User Reviews

Friedkin claims this was the toughest film to make of his career, and it isn't hard to see why. The balance of this film takes place in some woe begotten Latin American country. You can just feel the poverty and desperation in the air as the only work is for an oil drilling firm who doesn't exactly seem bent on worker safety. The elements are intentionally brutal and they only add to the tension. And thats even before this story really gets going.

Early on, we are introduced to four characters who are all guilty of doing something terrible in one corner of the world or another. Roughly a half hour into the film, all four find themselves in a tiny impoverished Latin American village trying to eek out a living and forget the troubles they left behind. Not only is the local economy weak, but the place is socially on the verge of revolution. It's amazing the kind of jobs men will volunteer for to get out of these circumstances. Anyway, these four men are given the chance of transporting some highly explosive dynamite through rugged terrain in crappy old trucks so it can be used to put out a massive oil fire some 200 miles away. It is noted by one of the men that more than enough explosives are being transported. Obviously, at least one of the trucks is not expected to make it! Not only do you have an explosive cargo with unreliable trucks, but also there are armed rebels along the way who probably won't just let you pass right on through. Still, the reward for completing this job is just too much to pass on.

The film is very, very good. In fact the skill that it took to make the film is responsible for most of the stars I'm giving it. The story itself is often just not believable. The journey these four men take is ludicrously perilous. They drive their vehicles over rickety bridges that nobody in real life would have tried to get over in those trucks. Like in other Friedken films, no character is completely likable, but that only makes it tougher to figure out who will live and who will die. There are a few nice twists here and there, right up to the very end to keep you guessing. The acting is exceptional. Scheider was Friedkin's fourth or fifth choice for the main character. Steve McQueen originally wanted it badly, but he demanded a part included for then wife Ali McGraw. Friedkin balked at this and then later regretted the decision. He later stated that he never thought Scheider was a good enough leading man. This is an error, however. Scheider is a terrific actor and his performance here is outstanding.

The film bombed badly at the box office. Heck, if you weren't in line to see Star Wars that year, you were in line to see Smokey and the Bandit! This is definitely one of Friedkin's best, and it has somehow almost been completely forgotten. The film apparently got a PG rating but it is filled with violence and all manner of evil goings on. You'll have to suspend your disbelief for some of the scenes, but you'll be glad you did. I'll give it 8 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

Added Feb 14, 2008: RIP Roy Scheider!

For my money, the original one-sheet for "Sorcerer" is one of the most effective pieces of movie advertising. A cargo truck trying to negotiate its way across a sorely decrepit bridge. Simple, but highly effective. The whole movie is distilled into that one image. Which isn't to say that that's all the movie is, far from it. "Sorcerer" deals in high suspense like a seasoned pro, cavalierly dismissing the laws of physics in favor of truly nail-biting cinema. The whole thing feels doomed, and that sense of dread just builds, baby. It's a movie that spends its first half in set-up, but surprisingly is never boring. And Friedkin milks the gritty atmosphere out of that third-world jungle.

It's been a few days and I still can't get this movie out of my head. It doesn't shake off easily.

8/10

Sorcerer is a unique, brutal, brilliant film burdened underneath a terrible, wholly unappropriate title. Watching this film, it is not only easy to see why the film was both a huge financial and commercial disaster, it is downright obvious. This is the most un-american/ hollywood/ commercial film backed by a major studio I have ever seen. It is a tough, gruelling 126 minutes that goes nowhere fast, yet holds you firm in its tight grip and beats you senseless throughout. I was exhausted when the film finally arrived at it's rather downbeat ending. The multi-national cast is faultless. Scheider is magnificent. This is an exceptionally demanding, difficult role and he hits it head on, creating an anti-hero who is very, very real: desperate, frightened and desructable. Taking this role, at the height of his fame, was either very brave or very stupid. I'm going with brave. His performance here is a million miles away from his work on Jaws and Jaws 2, yet equally compelling. The photography is in a league of it's own (I only wish the DVD came with an original 2:35:1 print, assuming there is one, as the current disc is presented in a 4:3 full frame), and the music from Tangerine Dream complements the vision perfectly. This is a brilliant piece of film making from the most daring decade of cinema, made by one of cinema's true unpredictable's. Tense, dazzling, dark and fresh, this is an underated film that deserves to be re-evaluated.

