What started as a modest side project evolved into one of director William Friedkin’s very best films and one of the unheralded masterpieces of the 1970s. Released in 1977, “Sorcerer” was Friedkin’s feature film follow-up to his enormously popular “The Exorcist” and it couldn’t be a more different movie. Given the massive success of “The Exorcist”, Friedkin was pretty much given carte blanche for whatever he chose to do next.

But as his vision grew, notoriously so did his budget. Friedkin’s insistence on filming on location deep in the jungle and his intense dedication to a documentary-style authenticity led to expensive shoots and costly delays. To make matters worse, the movie was not well received by critics. And its troubles were only compounded when it released in the same window as George Lucas’s groundbreaking “Star Wars”. As a result, “Sorcerer” earned back less than half of its production budget.

Here’s the thing, while Friedkin’s ambition pushed production to (and sometimes past) its limit, that very ambition is the fundamental reason “Sorcerer” is a truly great movie. His determination to shoot on location and his commitment to realism cements the very foundation of the film and impacts everything including the austere visuals and nontraditional storytelling. As for the critical response, there has been a significant reassessment in recent years with the movie finally getting the positive appraisal it deserves.

Written for the screen by Walon Green (his first script since penning 1969’s “The Wild Bunch”), “Sorcerer” is based on Georges Arnaud’s 1950 novel “Le Salaire de la peur”. Of course “Sorcerer” isn’t the first adaptation of Arnaud’s book. That honor belongs to director Henri-Georges Clouzot’s acclaimed 1953 thriller “The Wages of Fear”. Many have referred to “Sorcerer” as a remake of Clouzot’s film. But Friedkin rejected that notion, stating his focus was always on Arnaud’s original source material.

The film opens with a prologue that plays out through four vignettes. Each is dedicated to an unsavory criminal and the crime that put them on the run. In Mexico, an assassin named Nilo (Francisco Rabal) neatly executes an unsuspecting target. In Jerusalem, a terrorist named Kassem (Amidou) is the only member of his group to escape after detonating a bomb in the city. In Paris, a crooked businessman named Victor (Bruno Cremer) is about to be charged for fraud. And in New Jersey, an Irish gangster named Jackie (Roy Scheider) gets in hot water after his crew steals money that belongs to the Italian Mafia.

Among its several themes, “Sorcerer” is a cynical treatise on the inescapable hand of fate. That comes fully into focus once all four men end up in the same small impoverished South American village of Porvenir. Friedkin and his cinematographer John M. Stephens (who took over for Dick Bush) render the village with jaw-dropping authenticity. Every frame is teeming with detail and there is a tangibility to everything – the sweat, the rust, the grime, the despair.

Porvenir is essentially a forsaken spot marred by poverty, corruption, and unrest – a place where hope is as foreign as prosperity. There our four criminals take on aliases and go about their individual lives, laying low and working menial labor for low pay. But fate reemerges following a massive explosion at a nearby oilfield that’s ran by an American oilman named Corlette (Ramon Bieri).

To extinguish the raging fire Corlette needs to cap the oil well. But he needs dynamite to do it. And the only available dynamite is miles away in an old shed deep in the jungle. To make matters worse, the dynamite has sat in crates for nearly a year and is seeping nitroglycerin making it dangerously unstable. But Corlette is desperate. So he heads back to Porvenir in search of four experienced truck drivers, offering a big payday for anyone willing to transport the dynamite to the oilfield.

The offer brings together Jacki, Victor, Kassem, and Nilo, each needing the money if they’re ever to get out of Porvenir. And that sets up the tension-drenched second half which follows the four men as they attempt to navigate two trucks, carrying three cases of dynamite each, across 218 miles of mountainous jungle terrain. Along the way they face muddy roads, treacherous bridges, and torrential rainstorms, all while transporting cargo that the tiniest vibration could cause to explode.

This is where Friedkin’s filmmaking reaches its pinnacle as he creates scene after scene of white-knuckle suspense. None are more harrowing than them crossing a dilapidated suspension bridge as their trucks are battered by violent winds and sheets of rain. Meanwhile the character work remains strong as the four strangers bound by fate are forced to work together if they’re to have any hope of surviving. Nothing close to friendships ever form, making their relationships feel more grounded. And we find ourselves thoroughly invested in seeing these ‘bad guys’ through to the end.

With “Sorcerer”, William Friedkin pushed aside all traditional methods of big screen storytelling to make something uniquely timeless. Its world is cruel and forbidding; its characters are flawed and unglamorous; its story is dark and downbeat. But those are hardly faults. “Sorcerer” remains top-tier cinema and a true 70’s hallmark that’s highlighted by immersive storytelling, strong performances, and extraordinary craftsmanship. And as the film’s more recent reassessments have shown, those are the kind of things that never age out.

VERDICT – 5 STARS