Sorcerer

Audience Reviews

View All (316) audience reviews

Critic S Great movie! Too bad Star Wars (1977) released same month, if not for that fact the film would not have bombed at the box office. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 05/12/25 Full Review Scotty H I saw this recently because Quentin Tarantino liked it. The script does not work. Great director, good actors, lots of money. Poor pacing, and the second half of the film makes no sense in parts. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 04/19/25 Full Review Landon J Just the kind of bleak, realistic adventure you're anticipating. Delivers on all fronts and gives a great sense of immersion. Technically impressive and doesn't skimp on the effects. Thrilling, gritty, and a great twist, will leave viewers happy. Rated 4/5 Stars •  Rated 4 out of 5 stars 04/12/25 Full Review Steve S Seriously, Sorcerer sucked. Meaningless plot that went no where. A hobbled together, waist of time intro of two flat, unbelievable characters to explain why they end up in the jungle. Not that their specific presence has any relevance of transporting nitro. A bad movie that did not age well, making it a shitty movie (except for the creation of the piss poor jungle town, which was well done). Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 01/13/25 Full Review Sarfaraz A The thriller was directed by William Friedkin. The film stars Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer, Amidou, and Francisco Rabal. The film is an adaptation of Georges Arnaud's 1950 French novel 'Le Salaire de la peur'. The novel was originally adapted in the film The Wages of Fear, released in the early 1950s. The film begins with four individuals struggling in a South American country after fleeing their original homelands because their lives were in danger. The film's beginning is rather long and may lose the audience's interest, but the growth of the characters and their need to be in a South American country where they are unable to find work to escape their agony was vital. As the film near its finale, it loses weight and intrigue; several main characters have been murdered off, and as the titles roll, we are perplexed by the destiny of the last surviving man. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 01/10/25 Full Review Tay L This should be renamed "Blueballs: The movie". A very slow, dull, boring film with small spurts of humor, suspense, and action in between. Every time something is happening, or is about to happen, there's an immediate jump cut to something else loosely related or not related at all. You'll be thinking "I cant wait to see how they flesh this out" and then BAM, the interesting thing disappears immediately and its time to move on. The main characters have interesting backgrounds, but none of that matters because their relevance is gone as soon as they are introduced. Only two brief scenes in the whole movie, one non-speaking, make any connection between these characters and their past. A hand full, and I really mean a hand full, of scenes are included that look like they each could've made their own movie, a good movie, or at least one more interesting than this one. It's a shame because I love many films from this era but this is one of those pieces of garbage that chooses to be excessively experimental over being good. Keeping in line with the historical lens of this movie, I decided to follow up by watching a good film: Star Wars. Rated 1.5/5 Stars •  Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars 01/04/25 Full Review Read all reviews

Sorcerer

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now