Directed by William Friedkin — Screenplay by Walon Green.
Based on Georges Arnaud’s French novel Le Salaire de la peur, William Friedkin’s Sorcerer follows four very different individuals from all over the world– the Mexican assassin named Nilo (played by Francisco Rabal), a Palestinian militant named Kassem (played by Amidou), a French investment banker named Victor Manzon (played by Bruno Cremer), and an Irish-American gang member and driver named Jackie Scanlon (played by Roy Scheider) — as they all eventually find themselves in a remote village in Colombia. Here they are all trying to hide away from their old lives, and they desperately want to build new lives for themselves. However, their wages are insufficient. However, one day a lucrative job becomes available as an oil well has exploded. An American oil company now needs four drivers to risk life and limb by driving highly unstable dynamite through the unpaved jungles of Colombia. Of course, the film’s four leads line up to take part in the risky endeavor.
Make no mistake, even though this William Friedkin effort is definitely not as famous as The Exorcist, Sorcerer is an all-around phenomenal film and arguably just as good. It is such an anxiety-inducing experience once the film really gets moving and the characters set out on their collective mission. It is also impressively daring filmmaking complemented by a story defined by utter bleakness and despair. In spite of how simple the structure of the film may be, it is such a bold film in the way it is presented and the way these edge-of-your-seat sequences are pulled off. It is absolutely mind-boggling to me that most critics didn’t champion Sorcerer upon its initial release. Though it makes total sense why it struggled with audiences back then.
It’s not just that it opened around the time of the release of Star Wars (I mean by that point it was probably already dead in the water box office-wise), but the title also does it no favor. I’ve heard Friedkin’s explanation about the magic and the unpredictability of fate, and it is very artistic — and I see what he’s going for. But, at the same time, the title of Sorcerer puts the wrong images in the minds of audiences who knew him from a supernatural film that probably traumatized some potential audience members — and thus made them steer clear of this.
I will add that the bold choice of deciding to open with several sections of the film that have no English whatsoever definitely didn’t do it any favors for audiences unfamiliar with foreign films. I can imagine that some audience members probably looked around quizzically — perhaps some even headed for the exits to check if they were in the right theater. Now, I’m certain none of these are new observations, but it’s wild to me that those elements’ obvious effects on audiences weren’t anticipated.
But, man, what a film. Again, it is right up there with William Friedkin’s best films. Those bridge sequences alone are some of the most audacious and jaw-dropping scenes to watch from that era — they simply could not have been done the same way today. The punctured tire scene is such a grab-your-chest kind of startling shock that it knocks you on your ass emotionally. Friedkin certainly nails that unpredictability of life; the cruelty of certain fates, the momentary loss of control and what it can mean, and the feeling that control may sometimes be a mirage. Sorcerer is absolutely shattering stuff perhaps especially because of the human fallibility of its unheroic suicide squad at the center of it all. This should be more widely loved because it is definitely a classic.
9 out of 10
– Review Written by Jeffrey Rex Bertelsen.
I'm Jeffrey Rex 