When I first viewed 1977’s Sorcerer in 1999, I went in virtually blind, as I knew next to nothing about its story. I decided to give it a try just because William Friedkin directed it as the follow-up to 1971’s French Connection and 1973’s Exorcist.

With that track record, I figured Friedkin’s presence behind the camera made Sorcerer worth a look. Here's the knowledge I had of Sorcerer before I watched it: 1) Friedkin directed it; 2) Roy Scheider starred in it; 3) it involved a truck in some capacity.

That's it – that’s the list.

Well, I guess I also assumed it was some kind of thriller, as I felt pretty sure it didn’t deliver a romantic comedy. Otherwise, I entered with absolutely no clue what sort of plot the film would follow.

To some degree, I feel this can be the best way to see a movie for the first time. Imagine how exciting your favorite films would be if you had literally no idea what would happen.

That’s how I first viewed Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981. I still count that as one of the great movie-going experiences of my life.

In the case of Sorcerer, however, a little foreknowledge might have been helpful, largely due to the slowness with which the story of Sorcerer develops. The film follows four desperate guys who go on a potential suicide mission to drive a truck full of nitro in a remote South American area.

However, the film doesn’t even hint at this narrative until we near its halfway point. For the longest time, we don’t know where the plot plans to go with its characters.

I won’t say that this lengthy setup becomes a bad thing, as it turns into an essential way to introduce the characters and to explain their situations. However, when you have no clue as to where the story will go, it can get somewhat frustrating and tedious.

For some movies, foreknowledge doesn't matter because they quickly make it clear where they will go. Take Star Wars.

It starts with a text introduction of the story, and then immediately launches into action that sets up much of the narrative. Five minutes after the lights go down, you've met four of the eight main characters and you know much of the 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 non-human life forms. The movie gets to its halfway point prior to the initial appearance of the titular creature.

Like Sorcerer, only then does the true intent of the story become apparent. Until the midpoint 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, as they each work very well in different situations.

My point is simply that 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 admire that kind of filmmaking. Friedkin worked much the same way in The Exorcist in that he made little explicitly clear to the audience.

The movie alluded to characters and circumstances but they rarely received any kind of full explanation. I liked that in The Exorcist, and I like it here as well.

Friedkin certainly offers a great deal of suspense and drama during the second hour of the film as our leads attempt to transport the nitro, something he does without benefit of any sympathetic characters. All of them present as bad guys for a variety of reasons, so they wouldn't be stuck in a remote South American craphole if they didn’t need to hide from something.

Still, our conditioning makes us view them as our "heroes" whether we like it or not. Although we know little about these characters and really have no concrete investment in their futures, we nonetheless want to see them succeed.

While solid, Sorcerer doesn't seem to be as creative or as visionary as The Exorcist. The latter film stands as a unique and amazing piece of filmmaking, whereas the former'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 don't think that Sorcerer offers any of the cinematic creativity contained in the earlier film. Even with its quirks, it simply seems more conventional to me.

Sorcerer also lacks any really interesting characters. All the acting seems 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 roles.

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 1989’s Batman.

Coincidence? Maybe, but I can't help but wonder if Tim Burton or a sound designer echoed Sorcerer on purpose.

Although I don't think it becomes a great film, Sorcerer still offer an unusual tale and solid work. It's probably the kind of movie that will improve upon subsequent viewings when I feel less overwhelmed by the uncertainty of the whole thing.

Sorcerer may not be in the same league as Friedkin’s best films, but it still presents an intriguing, often exciting tale.

Sorcerer appears in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 on this Blu-ray Disc. Artistic revisionism, thy name was William Friedkin.

Fans know that some prior home video releases of Friedkin films came with significant alterations to their original palettes, and that turned into the case with this edition of Sorcerer. In particular, the film came with an extreme lean toward teal/green.

This seemed more dominant in the movie’s first half, mainly because the South American setting that filled the rest made more sense for the colors. Still, the hues never looked natural due to this heavy green tint.

Beyond this palette issue, the image fared better, and sharpness worked well. Only a slight hint of softness ever appeared, and I suspect those instances stemmed from the original photography.I saw no signs with jagged edges or moiré effects, and edge haloes remained absent. I also witnessed no issues with print flaws, as this was a consistently clean image, and grain seemed reasonable.

Blacks looked deep and rich, while low-light shots came across as smooth and distinctive. Though the altered palette became my only real complaint here, the changes seemed substantial and distracting enough to make this a “C+” image. The Blu-ray simply reproduced the original film in an inadequate manner.

