It’s admittedly more of a visceral experience than a film of any depth–the four guys in Sorcerer are very thin characterizations and it didn’t feel like it mattered at all whether they lived to the end of the movie or not, which can’t quite be said of The Wages Of Fear. So in terms of “depth,” it’s a failed movie, which can’t be said of Friedkin’s two big 70s hits (as you’re probably well aware, Sorcerer bombed because of Star Wars getting in the way.)

However, as a thriller, it’s pretty good–the bridge sequence is fucking GLORIOUS, IMO. I don’t think anything in Wages Of Fear got to my nerves like that did. There’s also the matter of Wages Of Fear being far too long, wasting our time with all that boring set up in the South American backwater town.

I don’t really care much for either ending. The 1953 film’s ending seems like a cheap joke and the 1977 film’s ending is just who cares, like it would matter if the guys lived or not, what are they going to do, go back to crime?

Maybe I should read the book.