is an opinion one is entitled to. It is, however, a dead giveaway of a person's ignorance. It's on the same level of how so many people are ignorant to just how much Elvis Presley changed popular culture and society itself...for the better, in my opinion.
"Sorcerer" is a fantastic movie, one of Friedkin's best, but sadly largely unknown... Personally I much prefer a movie like that to a popcorn blockbuster like Star Wars.
@@PieInSkyGuy For you, I leave a quote from the character of Chester Rush from the movie Four Rooms (1995): "Like my old grand daddy used to say, 'The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect'."
“Sorcerer” was the type of movie that should have been released in the fall or winter season where it could have not only have a better chance at the box office, but also get Oscar noms. I think another reason for it failing was that the novel it was based on, “The Wages of Fear”, was already made into a French movie of the same name in the 1950’s. That movie was already called a masterpiece of French cinema, and many people in the 70’s(or any decade for that matter) didn’t like the idea of Hollywood remaking foreign movies. In more recent years, you can now see “Sorcerer” not as a remake but as Friedkin’s own interpretation of the novel. Also watch Werner Herzog’s “Fitzcarraldo” before or after viewing “Sorcerer”. That movie also has an interesting backstory behind its making.
Reading Fitz's subtitles put me to sleep minutes before they crested.. A stranger woke me up as they were leaving.. So embarrassed 40 yrs later... Not so with Sorc.
At first they paired it with a dreary potboiler flick called "The Other Side of Midnight", because they really believed that no one would choose to go and see some Sci-Fi flick over a WW2 drama. That movie got crushed alongside Sorcerer.
Timing is everything. After a decade and a half of Marvel slop, a gritty thriller sounds much more appealing than some sci-fi shlock, but there is just no predicting audience tastes five years in the future.
STAR WARS had nothing to do with SORCERER's failure. Frieekin essentially blamed himself for casting Roy Shieder in the lead (although he didn't put it that way) whom he described as a good second or third banana but not a lead. Freidkin later said if he had it to do over again he would have cast Steve McQueen in the lead after passing on McQueen who was making what Freidkin viewed at the time as excessive demands for taking the part because "the close-up is more important than the wide shot."
Schieder didn't have very kinds words about Friedkin! If there's a punch up going on in the cosmos, Roy Scheider is possibly throwing chairs and tables at Friedkin! During a phone interview, a journalist asked Roy Scheider about Friedkin. His response was, "Don't ever ask me about that piece of shit!" Then hung up. Although, Friedkin's agent warned him to hold back the release date as he'd just seen Star Wars. Friedkin said that his name alone would sell the film! Though they both never spoke to each other ever again, we're sadly missing one of the best actors and greatest directors of all time!!
Sorcerer is a good film, but it is also a film that would never do good at the box office even if Star Wars or any of the other films of that year didn't exist. This is a film with a very limited target audience, namely people who enjoy depressing nihilistic artsy films.
I saw BOTH of these films when they were first released and enjoyed them immensely!...I've seen them both many times since, but, oddly enough I DON'T own Star Wars, but do have Sorcerer on DVD and watch it at least once a year!...It's one of THOSE movies that you can't get the images out of your head! Just sayin'!
My parents saw it when it came out. My mother loved the soundtrack by Tangerine Dream so she bought the album, back when they actually were albums. Loved it, seriously creepy. It's here on YT. Give it a listen.
Between jaws and blue thunder, Roy Scheider sort of flew under the radar, & this was one of his planes. Whether it's good or not is highly subjective. Perhaps if it came out at another time it would have done better. I was working my way through the Netflix catalog back when they still did DVDs when I hit my Roy Scheider phase. That's what I saw this last gasp of the 70s Cinema fatalism and hopelessness. From two lane blacktop to vanishing point, this was the swan song, inverted with the world's slowest race. The bottom line is it didn't suck, but the percentage of people that really enjoyed it is a solid minority.
Every time someone talks about how Hollywood only wants to make blockbusters, I shake my head and wonder where they've been all these years. If we're lucky, we might be in the endgame of this thinking. Then again, it's seemed like we were in the endgame before.
@@charlesballard5251 TBF the century theaters were really special back in the day with domed theaters. They were high end. The prices stayed at $5 until the late 1980's if I remember correctly.
It also beat “The Shining” that year too but it was close… maybe not at the time but those 2 movies “The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Shining” seemed to define the year 1980.
Never saw it, never heard of it, but I'll go check it out now. Sounds like the right movie at the wrong time. Not blaming the studio or filmmaker, just the bad luck of timing in the market.
Was the maker of this video tired? Did he have a partial hard drive crash? What kind of a video doesn't even bother to talk about the movie that is the subject? Why bother?
I saw both films in the summer of 1977. My reaction to the film now remains as it was then. Remove the first 30 minutes -- begin with the characters already in South America -- and you have a great action thriller.
