"Deliverance" is a dead-on example of what wonderful movies came out of the '70s. While your jaw is dropped during a "Terminator" movie, are you really sacred? I don't think so, because you are there to see what new CGIs have been strung together - plot matters not.
So many daily situations can become terrifying for no reason at all, because there are so many people involved in daily living - like a trip to the market.....or a walk down a dimly-lighted street. "Deliverance" is SO frightening, because those innocent actions can turn deadly in a heart-beat. Venturing into the backwoods is a frolic in fun? Anyone who has that notion does not read the papers, watch the daily news, nor has not seen some of the other movies that depict the seriousness of "trespassing" into territories where outsiders are not welcome. It is almost unbelievable that the advance dish on "Deliverance" didn't inform almost everyone going to view it this was no picnic, and "squeal like a pig" wasn't a part of "Deulling Banjos".
I hate the term "hillbillies", because - as some "users" wrote - that demeans entire regions of people who are very content to live as they know how - without the interference of modern life. Much is made of "inbred" - that is not sexuality peculiar to the backwoods. "Chinatown" should teach us that lesson. However, city-slickers are extremely dumb to enter a closed society and give them attitude. I know lots of "hillbillies" - they are moral people, when left to themselves. Their "justice" can be brutal when they feel threatened or humiliated, just like the "justice" in city streets. They don't need any part of the city - the city should take its canoe-ing and camping to legal sites.
"Deliverance" was the last film I found Jon Voight to do any real acting - I hope I'm wrong. He was extremely underpaid for "Midnight Cowboy", because he was unknown, but demonstrated that he could do that role at the drop of a hat. His acting in "Deliverance" was superb. It gave us a clear demonstration ordinary people can move mountains, if it's necessary - but who wants to be thought-of as "ordinary" today? His stifled sob at the dinner was brilliant. Wow! for Burt Reynolds !!! One must ask what led him into those other tacky films? His manliness, although misguided, in this film set the pace for the endurance necessary to make it out of the wilderness - not only in the backwoods, but the wilderness of everyday-life. Ned Beatty was stellar - his underwear may not have had "Versace" stitched on it, but his shell-shocked performance was perfect. As noted, he became stronger than any of the group by the end of the movie. Ronny Cox played the moral guy to the hilt - every man should have his determination to do what is right. Several "users" have theorized he was shot, or lost his balance when he pitched-into the river - my theory is that he was so disgusted with the whole journey, he committed suicide. No gunshot was heard during the scene and Voight and Beatty did not find a wound.
James Dicey certainly knows how to weave a suspenseful tale, and was great as the sheriff - it is said he was so terrified of acting he came to the set drunk every day. His character could see the three canoe-rs were guilty of surviving, but also knew they didn't stand a chance against a jury of the local people, no matter how kindly they were treated in "Aintry". He was also aware that the meaner of the locals could be cruel. Justice ? - "don't come back up here again". Not many "users" knew "hillbillies" were used in the film where ever it was possible - what actors could portray them better? The "mountain-men" WERE actually mountain-men.......
Every detail of this movie was perfect - no doubt it was dangerous to play in. Play in? Better "fight-for-your-life" in. I've experienced some near-dangerous incidents, and am content to live outside of the fray - you guys who feel your manhood raging can have my part.
That we have absolutely killed - and continue to do so - irreplaceable areas of this country in undeniable. To be able to view its grandeur on any media is enthralling, but it leaves a bitter taste to realize some do not care about it. Los Angeles, where I live, is a perfect example: it's built-up right into the territories for wild animals, and steadfastly believes humans come before animals. Those are their rightful habitats - we should leave them be just that. Any wonder why coyotes and bears and wolves wander into neighborhoods? They're theirs.
In some less threatening way, we all need to experience the lessons to be learned from "Deliverance" - to understand our advancement technologically does not lead to supremacy. I thank all those city-slickers who went out into the wilderness to produce this modern classic, so that it can scare the heck out of me when I watch it. You can have the thrill of danger - I'll stick to the TV. 30-out-of-10.

Yes, talk about bad sequels. Rick Moranis stars in this awful third sequel to the once-funny-and-entertaining "Honey I Shrunk the Kids". The concept basically plays the same way as the first film, but with the adults instead of the kids being shrunk and the inner house instead of the garden as the universe to explore. If you think this sounds interesting, think again. The movie is boring at best, right down an embarrassment at worst.
First of all, the continuity of the series has been completely flushed down the toilet. The only remaining actor of the first movie is apparently Rick Moranis. The actress playing his wife has changed, the actors playing the kids have changed, the ones playing the neighbors have changed... you name it. They try to make us believe this is the same family, but the results are puzzling to say the least.
Second, the story is a rehash of the first one, with not one bit of originality. All the few jokes (and there's barely any) and the dangerous situations presented in the movie are just copied straight from "Honey I Shrunk the Kids".
Third problem, the special effects. I'm sure this has been done on a smaller budget, but they are pathetic, way way worse than the ones appearing in the rest of the series. You're supposed to admire in awe these tiny figures exploring the huge domestic area, but you'll probably end up cringing most of the time.
Fourth problem, to locate the action inside the house is just boring. Only few things happen, and when they happen, they are not thrilling at all. The first movie was amusing because the kids were dealing with nature, the grass, and the bugs that live in it. In this one, the adults (which come up as rather boring, compared to the kids) deal with dust, a cockroach and a cockroach trap. Disgusting.
I don't know why the idea of releasing such a trite sequel to the already moribund series appealed Disney's executives, except maybe because they needed to cash in without spending five minutes thinking about something new. I'm warning you: leave this tasteless cash-in garbage where it should stay: getting dust on the shop's shelves.