DVD

Universal, pan&scan, languages: English Dolby Surround [CC], French Digital Mono, subtitles: Spanish, French, single side-single layer, 18 chapters, rated PG, 121 min., $24.98, street date 11/17/98.

Studio Line

Academy Awards: Nominated for Best Sound, 1978.

Directed by William Friedkin. Starring Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer, Francisco Rabal, Amidou, Ramon Bieri, Peter Capell.

Roy Scheider lends his intense talent to this taut action-adventure from director William Friedkin. Set on the edge of a South American jungle, a desperate four-man team, led by Scheider, must transport a volatile cargo of nitroglycerine over 200 miles of treacherous terrain in order to stop a potentially disastrous oil fire.

Enter into this potentially explosive mix of split-second strategy and jolting suspense set against an outstanding score by Tangerine Dream.

Picture/Sound/Extras (D+/C+/D+)

You know what I love most about DVDs? The low, low prices found during some of these amazing internet sales. Not only can I get movies I really want for very little money, but I get the opportunity to experiment and try out movies I might otherwise have skipped.

Case in point: I recently purchased a copy of Sorcerer for about $8 shipped. Never saw the movie, didn't even know what it was about. I decided to give it a try just because it was directed by William Friedkin, who also did The Exorcist and The French Connection. The fact I didn't know anything about the film was probably a bad sign - if the film was much good, it should have received more notice since it came from such an accomplished director - but for $8, who cares? I found The Exorcist to be one of the most uniquely directed movies I've seen, so I thought I'd give Friedkin another shot with Sorcerer.

It's a very odd experience for me to see a movie about which I know literally nothing. Here's the knowledge I had of Sorcerer before I watched it: 1) It was directed by Friedkin; 2) It starred Roy Scheider; 3) According to the case, it involved a truck in some capacity. That's it. Well, I guess I also assumed it was some kind of thriller; I was pretty sure it wasn't a romantic comedy. Nonetheless, I had absolutely no clue as to what sort of plot the film would follow.

Before I watched Sorcerer, I also felt that this would be the best way to see a movie. Imagine how exciting your favorite films would be if you had literally no idea what was going to happen. Now that it's happened, however, I'm not so sure that it's a great idea, at least not for a movie such as this. That last remark refers to the slowness with which the story of Sorcerer develops. Ultimately it's about four guys who go on a potential suicide mission to drive a truck full of nitro, but this part of the story doesn't even get hinted at until the film's almost half over. I'm not saying that this lengthy setup is a bad thing; actually, it's essential to introduce the characters and to explain their situations. However, when you have no clue as to where the story's going, it gets somewhat frustrating and tedious.

Some movies you could see without any foreknowledge and it doesn't matter because it so quickly becomes apparent where they will go. Take Star Wars, for example. The film starts with a text introduction of the story, and then immediately launches into action that firmly sets up the movie as a science fiction action story; five minutes after the lights go down, you've been introduced to four of the eight main characters and you have a good piece of background for the plot.

Other movies take a much slower, more extended path. For this side of the fence, look at Alien. It takes about 30 minutes before we see any alien life forms, and the movie's half over prior to the initial appearance of the starring alien. Like Sorcerer, only at that point does the true intent of the story become apparent; until the midpoint of both of these films, the audience has no real idea what the overriding plot of the movies will be.

That's not a bad thing at all. I'm not espousing one way of making a film over the other; they each work very well in different situations. My point is simply that for me at least, probably since I'm so used to knowing a fair amount about movies before I see them, I found Sorcerer to be a somewhat frustrating experience for the first half simply because I had no idea where it was going.

My frustrations notwithstanding, I actually really admire that kind of filmmaking. Friedkin worked much the same way in The Exorcist in that very little is ever made explicitly clear to the audience; characters and circumstances are alluded to but they rarely receive any kind of full explanation. I liked that in The Exorcist, and I like it here as well.

All in all, Sorcerer is a decent but unspectacular film. Friedkin certainly offers a great deal of suspense and drama during the second hour of the film as our lead characters attempt to transport the nitro, something he does without benefit of any really sympathetic characters. All of the leads are bad guys for some reason or another; they wouldn't be stuck in some South American shithole if they weren't trying to hide from something. Still, our conditioning makes us view them as our "heroes" whether we like it or not, so although we know little about these characters and really have no concrete investment in their futures, we nonetheless want to see them succeed.