It is, however, a classy piece of film that had me and the group of friends who went to see it on the edge of our seats. I had seen the original with my Dad: it was one of his favourites.
I have seen the movie Sorcerer in the theater when it came out. To me, it was a taunt and gritty thriller that came out at the wrong time. It the film was released a year earlier, it would have found some success. Yet there were less that a dozen people in the theater I was it in--and this was a high-class theater. As I look back, I wonder how a dark, heavy-handed drama could compete against a swarm of popular B-movies. If you have a family who want to have a good time at the movies, you had a choice from Star Wars, Smokey and The Bandit, The Spy Who Loved Me, Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo, and ever a Disney cartoon The Rescuers. I doubt a movie like Sorcerer would even register in the movie goer's mind. PS: I have seen The Wages of Fear years ago. Like the original film it was based on, I think Sorcerer would have made a fine art house movie.
Sorcerer is a great movie. Wish there was a good copy of it. Got the remastered dvd but they had to use the best footage available. Love the trucks, the acting. The adventure through the jungle.
It's a good thing we have technology like this now. And people who are willing to review old films that are actually great but didn't get the attention it deserved in the past. It's Jan 2, 2025 now as of this writing. 🎉
Is this film a remake of 1953 french film "Le salaire de la peur" ? I saw that they titled this film "le convoi de la peur" in french and the pitch, and the scenes are pretty close !
on recommendation of a buddy, i saw this movie in 1977. i was blown away by the flick. i later saw a cut verson on tv back in the mid-1980s. not the same as the cinema version the year 'sorcerer' at the vogue theatre in vancover, british columbia. . this great movie never seems to be shown in the 21st century, even on TCM.
Upvoted, and I will check the film out. Of course, I have seen the film Sorceror was remaking (re-adapting the same obscure French novel, fine). The Wages of Fear, by Henri-Georges Clouzot. Which was hardly a huge hit, but is still remembered as a tour de force. A good movie isn't 'killed' by another movie that does better box office. Obviously Star Wars was going to do better (how the hell could Sorceror be a movie you'd take the whole family to?), and a movie like Sorceror was very unlikely to be a mega-grosser, given the downer plot and Roy Scheider being the only big name in the cast. Its budget of maybe 22 million doesn't sound huge today, but that's roughly twice the budget for Lucas' film. Friedkin made the classic auteur error, assuming everyone would be passionate about his passion project, and overspending. Clouzot's film was a hit because it was made for a reasonable budget, with no big stars, and had a very tight disciplined script. I like the cinematography and mise en scene in Friedkin's film, but storywise, bit of a muddle. He was not on Clouzot's level as a filmmaker. I doubt very much Star Wars could have stopped Sorceror from being a success. The film itself did that. Friedkin was hot stuff after The French Connection and The Exorcist, and he let the budget spiral out of control--like Apocalypse Now, and both films are respected now, which is cool, and I hate most of the Star Wars franchise, but I still went to see the original film seven times. Sorry. I like to have fun at the movies. And at that point, we were all getting tired of everybody trying to do noir in the 70's. :)
@@ThomasMaczura-c7i Have you actually seen The Wages of Fear? I saw it at Film Forum. It's pretty damn good. And made money. Came out in 1953. Same year as From Here to Eternity, Roman Holiday, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Stalag 17, Shane, and a lot of great art films from France and elsewhere. RUclips Channels don't have to allow comments. Comments show interest. Zero comments show indiffernce. You're welcome. :)
@@ThomasMaczura-c7i I upvoted your video. Watched as much as I could take. So obviously I know about Longwinded Bragging, though a bit odd to do it for something you didn't make. In a computer generated voice. (That's very lame, btw--not much of a RUclipsr.) I said I'd watch the film, which I, like most people, did not see when it came out, though I remember the ads, and they were kind of confusing, as was the title, which nobody made Friedkin choose, and which still makes no sense at all, even after all the explaining--there is no sorceror in the movie, literal or metaphorical. At that time, a lot fewer people knew either the novel or the Clouzot film. My not going had nothing to do with Star Wars. It might have had something to do with the fact I was maybe 16 years old. All my siblings were younger. There was no possible way our parents were taking us, even if they wanted to see it, which seems doubtful, though my father actually had pretty adventurous tastes in film, having been stationed in Europe in the 50's. Clouzot's film is a marvel of economy. He pared down the novel's plot to just the essentials. He didn't add a lot of pointless plot points, giving us the background of these people whose backgrounds don't matter. They are stuck in this place and will do anything to get out of there. Why exactly does one of them have to be a Palestinian terrorist? Why does one of them have to be an Irish gangster who apparently gets whacked by other gangsters at the end of the movie? (What is it with Hollywood's obsession with Irish gangsters?) The reason 70's cinema took the turn it did was directors who made a hit or two were given carte blanche, and made movies most people didn't want to see, That George Lucas could make Star Wars for half the budget of Sorceror tells you all you need to know about why that often fascinating era of film came