Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

JussiAPelkonen-1 Well yeah... There are more than couple of problems in the "continuity" section...Butb it's okay, I can live with them! - The story itself is horrifically monstrous and thus good!Burt Reynolds makes in my opinion the best role of his entire career - and look at Jon Voight after about 75 minutes: he looks like a young Johnny Depp!

twominds79 What can you say about john Boorman 's 1972 classic that hasn't already been said ? A masterful effort by the director , cinematography and a cast that was perfect on all levels . You will squeal along with the 4 city dwelling men as they take on the wild rapids and the rabid inbred hicks that the river produces . Burt Reynolds is the alpha male in his most iconic role , Jon voight as the Everyman who uses a horrible situation to show what he's made of , Ned Beatty who I'm sure will never want to film on a canoe again and also Ronny cox as the kind banjo playing one of the group . The river is really the unheralded character of this great picture. A film from a time when films didn't rely on Cgi , explosions or car chases . A true classic of cinema .

daisycooper-86295 ....I was advised not to shout so i must just start by saying this film was particularly awful because it really has no meaning, and the characters are just wafty and weak. I mean, the river was nice to look at but i was expecting to watch an actual film. That really was the absolute highlight. The rape seen was good because it was freaky and i did sit up a bit and stop eating my crisps. Spoiler - Four men in a river.

Mike_Yike I first saw Deliverance when it was in the theaters what seems like a million years ago. Burt Reynolds became a big start and Jon Voight received another big boost in his career thanks to the film. The only real problem I had with the movie was when I stopped and thought about the general plot line afterwards. It isn't exactly airtight.The boys killed a mountain man, justifiably. One of two mountain men roaming the woods together. The other ran off. They decided to bury the corpse and forever after remain mum about it. Then Drew, played by Ronny Cox, was killed though no one knows whether the death came at the hand of the river, or a gunshot presumably by the second mountain man. Injuries were inconclusive on the dead body. The fear was that it was a gunshot by the second mountain man stationed high on the cliffs overhead. Voight ends up climbing the cliff, finding the mountain man and killing him. As far as anyone knows, the second mountain man, now dead and hidden at the bottom of the river, never disclosed the fate of the first mountain man. Yet the boys felt compelled to make-up a story even though there was no evidence connecting them to anything. But probably more odd was the local sheriff suspected the boys of wrongdoing without any evidence suggesting they even saw the mountain men. It would seem more plausible that the sheriff would have taken a report on the death of Drew and then asked the three remaining boys if during their travels they had happened to see the two mountain men. "No, can't say that we did," would have been a reply and that would have been that. I guess that would make for a short, boring movie.