If you want to get real nitpicky, how come you guys are spelling it “Sorcerer when it’s actually spelled… uh, wait nvm
The only reason I wouldn’t call this a “brilliant” film is that it is so much a ripoff of Wages of Fear, and while Roy Scheider is great and all, he’s no Yves Montand!
SILENCE! :)
Okay, now I have to watch Wages of Fear. Which I have never seen. So can you understand why I call it brilliant? Having never seen the previous version? And does the previous version take the wind out of Friedkin’s sails?
Well, if he didn’t escape on-camera, then he obviously escaped off-camera. Similarly, we don’t see what flight arrangements the Frenchman made after sticking his wife with the bill at a fancy restaurant. “Thanks for the watch, honey! Can you get the cheque for this one?”
It was the 70s. Back then, movies didn’t have to sweat the small stuff.
Right? That always catches me up, too. Stupid words.
-Tom
Actually, he takes out his wallet and gives the maître d’ some money just before he tells him to tell her that he has been “called away on business.” I’ll bet he wished he had that extra cash in Generic Latin American Country!
Yes!
Nah, it’s all good. I really, really liked how they filmed the truck sequences. That’s something you couldn’t do in the 1950s. I think the film is truly better for it, and I’m not usually one to worry about effects. Heck, I love Stalker, and that has zero. Btw the end of Stalker is not one of the fifty best endings in all of film. Sorry.
Apparently Netflix picked up a remake of Wages of Fear. I wonder if I should even bother or just rewatch Sorcerer?
Or better yet, find the original movie somehow.
It’s a fascinating pair of movies and I recently rewatched them both. The original Wages of Fear is shot through with themes of shame and cowardice and camaraderie, themes that would have been important to the French in the 50s. But the Friedkin remake is all about nihilism and desperation and mistrust, themes that would have been important to the Americans in the 70s.
For their differences in a casting microcosm, look no further than the sole/main female cast member in each movie. Wages of Fear director Clouzot cast his wife in the role, and she’s godawful. Friedkin cast an old native woman who spoke no English and has no dialogue.
As for a 2024 remake, bring it on! I expect something…higher octane.
Looks like the director’s been working mostly for Netflix for his last several productions, including that Olga Kurylenko movie Sentinelle. Not sure if that bodes well but honestly I’ve never seen any of his stuff so I’m not the one to ask.
Oh, I didn’t click the linked story, so I didn’t realize this was basically a done deal. In fact, it’s such a done deal that it’s actually out! Doh!
I think I’ve seen one of Leclerq’s earlier movies – maybe The Assault? – and now I’m a teensy bit excited. And I see from a quick and quickly aborted glance at the IMDB page that he’s made a major change, which I kind of wish I didn’t know, but will be obvious to anyone who reads about this remake: he’s moved the action from the jungle to the desert. A sign of the times, a decision based on production issues, or what?
I am intrigued and shall be watching forthwith!
EDIT: Okay, in the first five minutes of the new Wages of Fear: a car chase, some R-rated fucking, and a model pretending to be an actress delivering “dead father” backstory!