Four unfortunate men from different parts of the globe agree to risk their lives transporting gallons of nitroglycerin across dangerous South American jungle.

As others have noticed, this film suffers from having a strange title. The original book is "The Wages of Fear", and the film was released under this title in some territories. I suspect that if it had this title today, it might be better remembered. A name like "Sorcerer" clearly suggests a fantasy film, which this is not.

That major hurdle aside, it is a good movie and a very ambitious one. With four different prologues, a casual viewer might gt lost or bored or just not know what to think. It pays off as the story progresses, however, and we get a film that is a war movie, a mob movie, an action thriller... it has a little something for everyone.

A remake of Henri-George Cluzot's 1953 film The Wages of Fear (also on DVD in a lovely Criterion Disc), this William Friedkin film stars Roy Scheider (at his weary, doomed finest) as one of four men exiled to an unnamed South American country by their mistakes and crimes. Trapped in squalor (and it's damn convincing looking squalor, too, far beyond the sunbaked black-and-white compositions of Wages of Fear; this film looks like it's leaving mud on your shoes), unable to return to the lives they abandoned, they're driven by circumstance to accept a normally unthinkable job. They have to drive old, unstable dynamite from its storage site hundreds of miles over mountain terrain and washed-out roads to the location of an oil well fire so the blaze can be snuffed out. The pay is exorbitant -- but it's commiserate to the danger. The risks are colossal ... and they ultimately have no choice.

Sorcerer is tense, suspenseful film-making at its finest; you become physically uncomfortably during this film thanks to the incredible sense that at any minute our heroes would literally be blown to hell. (I mean, we all walk around with the philosophical knowledge we could die at any moment, but talk about your concrete metaphors ... ) Friedkin creates a palpable sense of place, and Scheider is immensely powerful as a man whose every move suggests that he knows he's doomed. Taut with suspense, completely convincing and breathtakingly human, Sorcerer is an unfairly maligned film that delivers in every way.

And the Score is unique and nightmarish. A new DVD would be welcome to many happy fans.

After _The French Connection_ and _The Exorcist_, William Friedkin made it three masterpieces in a row with this remake of the French classic _Wages of Fear_. As an exercise in pure cinematic storytelling, _Sorcerer_ may be the best film of the three Friedkin greats.

Structurally similar to the other two of his films, and working from a tough, bare-bones Walon Green script, Friedkin gives us all the back story we need in the first reel. Once the characters are brought together in the South American jungle, the film grabs you and doesn't let go until the final frame. The viewing experience is supremely visceral. You literally feel the tension as the four major characters and their two trucks loaded with nitro encounter and attempt to overcome the elements and some very rough terrain. Each scene is its own brilliant set piece. The film would work well as a silent movie, but the sound design and Tangerine Dream's musical score in themselves are among the film's towering achievements right along with the direction, cinematography and production design.

I'm perhaps the only one not put off by the film's allegedly inappropriate title. On the contrary, I think the title adds an element of mystery to the story -- as if trouble is being concocted by an unseen force acting upon the film's morally dubious main characters. It gives a demonic personality to the confluence of fate and dumb luck. The title also serves to give the film some added distance from the very fine Clouzot original.

The performances are all first-rate, if economic, and Roy Scheider stands out with some real tough-guy charisma. He also gets to wear the coolest hat this side of Gene Hackman's porkpie derby in _The French Connection_.