to an end, and Hollywood started to be all about franchises, though honestly, that began with Coppola and Godfather 2. Nothing could have made Sorceror a hit. It took a film that worked and turned it into a film that didn't. Friedkin obviously was a huge fan of Clouzot, went out of his way to meet him and get his approval, he knew damn well he was remaking it, no matter what he said in public. I stated an obvious fact. The failure of this film had nothing at all to do with Star Wars. Zero. This was an art film with a big budget. Friedkin said later he'd wanted to do it for a smaller budget, but he miscalculated in production. He wanted big stars, but Scheider was the biggest name who was interested. He thought he could get Steve McQueen. Okay, that might have worked. McQueen could smell the flop on this one. Pass. You must be familiar with the term 'clickbait'--instead of just analyzing the film intelligently, including a close comparison with the novel and earlier (superior) film, you went into a spiel about how Star Wars prevented it from becoming a hit which is nonsense--but you figured people would be interestted in any mention of such popular film. I didn't attack you. In point of fact, I promoted your video by responding to it. You responded with rudeness and a general lack of comprehension as to how even a hostile post--which mine wasn't--helps you. Let's just leave it at this. I will withdraw my upvote. I will block your channel. And you will go on posting clickbait titles, hoping they will lure in more suckers. Friedkin made a film that had no particular reason to exist other than his desire to make something different, which I can appreciate, but you can't keep making movies for more money than they could ever bring in and expect the people putting up the money to nod and say "Yeah, a failed remake of a French movie that actually made money is great art.". The only parts of the film that really work are the ones ripped directly from Clouzot's film, like the rickety bridge, which was in fact the scene from the film that appeared in the TV ads. It's not as good as Clouzot's. Clouzot didn't need big stars, or a big budget, to make a successful film, in a year with many major hits, from America and elsewhere. One hit doesn't kill another, least of all when they aren't remotely in the same genre. But I get you needed your clickbait, it worked, and now you're mad I responded to it. . So I won't respond again. I won't read any response you make. If you really just wanted me to stop talking--you won't. If you do respond, that means you're just desperate for attention on your not terrribly popular channel. Hence the clickbait. What's next? Heaven's Gate failed because of Superman II? ;)
They could remake it today. Four desperate men attempting to transport a trailer of Cybertrucks 5 miles down the road to the nearest dealership. Will they make it before their cargo explodes? Probably not….
I found a really tasty looking copy of this film while sailing the high seas and gave it a go as I'd always heard good things about it. My God...what a movie. The stress levels in this especially that bridge scene are insane. The only film I can think of when my hands were actually sweating...
@@Zombo-r9e Exorcist 3 starring Goerge C Scott is actually quite good. Exorcist 2 I think is seriously underrated though it should have probably never been made.
I never got into Star Wars. I never understood the appeal, it always looked soulless and manufactured from the start. Sorcerer I thought was unforgettable in its oppressive and assaultive approach to the cruelty of these characters situation and ultimate fate. AND It’s just a movie about criminals driving trucks of chemicals extra carefully along the way or they will get themselves blown up😂
I watched this film just this year. First time. It’s a great concept. But the script is an absolute mess. It’s full of setups that never pay off. I have a dream of re-editing the film myself. I have a notion that a greater sense of drama can be crafted by moving sequences about. Someday I might try it. But projects like that have a tendency to consume years of one’s life. And the payoff is small.
I'm done with the entire Star Wars franchise. I've seen the original three movies way too many times, and all of the modern Star Wars movies have been disappointing.
Star Wars didn't kill Sorcerer, bad marketing and horrible title did. Also this movie is clearly not a box office sold out showings type of movie, its an over time will make money cult type of movie.
Naaah, Star Wars is infinitely BETTER. The 1970s was a totally dark time for cinema, and Star Wars was the shining beacon of hope for cinemagoers bored with cerebral crap.
Huh. You know, I once wrote a screenplay called Disco Wizard. No, it wasn't about a dancing magician. It was about a bus transporting a group of nuns over a dangerous Himalayan mountain pass to reach an orphanage. My agent laughed and threw it in the trash. Then he said: "Try writing a story people care about ***hole, then they'll go see it."
Sorcerer is one of my all time favorite films, Star Wars actually annoyed me, it had good special effects, but the story was like cheap comic book drivel.
"Titanic 2, Revenge on Ice" never found an audience either. Sad. Total classic.
😅😅
They will just remake it, but that was already a remake of a remake lol, orginality died with the movie "Rubber" in 2010. Psychic Murdering rubber Tire, no ideas are left.
Perhaps, in my humble opinion, people at the end of the '70s was tired of gritty, hopeleless movies, where, also if you fight hard, nothing was achieved. The public liked movies were you can see the protagonists not only surviving, but also win, so it's natural that most movies ended badly at the box office.Do you really think that SW would've been an hit if the Empire would've killed all the rebels ?
Your grammar is atrocious.