Unlike The Exorcist, Sorcerer doesn't seem to be as creative or as visionary. The former film stands as a truly unique and amazing piece of filmmaking, whereas the latter's just another pretty good thriller. Friedkin possesses an unflinching eye, apparent in the graphic nastiness of The Exorcist and in the squalor of the South American village depicted in Sorcerer; rarely has a director made an unpleasant place look quite so horrible. Other than that, though, I didn't think that Sorcerer offered any of the cinematic creativity contained in the earlier film; somehow, it simply seems much more conventional to me.

Sorcerer also lacks any really interesting characters. All the acting's very good, with a typically strong performance from Scheider, but the problem stems from the characters themselves. They're designed to be anonymous, since that's how these men need to live their lives in hiding, and that's basically how they remain. This functions just fine in regard to the plot, but it doesn't help create much interest in the film.

(One unusual acting note: when one character dies in the film - I won't say who - his laugh reverberates with a still-living character, a kind of "last laugh" sort of thing. Maybe I'm stretching here, but the sound of this laugh very strongly resembles the Joker's post-death "laugh bag" in Batman. Coincidence? Maybe, but I can't help but wonder if Tim Burton or a sound designer on the film did that on purpose...)

Ultimately, although I didn't think it was a great film, Sorcerer still offered an unusual tale and some solid work. It's probably the kind of movie that will improve upon subsequent viewings when I'll feel less overwhelmed by the uncertainty of the whole thing.

One aspect of the film that will not improve over the course of additional viewings is the quality of this DVD. To put it bluntly, it ain't very good. First strike: it's a pan and scan effort. I don't really mind the movies like Doc Hollywood that come to DVD in fullscreen form because no panning and/or scanning was involved in that transfer; that film was shot full-frame and simply masked to make into a 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio. Not the case with Sorcerer, however; it's a crop job, as made evident by the many scenes in which actors are removed from or barely apparent in scenes. Boo!

Some controversy has arisen about this transfer in regard to the question of whether or not it's a pan and scan affair. A helpful reader wrote to me and stated that the image is full-frame, not pan and scan, meaning that unlike the cropping that occurs with the latter, we should actually see more of the image here. The reader also indicated that the film was originally shown in a 1.66:1 ratio, which would make any potential cropping minimal.

Whatever the case may be, I still think that the image looks like it's been cropped. I don't know exactly what has been done to it, but many scenes simply appear much more cramped than they should be, and the semi-deletion of characters occurs at times. Ultimately, no matter what the nature of the original film was, this thing definitely gives the appearance of a poorly panned and scanned movie.

Strike two comes from the poor film print in use. Throughout the film, flaws are very noticeable. You'll see scratches, dirt, grain, hairs, and almost-omnipresent white spots. Was this the best print available? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it

The image of Sorcerer finally strikes out when one considers the transfer itself. Although it occasionally looks pretty decent, for the most part it's not very good. Scenes appear soft and hazy throughout much of the film. Colors seem fairly accurate, but it's hard to tell through all the muck and the haziness. The picture is always watchable, but barely so; I see little reason to recommend it over a decently done VHS tape.

The Dolby Pro Logic 2.0 sound mix of Sorcerer offered a pleasant surprise, however. Many if not most films from the 1970s feature pretty poor quality audio, and Sorcerer mimics some of their general faults, particularly dialogue and effects that sound harsh and mechanical. However, the remainder of the mix comes across pretty well. The synthesized musical score from Tangerine Dream gets cleanly reproduced, and the surround environment appears surprisingly robust; the rear channels frequently emanate a great deal of ambient noises that enhance the experience. I bumped this one down to a "C+" because of the poor quality of some of the sound, but that score may not really indicate how good some parts of this mix are.

Less compelling are the supplemental materials. Not much here: a theatrical trailer, cast and director biographies, and some pretty interesting production notes. It's all very ordinary. Well, I suppose it's better than nothing.

Ultimately I'd like to recommend this DVD because Sorcerer is a fairly interesting movie, but I can't do so because it's a rather poor disc. While it offered some surprisingly effective audio, that wasn't enough to overcome the generally poor picture. The meager supplements don't help matters. If you MUST have it, wait until you find some great internet sale and can get it for less than $10. Otherwise, hold off and hope that Universal sees fit to remaster this sucker at some point - it needs it!

One final note: Sorcereris actually a remake of a French film from 1953 called The Wages of Fear. I've not seen this movie, but I've heard it's good. Criterion offers a DVD version of it; it appears to be a movie-only edition, but since it's the only way to get the film on DVD, I guess it's the way to go!

Related Sites

Amazon.com--Available to purchase are the DVD at 30% off, and the original score soundtrack composed by Tangerine Dream.
Reel.com--Purchase the DVD at 30% off.