Georges Arnaud's novel LE SALAIRE DE LA PEUR has been filmed twice, by Henri-Georges Clouzot as THE WAGES OF FEAR (1953) and by William Friedkin as SORCERER (1977). While both films are worth seeing, the earlier version is the one regarded as a classic, and rightly so. SORCERER has its strengths, to be sure -- but the title isn't one of them, in my opinion. "Sorcerer" is the name of one of the trucks used in the antiheroes' nitroglycerin run, but I suspect it was used as the title primarily to make fans of Friedkin's EXORCIST think it was another supernatural chiller. If anything, SORCERER harks back to Friedkin's Oscar-winning FRENCH CONNECTION, having been filmed in the style of the grim-and-gritty school of 1970s crime thrillers; its realism in this respect gives its best moments the feel of a tough-minded documentary. The acting is top-notch all around, particularly from Bruno Cremer and the ever-charismatic Roy Scheider, who brought to my mind Humphrey Bogart in TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE. Having said that, although SORCERER goes into more detail about the political climate and the various misdeeds that led the four desperate protagonists to the South American hellhole where they accept high-paying but life-risking jobs driving nitroglycerin through treacherous terrain, WAGES... distinguishes the men's personalities better, giving the audience more rooting interest in them. Both films have excellent casts, with compelling lead performances from Scheider and, in WAGES..., Yves Montand. In addition, WAGES... provides feminine charm in the form of beguiling Vera Clouzot as the café waitress who loves Montand, while the few women in SORCERER are virtually interchangeable. Both films also have tense action sequences, but somehow for all the staging and skillful editing, SORCERER's action scenes seem strangely slow, slogging along in the mud just like the men in their less-than-state-of-the-art trucks. Both versions have enough good things in them to be worth a look, but if you only have the time and resources to check out one of them, WAGES... pays off more handsomely than SORCERER.

The Story goes that when Sorcerer was released it was at a theatre where Star Wars was having an incredible Run selling out every night. When this movie was released there was lines around the block to see it and then in it's second week NOTHING! The movie died a horrible death at the box office and was alway relocated to the Heaven's Gate Orphanage for lost movies. Such a shame. Sorcerer is a mind blowing ride into desperation and horror. The Story is this four men who committed large crimes ranging from Fraud to armed robbery and outright terrorist attacks to cold blooded murder flee to a small south America country once there they struggle to survive. When an oil well explodes and the fire runs out of control the only option is dynamite to cap the well. But the dynamite is old and the nitro is leaking out making transport hard but not impossible. No one wants the job so they recruit 4 men our heroes in an manner of speaking take the job for a incredible amount of money They are given two trucks to repair and overhaul the trucks become main characters as well according to the movie novel they were abandoned army trucks left after WW2 and superstitious natives named them SORCERER and LAZLO . When the trucks are ready the journey itself proves to be the road to hell. one of the most famous scenes is where the Sorcerer truck is trying to cross the swing rope bridge during a harsh storm and the sorcerer almost does not make it that scene in it's entire sequence is a incredible feat of film making. Right to the end the suspense and the fear are kept up and Friedkin a master of this knows how to do this. The Story is excellent so is the acting all of whom should be more then proud to put this film on their resumes. Outstanding work by all.

Four men end up as drivers transporting unstable dynamite through the jungles of South America in two ramshackle trucks. A mob had set fire to the oil wells and the boss needs the dynamite transported over 200 miles. Nilo (Francisco Rabal) is a killer from Vera Cruz, Mexico. Kassem (Amidou) is an Arab terrorists on the run after setting a bomb off in Jerusalem. Victor Manzon (Bruno Cremer) is a Frenchman accused of fraud. Jackie Scanlon (Roy Scheider) is the getaway driver of a gang that wounded a priest that turned out to be the brother of a mafia leader. Just before departing, the Jewish Nilo kills driver Marquez who is presumably a Nazi and they take Nilo on as the replacement.

Director William Friedkin remakes, reinterprets, reimagines, or re-whatevers the classic 'The Wages of Fear'. IMO it starts off badly and slowly trying to show the four vignettes of the four men. Simple flashbacks or just talking about their past would be more compelling. The four vignettes confuse matters and takes away the pacing from the opening act. Opening a month after 'Star Wars' didn't help matters either. Also the title is all wrong with people expecting something like 'The Exorcist'. Even the trailer seems to suggest a supernatural theme to the movie. This is more like a foreign language art film that turns into a big action thriller in the second half. It is also one of the first sacrificial lamb to the era of the Hollywood blockbusters. The movie gets more interesting about 30 to 45 minutes in. It is a big production and Friedkin knows how to build tension. The drive over the bridge is insane. The location is muddy and grimy. It's sort of a drive into the heart of darkness.