Indeed. Like Star Wars and Star Trek fatigue of the early 21st century, and superhero fatigue now
Or as my mom said fifty years ago:
"Thank god for the Three Musketeers!"
That’s exactly what happened in the final episode of blakes seven. The evil empire won and the rebels died
Nah
Friedkin didn’t “lose 50 pounds and catch malaria“ he caught malaria and lost 50 pounds.
There is/was an immunization for malaria. So,,, kinda on you.
Hysteron proteron, my friend. It's a rhetorical device so old, it has an ancient Greek name!
I’ve said this b4. I’ll say it again
I was 13 when I saw sorcerer the first time…. Lot of subtitles.
At 17. It was pretty intense
At 20. What a f’n masterpiece.
At 57. It’s still a f’n masterpiece.
before*
BORING!
No one cares how many times you say anything.
I really liked this movie, I was 16 when it came out and it was on HBO a lot
i was 17 when i saw sorcerer on cable in '98, and it made william friedkin my favorite director. i was pretty chuffed, as the british say, when i read an interview with him and discovered that he considered it his best, and that i had guessed the meaning of the title correctly as per his explanation (fate).
but it wasn't meant to be a hit at the box office. i could have told him that. it's not about this or that film that was out that summer.
What a crock. Sorcerer wasn't just beaten at the box office by Star Wars, but by Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo and numerous other films that summer. Star Wars didn't stop Smokey and the Bandit from being a hit.
The ultimate insult.
I still managed to see Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo as well as Star Wars.
Also, The Deep.
@@patriciogonzaga3101 Can't go wrong when Jacqueline Bisset spends a large part of the movie in a wet T-shirt!
So what ? Herbie and Smokey are better than Sorcerer ? Do you know how many masterpieces were flops at the box office specially because of dumb people like you ?
Paramount didn't release Star Wars. Fox did. This is not a small detail.
I caught that, too. Star Wars was a Paramount movie? NO.....
#RETROTECH Wars LOL VHS will never DIE as Disney wished they also owned Paramont Plus alongside CBS FOX Tapes LOL, My RED BOX still works at Walgreens LOL
Sorcerer is a totally brilliant film, brutal and tense from beginning to end and with that classic 70s grit.
I saw it in the theater when it came out. It’s still one of my favorite movies.
6 year old kids didn't want to watch 'sorcerer'
It's not the fault of STAR WARS that SORCEROR flopped at the box office, to be fair it wasn't even a decent remake THE WAGES OF FEAR. It's not even William Freidkin's finest film, THE FRENCH CONNECTION was.
Nice of you to bring some Facts into this.
Movies like Jaws and Star War are fun, but they did spell the end of the golden age of 60s and 70s film. In 1980 everything went bad, politics, music, film, and hair.
Saw when I was a kid, spent 30+ years trying to find it again.
I found a DVD of it on Amazon a few years back. It's available in many places. Do a search on Google. Hopefully they were able to remaster the film since I bought my copy.
I never heard of Sorcerer until 2008. I was part of an online movie forum. We'd pick a different topic, then each of us would pick a movie to watch for that week. When Roy Scheider died we did a round of his movies. I could not believe I never heard of this masterpiece.
Was a good movie, that’s been made 1,000 times. Star Wars was a whole other thing, never seen before. I mean, it is a space western, but still, nothing like it had ever been seen. I was 11 when it came out, and I was in shock in the theater when it ended. I asked my Dad could we stay and watch it again. He said yes, and we stayed for two more showings. Sorry, but Sorcerer didn’t do that kinda thing for anybody. Still, it’s good, I’ve seen it.
I saw Star Wars in the theater when it came out as a little kid, and while I get why it sold way more tickets, I think way more about Sorcerer these days. It's just a way more sophisticated and nuanced film. Plus that Tangerine Dream soundtrack.
You explained it well. Star Wars is for kids.
Sorcerer has been made 1000 times ??? Star Wars is a rip off of dozens of previous better things made before it. You´re clearly r etarded...
Damn, to see star wars on the big screen when it came out. Must've been a hell of a thing.
@ It really was. We lived in small town, so my Dad took me to see it in this big theater in Charlotte. Very cool memory.
I was eight years old when this was released so i had no chance of seeing it in the cinema but shortly before it’s blu ray release i saw a show that talked about it with a ton of praise and found out that night it was being shown at an art cinema near me. So i book a seat online and so,so glad i did as watching Sorcerer on the big screen was way more than a joy and is one of my fondest memories of watching a movie I’ve in public since my childhood that was thankfully in a time when i never missed anything because i had a father that was a massive cinema devotee and i thank him for passing that on to me
This was awesome on so many levels. Still holds up.
I know, Star Wars is the BEST! You've got taste!
Sorcerer was a great film.
Opinions are like a$$holes...Star Wars was groundbreaking. It changed the way movies were made or presented to say the least. To say it wasn't good is an opinion one is entitled to. It is, however, a dead giveaway of a person's ignorance. It's on the same level of how so many people are ignorant to just how much Elvis Presley changed popular culture and society itself...for the better, in my opinion.
