Badmovies.org Forum

                        While he was making "The Exorcist" William Friedkin was also involved with this project which ended up being much less popular but is actually of similar quality.  It's not about a Sorcerer.  In fact,  I have no clue why it's called "sorcerer"  but it's a title that sort of ends up kind of working in a very abstract way.   

            A good half of it involves a perilous journey transporting some particularly fragile Nitro Glycerin across very very rough terrain.  It is a highly implausible situation and it's no wonder not that many movies have been made about it.  My guess is bozos across the world were yelling "Boom!!"   every 5 seconds in the theatres.   Friedkin is definately at the height of his powers.  ambitous, unique and riveting if a little difficult to fathom plot wise.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/27/Sorcerer.png/200px-Sorcerer.png)

This one also has the soundtrack by Tangerine Dream before they went all disco -- Huge sweeping synthesizer soundwashes -- Really great space music!  Get the soundtrack albumn if you can find it --
Also, this is a remake of a French film.  The French one plays more heavily on the existential angst and enforces the fact that the men have nothing to live for, which is why they volunteer to do this in the first place.
peter johnson/denny crane

This is an excellent movie.  However, I think the original French version (called THE WAGES OF FEAR) is superior (although much slower moving at the beginning).  It was directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot who also directed the classic LES DIABOLIQUES.  I consider THE WAGES OF FEAR to be required viewing and I highly recommend you get your hands on a copy.  I have the DVD, but I think it might be out of print now.

Yeah, the original is better. It has a more subtle camerawork (Friedkin has never learnt how to be subtle) and its plot hides a depth charge against capitalism. You may agree with it or not, but it makes the movie more deep than your usual adventure film.

Still, "Sorcerer" should have been a hit in a perfect world. Friedkin did well in altering the first half so it does run smoother and faster, the acting is top notch (Paco Rabal is memorable, and so is Roy Scheider at his most intense) while some of the set pieces, like the river crossing, equal the suspense of the original.

I'd say its main problem is a Friedkin's vision. He's a terrific director, but he also seems a fierce hater of mankind, and he won't offer much in the characters for the viewer to relate or root for. 

My fear is that we are due for another remake and it will probably star either Vin Diesel or Brendan Fraser, will be directed by Michael Bay, and will be 120 minutes of mediocre CGI.

I might be wrong, because I've seen the original quite a while ago. Anyway, (SPOILERS!!!) I thought that the men did in fact had quite a lot to live for, but no chance or no "means" to do so. Wasn't one engaged and about to marry? And didn't one want to start a business of some kind with the money? I have the feeling that the story was so gripping and I cared for the characters so much because of the things they could achieve with the money. And that the money was probably not the last, but a fast and profiting one. I might have cared less if the price was just the money and not a better chance for their goals in life.

Might be wrong though...

I've just checked the remake on the internet (to find out if I've seen it - I doubt it, but would like to) and found out that Friedrich von Ledebur "stars" as one "Carlos". Fantastic! That's Queequeg in Moby Dick, also appearing in so many other great movies (Voodoo Island, Barrabas, two German Karl-May-movies, and "Un genio, due compari, un pollo" which is a Terence Hill / Nobody movie). However, I think his grandest achievement is the naming of his son:

John Friedrich Alexander Degenhardt Hubertus Maria von Ledebur!