This movie pales in comparison with the 1952 French version, "The Wages of Fear." It relies too heavily on special effects to tell the story rather than on human relationships, as one sees with the original. Since there is hardly any character development in "Sorcerer," it is impossible to develop any warmth or sympathy for the characters. Likewise, the characters never develop anything resembling a bond between them, as one sees in the original, and as one would expect to happen between people who must depend solely on one another to stay alive.

There is none of the existential philosophy of the human condition in "Sorcerer" that one finds all throughout the "The Wages of Fear." There is none of the compassion for the many permutations that a personality takes on in times of desperation. In "Sorcerer" we only see cartoonish machismo.

Very disappointing overall.

Being a huge fan of Friedkin,i wanted to see "sorcerer" for a long time;after several months of researches,at last,i could on an old videotape and ,immediately,it emerged as one of the best movies i've ever seen.I must be one of the rare who don't consider it's title so inapropriate,even it's been chosen for obvious commercial reasons (the exorcist/the sorcerer).The sorcerer,it's this fate which gathers 4 men of 4 different countries together;they have nothing in common but will be obliged to collaborate for the same reason;it's too an evil nature which,a little bit like in "deliverance",seems to make everything it cans to make the mission fail.There's a subtext ,"man vs nature",which, from Friedkin's words,was wanted from the beginning,and that,to my mind, considerably enhances the film. The systematic comparisons between the 52's version and this one don't appear to me valuables;i prefer seeing it more as a second adaptation of Arnaud's novel than as a remake.In fact,it's much more close to "the treasure of the sierra madre": the painful irony of the ending and Scheider with his hat looks exactly like Bogart.According to me,even it's a good flick,the original version is very-too much?-faithful to the novel and so,quite easy to foresee (for instance,before the mission, one of the truck is sabotaged so we're sure it's gonna explode at a moment or another). One said,including Friedkin,it bombed the box-office because was no star like Steve mc Queen to attract the audience,but nothing is less sure;first of all,it's unfair for Roy Scheider who previously starred in "the french connection" and "jaws" and was quite famous and,then,it's above all a question of concept:the audience of 77 didn't want to see that kind of movie anymore,-pessimistic,ironic,with an all-male cast and unhappy ending,-and was rather ready to enjoy Lucas and Spielberg's movies. I could speak highly of its qualities for hours: cast and crew,the work on the sound,the Tangerine dream's score,the sequence of the bridge,the surreal atmosphere of the last scenes,but it's already been described in other comments;let's say it's a very special,precious and unforgettable film to me.Hoping now there will have in next months a beautiful dvd edition like those of "to live and die in L.A.",and a serious rehearsal.It deserves it.

Sorcerer's keynote is epitomized early on when introducing Bruno Cremer's wealthy character, living an ivory tower existence, with no reason yet to feel insecure about much. His wife reads to him a war article. He comments, "Just another soldier." She replies, "No one is just anything." Indeed, in William Friedkin's merciless adventures, heroic characters tend to be defined by any and everything contemptible, villains are unknowable, the lines between them are exceedingly vague…and arbitrary. The French Connection, man-versus-man. The Exorcist, man-versus-unexplained. With Sorcerer, man-versus-chance, an indefinable, undetected competitor. The realm of Friedkin's visualization is a perilous, brutal, ethically insolvent one where there bluntly is no God, just randomness, meaninglessness, pure survival.

Unlike Clouzot's incredible original film, Friedkin doesn't allow for easy identification with any of the central figures, and despite Roy Scheider's impressively physical central performance, it remains emotionally aloof. But that doesn't matter. Seeing each man's prior exploits tells so much, voyeuristically, about their behavior when they happen upon each other in the thirsty alien setting where they're all out of their elements. We also see how regular joes can be monsters.