George Lucas: "to the victor, the spoils"
I've been trying to find and see this movie for the fucking last 3 or 4 years
Try looking on a popular web site that sells oldies on dvd that l cant name specifically because it was deleted by someone.
"Sorcerer" is a fantastic movie, one of Friedkin's best, but sadly largely unknown... Personally I much prefer a movie like that to a popcorn blockbuster like Star Wars.
ok
"If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets" 😉😉
It's 35 movies over "Sorcerer" on the list, and among them is "Exorcist II: The Heretic" on 14 so you can blame that one too.
I prefer Sorcerer now over Star Wars as it has become due to Disney.
Time to move out of your Mom’s basement
Sorcerer was great- in the theater and on TV
@@PieInSkyGuy For you, I leave a quote from the character of Chester Rush from the movie Four Rooms (1995): "Like my old grand daddy used to say, 'The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect'."
Opening scene, man enters hotel room with silenced revolver... masterpiece my ass.
“Sorcerer” was the type of movie that should have been released in the fall or winter season where it could have not only have a better chance at the box office, but also get Oscar noms. I think another reason for it failing was that the novel it was based on, “The Wages of Fear”, was already made into a French movie of the same name in the 1950’s. That movie was already called a masterpiece of French cinema, and many people in the 70’s(or any decade for that matter) didn’t like the idea of Hollywood remaking foreign movies. In more recent years, you can now see “Sorcerer” not as a remake but as Friedkin’s own interpretation of the novel. Also watch Werner Herzog’s “Fitzcarraldo” before or after viewing “Sorcerer”. That movie also has an interesting backstory behind its making.
Reading Fitz's subtitles put me to sleep minutes before they crested.. A stranger woke me up as they were leaving.. So embarrassed 40 yrs later... Not so with Sorc.
Keep in mind I believe Fox was the only studio willing to give Lucas a chance with Star Wars, and even then the thought it was gonna bomb.
At first they paired it with a dreary potboiler flick called "The Other Side of Midnight", because they really believed that no one would choose to go and see some Sci-Fi flick over a WW2 drama. That movie got crushed alongside Sorcerer.
Now Sorcerer is finally being appreciated for the masterpiece that it is, while practically no one remembers Star Wars.
Is this ai generated?
Timing is everything. After a decade and a half of Marvel slop, a gritty thriller sounds much more appealing than some sci-fi shlock, but there is just no predicting audience tastes five years in the future.
I’ve never heard of this movie before.
STAR WARS had nothing to do with SORCERER's failure. Frieekin essentially blamed himself for casting Roy Shieder in the lead (although he didn't put it that way) whom he described as a good second or third banana but not a lead. Freidkin later said if he had it to do over again he would have cast Steve McQueen in the lead after passing on McQueen who was making what Freidkin viewed at the time as excessive demands for taking the part because "the close-up is more important than the wide shot."
Schieder didn't have very kinds words about Friedkin! If there's a punch up going on in the cosmos, Roy Scheider is possibly throwing chairs and tables at Friedkin! During a phone interview, a journalist asked Roy Scheider about Friedkin. His response was, "Don't ever ask me about that piece of shit!" Then hung up. Although, Friedkin's agent warned him to hold back the release date as he'd just seen Star Wars. Friedkin said that his name alone would sell the film! Though they both never spoke to each other ever again, we're sadly missing one of the best actors and greatest directors of all time!!
Sorcerer is a good film, but it is also a film that would never do good at the box office even if Star Wars or any of the other films of that year didn't exist. This is a film with a very limited target audience, namely people who enjoy depressing nihilistic artsy films.
Sorcerer was Great....F, starwars
I saw BOTH of these films when they were first released and enjoyed them immensely!...I've seen them both many times since, but, oddly enough I DON'T
own Star Wars, but do have Sorcerer on DVD and watch it at least once a year!...It's one of THOSE movies that you can't get the images out of your head!
Just sayin'!
Brilliant film, brilliant sound track too.
You think the TITLE had something to do with it?
Sorcerer sounds like a Horror Film.
Still Prefer Star Wars Over Sorcerer.
My parents saw it when it came out. My mother loved the soundtrack by Tangerine Dream so she bought the album, back when they actually were albums. Loved it, seriously creepy. It's here on YT. Give it a listen.
Never heard of it. Now I gotta watch it
Also see the original French film, "Wage of Fear". I actually prefer it to "Sorcerer". But "Sorcerer" does have a soundtrack by Tangerine Dream.
Between jaws and blue thunder, Roy Scheider sort of flew under the radar, & this was one of his planes. Whether it's good or not is highly subjective. Perhaps if it came out at another time it would have done better.
