O Comboio do Medo

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

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

This film is a worthy successor to "The Exorcist". In an alternate universe, this gritty thriller would have topped the box office and brought crowds to the theatres in 1977. But the studio didn't market it. No one saw it. The movie everyone saw instead that years was "Star Wars". That movie cost $11 million dollars to make. "Sorcerer" cost $12 million dollars to make. I sincerely regret not knowing about the film and trying to see it on the big screen. My first exposure to this film was when it debuted on a cable movie channel in the 1990s. At first, I was convinced that I had screwed up searching the TV listings, because the beginning of this film includes a sequence shot in France, starring French actors, and spoken entirely in French. This didn't fit in the synopsis of the movie I read: 4 desperate men are hired to move explosives through the jungle.

Based on a classic foreign film "Wages of Fear", which I was able to see in a revival theatre, there is a story setup that pushes the tension and almost dares you the audience to live through the experience. The movie begins immediately with a murder, without any setup or dialogue. The movie abruptly cuts to another country and three new characters who commit a terrorist attack. I mention one word as the title of this review, and that is "Riveting". William Friedkin, with a background in documentary filmmaking, directs this sequence with an immediacy that feels real. He achieved this with great success in "The French Connection". Using hand-held style of cinematography, Friedkin popularized this style that has seen a resurgence in recent years (Bourne films).

The French sequence I mentioned has a completely different timbre, as if we switched the channel to another movie with another director. Credit Friedkin for creating a provocative opening sequence that can challenge an audience, and which they find their reward for following the unorthodox setup of the story. I am reminded of the opening sequence of "The Exorcist", which approaches the story with seemingly detached characters, and allows the audience to be intelligent enough to fit the pieces together later.

The fourth sequence returns to New York, and almost feels like an deleted scene from "The French Connection", complete with car chase. Here, we also recognise Roy Scheider, the costar of "The French Connection". Except he is now on the opposite side of the law. Nevertheless, Scheider now is the central character of the film, and it his charisma that is necessary to carry the film through the rough ride ahead. Scheider always has been a good guy character and well liked by audiences. He carries "Jaws" very well. His tough guy role in "Marathon Man" also was memorable. Friedkin makes a deliberate decision to minimise the dialogue in this film, instead letting the action tell the story for us.

With the first act setting up the four main characters, the last being Roy Scheider, now on the run from the mob, we the audience are given the setup as Scheider is told his fate. He is getting on a boat to (presumably) Latin America or South America. An unnamed village in a third world country, through a montage of shots of fantastic cinematography, reveals that it is a corrupt government with a militant leader, and a poor population working for a western oil company. Again, all this exposition is told without a spoken word. There is also a deft approach to the story setting up the oil field explosion. Special care by the filmmakers makes sure each character in the films feels pressure. From the oil field foreman who must keep the quota, to the local police that must manage rioting workers, to the very survival of our four main characters who have bounties on their heads.

The four men are hired to move very volatile explosives to the oil field (the explosives are used to snuff out the flame). Again, the setup of the macguffin, the explosives, is done expertly and causes the audience to twitch, knowing that the slightest slip could cause the nitroglycerin to blow up. As I mentioned, it is at this point that Friedkin dares the audience to live through the experience, as the explosives are driven along a crumbling mountain road that also encounters rivers and jungles. Watching these trucks navigate almost impossible driving conditions is nerve wrecking. Just when you think the truck has negotiated a formidable obstacle, a group of banditos or something else gets in the way.

Watching this film for the first time in a few years (I deliberately held off until I could watch the Blu Ray copy), I was thoroughly entertained at this masterfully constructed thriller. This films should be considered a classic, by way of how expertly the story was told through new but yet entertaining and effective methods. Your heart pounds almost through your chest at times. I was even entertained when we learn the fate of Scheider at the end of the film. A film that successfully maintains tension from almost the very beginning should end the story with something to twist the knot even tighter.

I give this film an 8, a kind of film achievement that can't be duplicated (even though plans have been made for another remake).

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_.

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!