Also, throughout their respective prefaces, Friedkin foretells the boiling dangers awaiting our scandalous foursome, with sardonic counterpoint. Francisco Rabal abandons the hotel in a wrought-iron elevator decorated green, as are the hotel walls. As Amidou and his co-conspirators plan their getaway, they hurriedly study a map. When he chooses "the long way," the suggestion's far more poignant than he realizes. It's also in the early New Jersey fast-sketch that Friedkin's murky jesting emerges: In a church cellar, various priests calculate thousands of dollars, wearing visors, more like bookies than Christ's followes. Armed robbers break in. At the wedding upstairs, the ceremony's priest declares, "Christ abundantly blesses this love." Back to the basement as dollars gush from canvas bags, robbers jam their pouches. Upstairs, "You've strengthened your consent before the Church." Friedkin pushes into bride and groom. The bride has a black eye.

In a Paris café comprising close-ups of enticing culinary delights, Cremer, his wife and their friend babble about substandard lobster in humid South American waters, while Cremer merely half-listens. The truck Scheider runs into has a Meridian Freight insignia. Friedkin's pessimistic joking could be doubled here: Scheider zigzags off a "meridian" in a manufacturing district, a massive water tower dwarfing everything else. He'll eventually find himself in a manufacturing gutter of the world. During his getaway, he passes big color signs promoting things he won't see, have or enjoy again.

A handful of exiles and fugitives from starkly different backgrounds, cultures, nationalities are driven by desperation to go into hiding, working in an obscure oil drilling operation in South America. When fire breaks out of control, they each seize a chance to earn enough money to escape their hellholes, earn citizenship, feel as if they might restore honor, by transporting crates of unstable dynamite through miles of perilous jungle in rusty, rickety old trucks. But this dynamite, negligently stored, literally oozes nitro. Any shock, any vibration, they detonate. Somehow, driving in pairs, these men must carry their cargo past a crumbling rope-suspension bridge, swinging ferociously in a savage storm over a flood-heaving river, a colossal tree blocking the road, and a flock of forlorn, vicious bandits.

The cash sum being rewarded to the drivers is erratic all through the film. The oil company first says they will pay 8,000 pesos to each driver. Later the demand doubles. Later one boasts that he and another one will get double shares of 20,000 each. By the end, a check reads 40,000 pesos which would be just 10,000 each. This seems like one of Friedkin's sadistic impositions of his thematic intentions. We're drawn into circumstances so desperate, so reckless, any amount sounds beautiful, any amount will do, then eventually, returning to any semblance of relatable civilization is all that matters.

Friedkin and screenwriter Walon Green strip the source story's existential themes to the core. Driven by a series of striking images, it ultimately goes one step further than Clouzot by suggesting that humankind is subject not only to the vagaries of fate and nature but to its own vengeful, venal essence. What's so enrapturing about Sorcerer is that the needs and situations that occur, one after another, are so primal, these characters are hairpin turns between murderously divided and collaborating with implicit trust. Friedkin exemplifies the seduction of voyeurism in the very close, detailed but utterly omniscient way we follow each unrelated character to this godforsaken place, where they know absolutely nothing of each other, but we've seen them all in their respective realms of normalcy, the shameful predicaments that got them here. But just as well, we're ever so subtly implicated in the vengeful, venal, not in what we see but what we find ourselves expecting. Take for example the riot that erupts in the street after the oil explosion. The townspeople are violent, frenzied, relentless, but Friedkin leaves out the authorities' retaliation. And we expect it…indeed, we begin to want it, relate to it. It's a disturbing feeling.

Friedkin loves to show mechanisms, the down and dirty way things work, as in the montage with minor-key synth music showing the rag-tag bunch preparing trucks. It makes us that much more conscious of the threadbare fragility of the utterly extraordinary ensuing action sequences, most notably the hazardous rainstorm crossing of the fragile rope-bridge. No matter how much these men exert themselves to cover every corner, suspect everyone, spot every detail, do whatever they can to ensure their survival, they never have any control over their own fates, not how they got into this mess or how or if they get out of it. They don't all speak the same language, none of them trust or even understand one another, or even use their real names. Even if they do succeed, or some, or none, they have about as much control over their deaths as they do their births.