I was working my way through the Netflix catalog back when they still did DVDs when I hit my Roy Scheider phase. That's what I saw this last gasp of the 70s Cinema fatalism and hopelessness. From two lane blacktop to vanishing point, this was the swan song, inverted with the world's slowest race.
The bottom line is it didn't suck, but the percentage of people that really enjoyed it is a solid minority.
Vanishing point... Dirty mary, crazy larry..... O. C. And stiggs.. 3 women... Somebody stop me...
@ThomasMaczura-c7i Two lane black top, Sugar Land Express... 😅
Looking 4 mr. Goodbar... CRUISING...also friedkin?
Every time someone talks about how Hollywood only wants to make blockbusters, I shake my head and wonder where they've been all these years. If we're lucky, we might be in the endgame of this thinking. Then again, it's seemed like we were in the endgame before.
'Sorcerer' happens to be Stephen King's favorite movie. Happens to be one of THE great movies.
The domestic box office got my $10.00. It was well worth it. It was intense and suspenseful.
That's weird... since movie tickets were about $2.25 in 1977. Did you see it 4 times?
@@DanJackson1977 Not where I live. It was a $5 ticket at the local Century Theaters.
@@curtisrodriguez938 JESUS!!! I've lived in Saint Louis my whole life and I don't think I paid over $4 until summer of '83 or '84. $5 in '77? NO!!!
@@charlesballard5251 TBF the century theaters were really special back in the day with domed theaters. They were high end. The prices stayed at $5 until the late 1980's if I remember correctly.
1 dollar matinee... Boyd theater... Bethlem Pa.
It would be cool if they remade sorcerer and have one of the cast say that star wars will never catch on
Not Star Wars fault no one in America cared about a truck crossing a dodgy bridge
"The Empire Strikes Back" killed "The Final Countdown" three years later
It also beat “The Shining” that year too but it was close… maybe not at the time but those 2 movies “The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Shining” seemed to define the year 1980.
I saw this at the drive-in when I was a teenager. It was excellent.
Watch the original “wages of fear” if you want suspense
??? No.
i love sorcerer
lots of Star Wars manchildren in the comments.
Never saw it, never heard of it, but I'll go check it out now. Sounds like the right movie at the wrong time. Not blaming the studio or filmmaker, just the bad luck of timing in the market.
Was the maker of this video tired? Did he have a partial hard drive crash? What kind of a video doesn't even bother to talk about the movie that is the subject? Why bother?
I saw both films in the summer of 1977. My reaction to the film now remains as it was then. Remove the first 30 minutes -- begin with the characters already in South America -- and you have a great action thriller.
I don't even remember this in the theater at the time. I only later found out about it from running across the soundtrack.
Thanks, I'm going to find Sorcerer and have a watch.
It is, however, a classy piece of film that had me and the group of friends who went to see it on the edge of our seats. I had seen the original with my Dad: it was one of his favourites.
I have seen the movie Sorcerer in the theater when it came out. To me, it was a taunt and gritty thriller that came out at the wrong time. It the film was released a year earlier, it would have found some success. Yet there were less that a dozen people in the theater I was it in--and this was a high-class theater. As I look back, I wonder how a dark, heavy-handed drama could compete against a swarm of popular B-movies. If you have a family who want to have a good time at the movies, you had a choice from Star Wars, Smokey and The Bandit, The Spy Who Loved Me, Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo, and ever a Disney cartoon The Rescuers. I doubt a movie like Sorcerer would even register in the movie goer's mind.
PS: I have seen The Wages of Fear years ago. Like the original film it was based on, I think Sorcerer would have made a fine art house movie.
Sorcerer is a great movie. Wish there was a good copy of it. Got the remastered dvd but they had to use the best footage available. Love the trucks, the acting. The adventure through the jungle.
Wasn't this movie rated R, it was made for a certain audience!
It's a good thing we have technology like this now. And people who are willing to review old films that are actually great but didn't get the attention it deserved in the past. It's Jan 2, 2025 now as of this writing. 🎉
I have to watch Sorcerer once every couple of years. I love it! Never seen any of those star wars movies. Not my type of sci-fi.
maybe they shouldn't have called it sorcerer
Should have stuck with the original title: “The Wages of Fear”.
Is this film a remake of 1953 french film "Le salaire de la peur" ? I saw that they titled this film "le convoi de la peur" in french and the pitch, and the scenes are pretty close !
on recommendation of a buddy, i saw this movie in 1977. i was blown away by the flick. i later saw a cut verson on tv back in the mid-1980s. not the same as the cinema version the year 'sorcerer' at the vogue theatre in vancover, british columbia. . this great movie never seems to be shown in the 21st century, even on TCM.
Upvoted, and I will check the film out.
Of course, I have seen the film Sorceror was remaking (re-adapting the same obscure French novel, fine). The Wages of Fear, by Henri-Georges Clouzot. Which was hardly a huge hit, but is still remembered as a tour de force.
