"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.

David Arquette is a young and naive home security alarm
salesman taken under the wing of Stanley Tucci. Arquette is a
golden boy, scoring a big sale on his first call- to widow Kate
Capshaw and her dopey son Ryan Reynolds. Things are going
well for Arquette, he is appearing in commercials for the security
firm and he is falling in love with Capshaw.
Then Tucci and his right hand woman Mary McCormack let him in
on a little secret- they sometimes break into the houses of their
clients in order to scare them and to get their neighbors to buy
security systems from the firm. Arquette decides not to get
involved, taking Capshaw to meet his family, and going through life
with a goofy smile on his face. Then, someone breaks into
Capshaw's home and murders her and her son. Arquette suspects Tucci, and sets a series of traps, resulting in a gun to his
boss' head as Tucci pleads his innocence.
Based on a stage play, "The Alarmist" is not opened up well. The
scenes where Arquette takes the Capshaw to meet his parents
are badly played and completely unfunny. They are also out of line
with the character Capshaw is playing, as she gets drunk and tells
sexually explicit stories to Arquette's mom Michael Learned. Other
than these scenes, Capshaw is not given much to do, but she
does a lot with the little she is given.
Stanley Tucci, looking just like Terry O'Quinn, is a riot as the
security firm owner. He is a creep who really does not understand
Arquette's moral revulsion. However, when he turns into a
sniveling whiner after Arquette kidnaps him, he is hilarious. Mary
McCormack seems to have been groomed for a bigger role, but
she mostly stands around and agrees with Tucci. Ryan Reynolds
is too old to play a dumb teenager, but he is funny, especially
telling his own explicit sexual story to Arquette.
The screenplay lurches from romantic comedy to dark comedy too
soon. Capshaw meeting the parents is completely unmotivated,
except to give her a reason to get out of town so someone can
break into her house. Capshaw and Reynolds are in the film just
to give Arquette a reason to take revenge on Tucci.
Arquette, who has proven he is a good actor, is awful here. He
relies on the constipated mugging that got him through those
AT&T ads, and he is not a strong enough presence to build this
weak film around. Actually, Reynolds might have been a better
choice in the role.
Dunsky's direction is good, nothing that will win an Oscar soon.
Christophe Beck's light jazzy score recalls the type of film noir this
film tries to be, and it is really catchy on top of that.
Despite the pluses, Arquette's failure as a lead and the script's
schizophrenic quality sinks the film. I do not recommend it.
This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, some gore,
strong profanity, brief female nudity, sexual content, strong sexual
references, and adult situations.