An underrated film with a typically stellar Roy Scheider performance, an eerie Tangerine Dream soundtrack, and brilliant visuals. This film's reputation suffers from its inexplicable title and unfavorable comparisons to the original. But it's useless to compare since this film is an altogether different beast. Friedkin gives it his usual nihilist/fatalist/existential stamp, making it a much darker film than the French version. Very suspenseful and well-made. Made by Friedkin at the height of his powers. His third best film after Exorcist and French Connection.

Sorcerer is a 1977 remake of The Wages of Fear, directed by William Friedkin. Well, he claims that it is not, but when both of your films depict poor, unfortunate schmucks being forced to transport pure nitroglycerin in order to blow out a flaming oil well. Up into the mountains, in South America. In a truck. Well, given all that, it's a bit hard to claim that your films don't have anything in common.

Or, I mean, pure happenstance! Could happen to anyone. Very common story thread.

That little bit of self-delusion aside, the film has a few things going for it when compared to the original 1953 classic. We get to knew the schmucks a bit better and more time is spent with them. The film is also in lush colour and the jungle they're forced to drive through is a vibrant place indeed to fear getting blown to atoms.

There are also some real nailbiter scenes in the film. Most notably one involving a hanging bridge which they're forced to gross. Rarely have I been on the edge of my seat as much as when watching that scene. Very much worth the price of admission by itself.

Unfortunately the rest of the film feels a tad lackluster in comparison. I like that we spent a bit more time with the schmucks, but it does make the runtime of the film feel padded. Likewise with everything else. The scenes that are good, are mind-blowing. The ones that aren't, are real dull.

Luckily this movie differs from the earlier French movie version "Le salaire de la peur". But does this make it a better movie as well? Slightly yes but it obviously is not one without its flaws.

I know that the 1953 "Le salaire de la peur" is considered to be an early action-classic but I just never really got why. The movie is overlong, with a very slow first half and the movie is filled with some unsympathetic, lazy, lying, crooked bunch of characters. I was therefore also pleased to see already from early on into the movie, that this movie was taking a different approach with its story. Biggest difference between the two is the time period it got set in. Both movies are set in the present time, so for this movie that means that it's being set in the '70's, which is always a plus, for basically any sort of movie.

But still the characters aren't much better in this one. All of their backgrounds are explained more interesting and exciting but not really their motivations to take on this extremely dangerous job, that plays the central role within the movie its story. It just didn't made much sense, as did a whole lot of other stuff in this movie.

It nevertheless still remains a pretty entertaining movie to watch, though I just didn't seemed to be as grabbed by it as a whole lot of other people seem to do. It just seems to me that with a this sort of concept they could had explored so much more, tension and action-wise. To me the movie is just lacking in its excitement and tension, though there are still plenty of great moments in it.

It's not really an actors movie. Seems actually that the actors become sort of secondary in the story and I actually kind of liked this about its approach. Yes, perhaps it's a reason why the characters remain kind of flat and distant ones but it does make the overall story as a whole still more interesting and compelling to follow. There are actually as few dialog as possible in this movie, so just don't expect Roy Scheider or anyone else to shine in this.

Overall I still mainly liked this movie, though I just don't love it as much as everyone else seems to.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

An unfortunate circumstance slipped Sorcerer into the ether. And that circumstance was Star Wars. They were released at the same time and any film up against the Wars of the Stars was dwarfed in comparison. It's terribly unfair as Lucas' success consequently became Friedkin's downfall. Sorcerer is a very good film, a great one in fact. Based upon the same book as the classic French film The Wages of Fear, it's material worth repeating in the perpetually sweaty grit of the 70s. The problem with Wages is that it spent an unnecessary hour and a half on setup. Sorcerer is a bit better, spending an hour instead, but it's much leaner and doesn't waste time. Opening with quick engaging vignettes, I can see how a viewer who wasn't aware of their appearance would feel alienated. They're not exactly necessary but it opens up the world of Sorcerer in a way that it wouldn't do otherwise. It's thanks to its dynamic editing, super quick and super sharp all the time while holding onto the tension.

