Sorcerer (1977)

This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

SORCERER is one of the toughest films I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty over the years. It's a film by William Friedkin which marks the last and best of his 1970s trilogy of incredible filmmaking that began with THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST. The story is a remake of the French hit THE WAGES OF FEAR and involves a quartet of mercenaries who are hired to transport a quantity of volatile nitroglycerine through an unnamed South American country. It's a simple premise, but this is a film made for those who love film, with every aspect of cinema perfectly conveyed: the remorseless direction, the incredibly tough characters and tougher performances from the actors who play them (particularly Roy Scheider, who should have been an Oscar winner after this and JAWS), the eerie Tangerine Dream soundtrack, the refusal to give up a moment's suspense. The first hour is all slow build up but nonetheless full of the appropriate tension, while the last hour is as good as cinema gets and that bridge set-piece one of the best I've ever seen. A technical masterpiece, this one.

Like several others here, it was the high praise from Mark Kermode that brought me to this film on its reissue. A remake of the Wages of Fear (as opposed to the Goon Show's "Fear of Wages"), the plot is simple in the way it introduces us to a collection of men fleeing something, who end up in a distant country, and take a job driving two trucks full of unstable nitroglycerine across the mountains.The plot sounds stripped back, but it allows for several very tense set-pieces along the way. The manner of shooting adds to the tension, but the cast in particular really sell the tension, the stakes, and the desperation. These elements work really well, and it is a shame then that they sit within a film which is otherwise surprisingly superficial and offering little else to engage with. The introduction to the men is fairly run-of-the-mill exposition which doesn't do much to set character so much as establish reason for their position. Likewise the film plays out with the men being raw tension rather than people. This limited it a lot for me, and stopped me really caring beyond any specific gripping moment - it felt a bit pat and flat.No argument on the tension and great work by the cast to paint it over every inch of their presence, but there isn't much behind it in terms of plot, character, or engagement.

I don't think I'll be able to review William Friedkin's 'Sorcerer' without comparing it to Henri-Georges Clouzot's 'The Wages of Fear' since both are adaptations of Georges Arnaud's novel. Both the films are similar in structure. They are both divided into two respective halves. In the first half we get to know about the characters and in the second half we follow them in their thrilling adventure. However there is a marked difference in the way the two filmmakers make us familiar with the characters. Clouzot's film starts off with all the characters already in exile in the South American country and we get to know about them through their interactions with each other. Friedkin takes a different route. In 'Sorcerer' we get extended individual flashbacks of the major characters to convey the reasons behind their exile in an unknown country which actually works very well. Friedkin also does very well to capture the morbid and monotonous nature of life that the primary group of characters have to lead in Porvenir. Then the second half commences and the differences in directorial styles become even more apparent. Although the theme of desperate men willing to go to any lengths to achieve freedom from their present pointless existence is present in both films, but the style of execution of the set-pieces in the two films differ. There is a surgical precision to Clouzot's set-pieces. He uses meticulous editing to create Hitchcock-esque tension as we watch the characters solve problems and overcome obstacles with deduction, logical planning and presence of mind. Friedkin stays true to his creative roots and quite akin to 'The French Connection' and 'The Exorcist', what we get in the second half of 'Sorcerer' is unflinchingly visceral. Instead of prioritising tension and suspense, Friedkin makes the group's mission a 'Man versus Nature' struggle. The set- pieces are not about tension, but about showing these men getting constantly beaten down by nature's forces. Their only ally is perseverance and mental strength. One can't help but get reminded of Werner Herzog(and especially 'Aguirre: The Wrath of God' due to the jungle setting) because of Friedkin's choice to showcase nature in its most merciless, brutal and unforgiving light. Roy Scheider's character could easily be a protagonist in a Herzog film because of his unflinching persistence in trying to overcome nature at all cost and this persistence leads to hysterical paranoia which is again not uncommon in Herzog's protagonists. 'Sorcerer' retains the darkly humorous irony of 'The Wages of Fear'. I have to say that both the films are equally good in their respective ways and deserve recognition.If there is anything wrong in 'Sorcerer', it's that the transition from one mood/tone to another at times is a bit abrupt and clumsy. But in the overall context, it is a very minor complaint. Highly recommended.

Certainly this Film, a Disappointment to Fans and Critics upon its Initial Release, has Gained a Following and Devotees of the Director and Film Connoisseurs are now Rewarded with a Pristine Blu-ray Release and its Grueling Gruesome Glory is now Evident for all to Witness.It's a Realistic, Beautifully Shot, display of Corporate Ugliness. An Energetic Movie with the Demanding Director at His Best. It Ranks with His "The Exorcist" (1973) and "The French Connection" (1971) as one of the Best Films of the 1970's. Friedkin Considers it His Most Accomplished Work.Accomplished, For Sure. He and the Crew Suffered Greatly bringing this Masterpiece of the Surreal to the Screen. A Film Craftsman at Work that Sweated and Labored to bring His Vision Home in all of its Grimy and Gritty Glory.Films Like "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" (1972) and "Apocalypse Now" (1979) are Infamous concerning the Trials and Excesses of Possessed Directors and this one Reminds of both. It had a Hubris of Hollywood Success Paving the Way for Friedkin to let loose and take almost Dictatorial Control of the Project. What Results is a Crackling and Visceral Descent Into Hell for the Criminal Characters and the Audience. Analogous and Angry and at times a totally Unwashed Display of Capitalism's Control Over Third-World Countries and Their Despairing Populace. One of the Greatest Unknown, Unseen Films ever. Roy Scheider and an International Cast all Add to the Film's Otherworldly and Etherical Appeal. Although it's Not an Appealing Film in a Lot of Ways by Design. The Film is a Sweaty, Bleak, and Horrific View of Desperate People Caught in a Limbo of Barely Survival Conditions. See this Forgotten Film to See who Survives. It's Not a Very Pretty Picture but the Movie is One Pretty Picture if You can Call Hell a Pretty Picture.