At least the DTS-HD MA 5.1 worked well for the most part. Adapted from the original Dolby Surround mix – which also appeared on the disc – the 5.1 track used the various channels in a positive manner.

The soundscape didn’t go overboard, but it filled the room with logical audio that blended together in a smooth, satisfying manner. This became most apparent in action scenes or those with rain/thunder, but even in quieter sequences, the track created a solid sense of place.

Audio quality held up well after 48 years. Music was rich and full, and speech usually sounded fine. Some of the lines could seem a bit brittle or edgy, but they mostly came across with positive delineation.

Effects appeared accurate and lively, with clean highs and impressive low-end when necessary. These came with a price, however, as it seemed obvious some of the elements emanated from more modern recordings and not the 1977 stems. If one can ignore that, though, the 5.1 track satisfied.

Speaking of the 1977 audio, the Blu-ray also included that original DTS-HD MA 2.0 mix. It offered a less active soundfield compared to the 5.1 version.

However, this didn’t make the track timid, as it formed a nice sense of space and place. It also fit together naturally, even if it didn’t use the back channels as actively as its 5.1 partner.

Without those re-recorded effects, I felt the 2.0 audio blended sonically in a more pleasing manner. The recordings simply connected together better, as I didn’t get any jarring disconnect between 1977 elements and newer material.

This meant I liked the 2.0 mix more than the 5.1 presentation. While the latter worked fine, I thought the 2.0 seemed like a superior fit for the movie.

How did the 2025 Criterion Blu-ray compare to the prior BD from 2014? Both came with identical 5.1 audio, though the 2025 disc offered the theatrical 2.0 mix absent from its predecessor. That made it a step up sonically for me.

Unfortunately, the BD’s altered colors meant it turned into a visual downgrade. The 2014 disc’s palette looked considerably more natural so in terms of picture, it remains the superior presentation.

Though the 2014 Blu-ray lacked any disc-based extras, the Criterion version comes with a bunch. All of these components appear on a separate Blu-ray disc.

Friedkin Uncut brings a 2018 documentary that runs one hour, 47 minutes, 26 seconds. It provides notes from director William Friedkin, filmmakers Francis Ford Coppola, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, Walter Hill, Philip Kaufman, Edgar Wright, Dario Argento, and Damien Chazelle, screenwriter Walon Green, NYPD homicide detective/technical advisor Randy Jurgensen, writer/film scholar Antonio Monda, conductors Gianandrea Noseda and Zubin Mehta, director of photography Caleb Deschanel, film critic Simon Blumenfeld, and actors Ellen Burstyn, Juno Temple, William Petersen, Willem Dafoe, Gina Gershon, Matthew McConaughey, and Michael Shannon.

After an introduction that looks at some of Friedkin's philosophies as well as The Exorcist, "Uncut" goes back to Friedkin's early life. It then gets into his start in movies/TV and explores his career.

On the positive side, "Uncut" comes with lots of good notes. However, it follows a less than coherent structure that becomes a distraction, so it doesn't quite live up to its potential.

With James Gray and Sean Fennessey, we find a 28-minute, 18-second program. As implied by the title, it provides a conversation between filmmaker Gray and critic Fennessey.

They essentially offer an analysis and appreciation of Sorcerer. For the most part, it becomes an engaging discussion.

From 2015, another chat appears under William Friedkin and Nicholas Winding Refn. This one lasts one hour, 17 minutes, 23 seconds and pair the two filmmakers.

They look at elements related to Sorcerer such as its reception in 197 as well as aspects of its development and creation. It starts off in an annoyingly quirky manner but the chat soon becomes more substantial and informative, especially because Refn proves to become a challenging interviewer.

An audio-only compilation, Walon Green and Bud Smith occupies 36 minutes, 27 seconds. It features screenwriter Green and editor Bud Smith while interviewed by film scholar Giulia D'Agnolo Vallan for her 2003 Friedkin biography.

They discuss aspects of their careers as well as their work on Sorcerer. We find a good array of insights.

Behind the Scenes goes for six minutes, nine seconds and show silent footage of the shoot in New Jersey. The absence of audio makes it less valuable than one might prefer and the material comes with low quality - Super8, I'm guessing - but this still turns into a fun addition.

In addition to the film's trailer, we conclude with a booklet that provides credits, art and an essay from critic Justin Chang. It completes the set well.

Though not a success when released in 1977, Sorcerer holds up well after the last 48 years. It brings us an intriguing and eventually dynamic thriller with a lot going for it. The Blu-ray offers good audio and supplements but a significant alteration to the movie’s original palette makes it flawed in terms of visuals. While this Criterion release has a lot going for it, the heavily changed colors make it a tough set to recommend.