As a result, the film is like the most thrilling parts of The French Connection put into one volatile barrel. It's a shame that Friedkin doesn't like working with Roy Scheider in hindsight, considering he got him an Oscar nomination for Connection, but I'm a big fan of him. He's a great leading man in All That Jazz, for example. Here, the cast do struggle to stand out and make their mark, but that's because the material doesn't lend itself to personalities and inner struggle. They're best used metaphorically, which Sorcerer doesn't do overtly. Instead, the joy is watching the men's resourcefulness, especially in a sequence where a big trunk is in the way, or the nail-biting bridge scene. What stands out is the remarkable sound design that makes every crunch feel life-threatening. It's a shame the score by Tangerine Dream is so dated, even if it was celebrated at the time. Works at times, doesn't at others. Sorcerer is a rough around the edges movie, but a thrilling ride nevertheless.

8/10

Not-bad remake of the 1952 French-Italian film "Le Salaire de la Peur" concerns four fugitives from different parts of the globe winding up in horrendous Latin American city where they are given a chance at freedom: by driving trucks filled with nitroglycerin through treacherous jungle terrain to put out a massive oil fire. Tense atmosphere, palpably sweaty suspense, and serviceable performances (particularly by Roy Scheider and Bruno Cremer) help make up for a meandering script. William Friedkin directed, and he knows how to construct an exciting narrative--but not a tight one. He's stylish but not sophisticated, and his adventure has gaps of both credibility and logic. **1/2 from ****

The original for this film, Clouzot's "Wages of Fear," is one of the greats. It is not only a great thriller, but manages in the last minutes to tie a wide range of issues together and leave you thinking about all you've just experienced. In spite of excellent cinematography and first rate sound design, "Sorcerer" is a big bore that never adds up. The first half of the film spans the world and provides a sense of place worthy of Hitchcock. In fact, it really got me thinking about how the four apparently unrelated events might eventually fit together. Well, they don't It's sole purpose is to set out the back stories of the 4 main characters. Unfortunately, the 4 characters are never developed and what we learn here is largely irrelevant to the film's actions or themes.

When we get to the main story, we care little about the four characters and their fate. In fact you may have trouble remembering who two of the characters are and none of the characters ring true. Where does a guy who spent his prior life as a wealthy banker (or, in fact, any of the characters) get the skills to assemble and tune the engine, suspension, etc. of the trucks that he will use to transport the explosives? The back stories make up half the run time of the film but never answer such basic questions. As a result, we are left with a thin thriller about characters who behave in unbelievable ways and never arouse either sympathy or hatred. If well-shot thrill sequences are all you seek in a film, you may enjoy this. While it is true that there is something a bit Hollywoodish in Yves Montand's naiveté in "Wages," and that is contrasted with the grittiness of the characters in "Sorcerer," the ending of "Wages" gives that Hollywood simplicity just the right ironic twist.

In "Wages of Fear" Clouzot limits his focus to the backwater hell hole where everyone lives in poverty enslaved to the world oil market. Clouzot focuses much attention on making us feel how bad this place is. By the end of the film Clouzot has us thinking about the relation of the lives of these characters to our own. While I understand why Friedkin in "Sorcerer," might wish to show the global interconnectedness of the modern world, and that the whole world is now a mean and dangerous place, he never attempts to connect the meanness of that world to the poverty and brutishness of the oil backwater, the current lives of the characters, or our own lives. While he makes the squalor of the backwater convincing, it too has little connection to the world's meanness. Yes, the world is dangerous, revolution is always about to boil over, but what has this to do with us. Clouzot's characters learn and grow as the film accumulates ironies right to the final death waltz. Friedkin's characters barely exist and the film finds no thematic center to hold itself together.