A good movie isn't 'killed' by another movie that does better box office. Obviously Star Wars was going to do better (how the hell could Sorceror be a movie you'd take the whole family to?), and a movie like Sorceror was very unlikely to be a mega-grosser, given the downer plot and Roy Scheider being the only big name in the cast. Its budget of maybe 22 million doesn't sound huge today, but that's roughly twice the budget for Lucas' film. Friedkin made the classic auteur error, assuming everyone would be passionate about his passion project, and overspending. Clouzot's film was a hit because it was made for a reasonable budget, with no big stars, and had a very tight disciplined script. I like the cinematography and mise en scene in Friedkin's film, but storywise, bit of a muddle. He was not on Clouzot's level as a filmmaker.
I doubt very much Star Wars could have stopped Sorceror from being a success. The film itself did that. Friedkin was hot stuff after The French Connection and The Exorcist, and he let the budget spiral out of control--like Apocalypse Now, and both films are respected now, which is cool, and I hate most of the Star Wars franchise, but I still went to see the original film seven times. Sorry. I like to have fun at the movies. And at that point, we were all getting tired of everybody trying to do noir in the 70's. :)
You done?
@@ThomasMaczura-c7i Have you actually seen The Wages of Fear? I saw it at Film Forum. It's pretty damn good. And made money. Came out in 1953. Same year as From Here to Eternity, Roman Holiday, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Stalag 17, Shane, and a lot of great art films from France and elsewhere.
RUclips Channels don't have to allow comments. Comments show interest. Zero comments show indiffernce. You're welcome. :)
I'm 66.. Of course l've seen it.. You ever heard of a film called Longwinded Braggadociousness ?
@@ThomasMaczura-c7i I upvoted your video. Watched as much as I could take. So obviously I know about Longwinded Bragging, though a bit odd to do it for something you didn't make. In a computer generated voice. (That's very lame, btw--not much of a RUclipsr.)
I said I'd watch the film, which I, like most people, did not see when it came out, though I remember the ads, and they were kind of confusing, as was the title, which nobody made Friedkin choose, and which still makes no sense at all, even after all the explaining--there is no sorceror in the movie, literal or metaphorical.
At that time, a lot fewer people knew either the novel or the Clouzot film. My not going had nothing to do with Star Wars. It might have had something to do with the fact I was maybe 16 years old. All my siblings were younger. There was no possible way our parents were taking us, even if they wanted to see it, which seems doubtful, though my father actually had pretty adventurous tastes in film, having been stationed in Europe in the 50's.
Clouzot's film is a marvel of economy. He pared down the novel's plot to just the essentials. He didn't add a lot of pointless plot points, giving us the background of these people whose backgrounds don't matter. They are stuck in this place and will do anything to get out of there. Why exactly does one of them have to be a Palestinian terrorist? Why does one of them have to be an Irish gangster who apparently gets whacked by other gangsters at the end of the movie? (What is it with Hollywood's obsession with Irish gangsters?)
The reason 70's cinema took the turn it did was directors who made a hit or two were given carte blanche, and made movies most people didn't want to see, That George Lucas could make Star Wars for half the budget of Sorceror tells you all you need to know about why that often fascinating era of film came to an end, and Hollywood started to be all about franchises, though honestly, that began with Coppola and Godfather 2. Nothing could have made Sorceror a hit. It took a film that worked and turned it into a film that didn't. Friedkin obviously was a huge fan of Clouzot, went out of his way to meet him and get his approval, he knew damn well he was remaking it, no matter what he said in public.
I stated an obvious fact. The failure of this film had nothing at all to do with Star Wars. Zero. This was an art film with a big budget. Friedkin said later he'd wanted to do it for a smaller budget, but he miscalculated in production. He wanted big stars, but Scheider was the biggest name who was interested. He thought he could get Steve McQueen. Okay, that might have worked. McQueen could smell the flop on this one. Pass.
You must be familiar with the term 'clickbait'--instead of just analyzing the film intelligently, including a close comparison with the novel and earlier (superior) film, you went into a spiel about how Star Wars prevented it from becoming a hit which is nonsense--but you figured people would be interestted in any mention of such popular film.
I didn't attack you. In point of fact, I promoted your video by responding to it. You responded with rudeness and a general lack of comprehension as to how even a hostile post--which mine wasn't--helps you.
Let's just leave it at this. I will withdraw my upvote. I will block your channel. And you will go on posting clickbait titles, hoping they will lure in more suckers.
Friedkin made a film that had no particular reason to exist other than his desire to make something different, which I can appreciate, but you can't keep making movies for more money than they could ever bring in and expect the people putting up the money to nod and say "Yeah, a failed remake of a French movie that actually made money is great art.".
The only parts of the film that really work are the ones ripped directly from Clouzot's film, like the rickety bridge, which was in fact the scene from the film that appeared in the TV ads. It's not as good as Clouzot's. Clouzot didn't need big stars, or a big budget, to make a successful film, in a year with many major hits, from America and elsewhere. One hit doesn't kill another, least of all when they aren't remotely in the same genre. But I get you needed your clickbait, it worked, and now you're mad I responded to it. .
