GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

jjclaus This film is extremely suspenseful and exciting with raw film locations, tension, and excellent character development. Four men risk their lives to escape squalid living conditions in a Latin American country to where they each had fled. But, Fate hangs over the men and will not let them go. The French businessman, Bruno Cremer, discusses the absolute whim of Fate with his wife in a novel she is writing. The idea of instant annihilation is repeatedly visited through the film as these desparate men cannot escape it. There is no safety for the desparate men as you root for them to succeed in the perilous task of transporting unstable explosives over moutains and primative jungle terrain. The four men: a mobster (robbery), a businessman (fraud), a terrorist (bombing), and an assasin (contract murder) are all fleeing from their criminal pasts but cannot escape the cloud of Fate hanging over them. After seeing this film I think "That should not have happened to them", or "They did not deserve that". "They should have escaped that fate because of the tremendous effort and risk they took." It is not to be. This film will not let you go just as it treats its characters. Friedkin's best film!!

Joe Critics can get a hard rap, but prime British film critic Mark Kermode has been recently championing this mostly forgotten film for its anniversary. Granted it has the benefit of being by the director of his favourite film (The Exorcist), but still it piqued my interest, and I'm glad it did.What we have is a very harsh film, where the characters and story lack empathy, as we watch the central group of men go through their Heart of Darkness moments. We have an American mob man, a Middle Eastern bomber and a French banking fraudster (no this is not the start of a joke) who are thrown together after their world collapse and they have to escape their looming punishments.Forced by circumstance to win a job that will see them have to cross the Central American jungle in clapped out trucks with highly volatile explosives in the back, they are on a journey to nowhere to win the purse and passports needed to survive.I don't want to spoil anything at all here, as there are some great suspenseful scenes here which will have your heart in your mouth. It's got the full direction and style that those who loved The Exorcist will understand, and again sound is a major part of the movie and the clincher. Wonderful soundtrack and sound effects, and on a big screen it all comes together.I can't think of how they could have got better than our leads in the film, with Roy Schneider being the most recognisable, who finds this job from hell one he has to finish but at what cost? The only question is how was this gem forgotten for so long? Wonderful tough viewing, but really original and something that is a great 70s contemporary snapshot of great filming of the era, a true golden age of cinema movies.Crank up your motors and go traipse through whatever growth you have to get to watch this, recommended viewing.

avik-basu1889 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.

rodrig58 We have three really good actors, Roy Scheider(excellent in "All That Jazz"(1979) directed by Bob Fosse), Bruno Cremer and Francisco Rabal(excellent in "Viridiana"(1961) directed by Luis Bunuel). We also have an exceptional director, William Friedkin, who made "The French Connection" (1971) and "The Exorcist"(1973). And an old screenplay, made film before by Henri-Georges Clouzot, with Yves Montand, Peter van Eyck, Charles Vanel and Folco Lulli. The original is better, Friedkin's film is... deadly boring. Even the music signed Tangerine Dream did not save anything. Only for the lovers of jungle scenery and the fans of the actors and the director William Friedkin.