Turn Advertising Off
 
    NEW>Full Movies!        Movie News        Top Stories      Theatrical Release Dates      Movie Pictures      Trailers & Clips      Listen to Movie Soundtracks

DELIVERANCE (1972)

"Squeal like a pig!!!"

In this classic wilderness film about a camping trip gone amok, four Georgians from suburbia take a fishing trip in Tallulah Gorge in the deep backwoods of Georgia before a dam construction will ruin the region, only to discover the that the frustrated rednecks who live there are much more tempered than they expected.

Jon Voight stars as Ed Gentry, the casual city slicker who prefers to use caution around the rednecks when they want to pay them to drive their vehicle downriver where their canoeing/fishing/camping trip will end. He's not really the leader of the group, but is the most neutral of the characters. Due to extremely unanticipated events, it is Ed who must lead the way out of danger down the Chattooga River. Jon played Ed as if he was never really himself in the movie, but always cautious about his surroundings, despite being surrounded by three of his good friends. For that, the character worked, but the acting wasn't that impressive, as Voight's acting remains the same in tone throughout the film's entirety.

Burt Reynolds plays survivalist Lewis Medlock, the leader of the group who drags pansy Bobby Trippe (Ned Beatty) and the eager Drew Ballinger (Ronny Cox) along with him so they could get outdoors and out of the city for a real adventure. Lewis being the survivalist also carries expectations from the viewers of things to come, which may not come, though he was more interesting than Drew and Bobby. Burt seemed to carry himself with great confidence in the role, and even when things don't go according to plan, Lewis is still an inspiration and source of encouragement for the friends to continue their ordeal optimistically. Burt was great in this, and it's only upsetting that his character didn't get to do more to live up to the survivalist that he was.

As for Ned Beatty's role as Bobby Trippe, it seemed to be there for entertainment purposes, as he was like the funny fat guy that needed more experience on the simplest tasks, and would become nervous too easily to be at the head of a canoe. A similar scenario is true for Ronny Cox's Drew Ballinger who seemed oblivious to the dangers in the woods, and was more entranced playing an impromptu bluegrass jam on his banjo with a local boy (Hoyt Pollard).

Author James Dickey makes a cameo as Sheriff Bullard, and as the hillbillies stalking the four friends are Herbert "Cowboy" Coward and Bill McKinney. Their roles are minimal, but provides good acting and shock value to the film. ;)

The visuals of the Tallulah Gorge did an excellent job at giving you that feeling of isolation and how far away from home the four city slickers are, but despite this, it fails to save the film's nemesis: boredom. For like "The Producers" (1968) before it, and "An American Werewolf In London" (1981) & "The Lost Boys" (1987) after it, this film takes nearly an hour before the payoff, with all the scenes thereafter taking too long to get to their respective points to remain intriguing, while just about all of the scenes prior to said payoff are slow, uneventful, and more boring than expected given the varying characteristics of the four friends, which could've been easily taken advantage of in the first 50 minutes or so of the film. Though screenwriter/director John Boorman didn't see this error in any of the original edits, or even 37yrs later with its blu-ray release.

Despite this, the film was ultra realistic in a form I hadn't expected. It was so realistic in fact that it's that very reason why the film was as slow and boring as it was. The story also earns a star, though could easily have been improved such that the film would be more kickback prior to the payoff, and then more threatening in pace and tone after the payoff.

Overall, despite my ratings of the acting, directing, and visuals, this film lacked suspense too much of the time, and needed a more rushed ending, as the one provided wasn't big enough to drag on like it did. But all that considered, I'm sure James Dickey's 1970 novelization was better than the movie.

11 Comments


June 18th, 2009 10:33am
Hmm. I hadn't thought of it that way. Good point.
  (Delete)
June 17th, 2009 4:59pm
No I agree you can't reverse your mindset, but then nor can you expect a film done in that era to necessarily have any sort of standing today. There needs to be a certain amount of leeway given due to the age of the film and the period it was made. Bit like video games, I think Pong was released that same year as Deliverance (1972). If a gamer from today was to review that without thinking about the age and the era, it is two lines and a dot! But it was the first commercially successful game that led the way forward to where we are today.
  (Delete)
June 17th, 2009 10:42am
that's true, but it for me, it hasn't stood the test of time, since here and now in June 2009, we can't be expected to totally reverse our mind sets to the culture of way back then to like a flick. Such as how '80s horror flicks are responsible for destroying that genre, when those before then still stand the test of time today, such as "Halloween" (1978) which supercedes all its sequels and '80s rip offs. Point being, that I can still see a flick from back then and still get the same enjoyment & shock value from it w/out having to reset my mind to thinking "okay, this was 37yrs ago, so i gotta look at it like they do." With this film, while the realism and simplistic story were good for it, the film hasn't stood the test of time for me.
  (Delete)
June 17th, 2009 8:43am
Films do date, in 1972 it grossed over 22 million dollars, fourth highest ranking film that year. With the films above it being a comedy 'Whats up Doc', a disaster/adventure movie 'The Poseidon Adventure' and one of the best films of all time 'The Godfather'. So at the time of release it did pretty well. Now it seems a little tame, but I am sure at the time the 'rape' scene for example would of been a bit closer to the knuckle than it is today.
  (Delete)
June 17th, 2009 6:13am
Good review, but I liked the movie alot.
  (Delete)
June 16th, 2009 5:43pm
But that's just the thing Fallenlords, it didn't stand the test of time. And the set-up was done within 15 minutes, such that the remaining 35 or so until the threat set in coulda been much better, for if the tensity was more lax, then it'd be that more shocking come the payoff, and then if it had been faster and more intense after the payoff, then it coulda been better. Not to say it needed snazzy over the top gunfights or SFX, but just more things going on given how long the film was. Plus the ending was dragged on when all that happens is the sheriff discovering what happened but letting them leave anyway. Too lax, much too lax. Even for then, it's shocking once yeah, but not on the second go round, at least not in the '70s...unless they couldn't stomach that short scene back then though i can't imagine why. No tension really in the first 50 minutes eiher, and no real plot beyond what you get in the first 5 minutes.
  (Delete)
June 16th, 2009 3:39pm
Really good review.
  (Delete)
June 16th, 2009 1:58pm
Deliverance is an excellent film, if for nothing more than the duelling banjo's scene. Again things like this date over time, so you have to remember the era which was the early 70's. For that time this type of film was quite shocking in a way that perhaps wouldn't be apparent today. I also think what you may perceive as boring (the first 50 minutes) is what some may view as setting the scene, for the later events. To my mind a good story has a beginning, middle and an end. Deliverance delivers this and to rush into things would have been a mistake, the events that happened would not have had the same impact.
  (Delete)
June 16th, 2009 1:50pm
yep, it does. i get why alot of people enjoyed this. the only reason i made it through this 7 months ago was cuz 2 of my friends were watching it too, and we kinda ran our own commentary on it. it was actually my survivalist crazed friend who netflixed it, and brought it over. he too was surprised that i wasn't crazy about it.
  (Delete)
June 16th, 2009 1:44pm
First negative review I think I've seen for this movie. I'm gonna have to disagree with you. This is a classic. Great negative review though...if that makes any sense. =)
  (Delete)
June 16th, 2009 1:34pm
Great review,but I thought this movie was good.
  (Delete)

2
  Stars
Story:
Acting:
Directing:
Visuals:
Reviewed: June 16th, 2009
More of My Reviews:
Was this review helpful?

0 Users

0 Users
Average Score:
3 Stars
Viewing
1 of 1