So I won't respond again. I won't read any response you make. If you really just wanted me to stop talking--you won't. If you do respond, that means you're just desperate for attention on your not terrribly popular channel. Hence the clickbait. What's next? Heaven's Gate failed because of Superman II? ;)
Perhaps you would more likely enjoy Friedkins 1980 release with Al Pacino.... Cruising.
Now I got to see it!
It's a remake of a french movie "Le salaire de la peur". A good one BTW.
Star Bores
Mad magazine satire
Yep, ‘Star Bores’ is pretty bad.
Has anyone yet realized that Luke, Leia, Han and others of their type are NOT human? Just what exactly are they, then?
Who Cares About Sorcerer?
Mad magazine did a parody so you must have cared... Alfred...
Oddly enough, I’m 44 and I have never seen either of these films. I’ll probably check out Sorcerer though.
They could remake it today. Four desperate men attempting to transport a trailer of Cybertrucks 5 miles down the road to the nearest dealership. Will they make it before their cargo explodes? Probably not….
I found a really tasty looking copy of this film while sailing the high seas and gave it a go as I'd always heard good things about it. My God...what a movie. The stress levels in this especially that bridge scene are insane. The only film I can think of when my hands were actually sweating...
I’ve got it on DVD. Great film. Nothing like Star Wars, which is a good thing.
Just watch both films for a true double feature binge to see how the directors compare more or less with their versions 🤔🤨😎
Even Exorcist 2 beat it at the box office.
lol.
So did the Incredible Melting Man.
Food of The Gods.
And Sinbad & The Eye of The Tiger.
Exorcist 2 is Citizen Kane compared to Sorcerer. It's a truly lousy film.
The Exorcist is a very good horror film. Intellectually demanding? You have to shelve objective reality to accept the premise.
Never had a Good Sequel, Though.
Never needed a Sequel.
@@Zombo-r9e Exorcist 3 starring Goerge C Scott is actually quite good. Exorcist 2 I think is seriously underrated though it should have probably never been made.
Exorcist 2 is almost Unwatchable
I've seen Sorcerer. 👍👍
OK, but the references in the description to the 90s and Tarantino are pretty confusing.
The whole video is ai generated 🤦
Definitely meant for a different video. Question now is, does the channel care enough to correct it?
I never got into Star Wars. I never understood the appeal, it always looked soulless and manufactured from the start.
Sorcerer I thought was unforgettable in its oppressive and assaultive approach to the cruelty of these characters situation and ultimate fate.
AND It’s just a movie about criminals driving trucks of chemicals extra carefully along the way or they will get themselves blown up😂
I watched this film just this year. First time. It’s a great concept. But the script is an absolute mess. It’s full of setups that never pay off.
I have a dream of re-editing the film myself. I have a notion that a greater sense of drama can be crafted by moving sequences about. Someday I might try it. But projects like that have a tendency to consume years of one’s life. And the payoff is small.
this is just grade BS.
I'm done with the entire Star Wars franchise. I've seen the original three movies way too many times, and all of the modern Star Wars movies have been disappointing.
Star Wars didn't kill Sorcerer, bad marketing and horrible title did. Also this movie is clearly not a box office sold out showings type of movie, its an over time will make money cult type of movie.
Naaah, Star Wars is infinitely BETTER. The 1970s was a totally dark time for cinema, and Star Wars was the shining beacon of hope for cinemagoers bored with cerebral crap.
Sorcerer isn't very good and looks very much of the past when audiences wanted new.
First part of Sorcerrer with stories of all 4 men are too long. Cut it out ar short it to few minutes and movie will be brilliant.
Huh. You know, I once wrote a screenplay called Disco Wizard. No, it wasn't about a dancing magician. It was about a bus transporting a group of nuns over a dangerous Himalayan mountain pass to reach an orphanage.
My agent laughed and threw it in the trash. Then he said: "Try writing a story people care about ***hole, then they'll go see it."
Just a tired remake
I am one of the few people to see Sorcerer in the theater when it come out with my dad.
Imagine being so bad at making movies that you blame an entire different genre for your failure😂😂😂
Friedkin was bad at making movies?
Sorcerer is an average movie at best, yes it has a cult following but it's far from Friedkin's best.
Stephen King’s favorite movie, Friedkin’s best film, and one of the best movies ever IMO. Superior to the original, Wages of Fear.
Sorcerer sucked.
Sorcerer is one of my all time favorite films, Star Wars actually annoyed me, it had good special effects, but the story was like cheap comic book drivel.
Tanked because it was a full on downer and come 77 everybody had had enough of these kind of films.
Sorcerer was a crappy remake
Damn you´re intelligent...
I never saw the original so, to me it's just crap.
*the movie is actually quite boring, so let's not get stiffies over a meh movie*