Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: You can't hold too much against this knowing that it was made in four days, and I had expected it to be campy anyway. (It's not all that campy in reality. With the exception of Kevin Kalisher and Huntley Ritter, who don't take themselves seriously, the rest of the cast plays it halfway straight; Riley Smith is exceptionally bad.) The ridiculous story is actually paid attention to, which kind of shocked me; I assumed the whole purpose with these ultra-low-budget horror movies was to cater to the basest sexual fantasies and not give a damn about the story, but they use lots of words like "technological" and "physicality" in the script to get their point across. (Although it's possible that the story is important only to explain why there's so few cast members.) Nobody cares about this stupid storyline, and the only things that are interesting in the film are the mocking of cults and the soft-core homoeroticisms (which aren't all that edgy). I would have enjoyed it more if there were just some random killings for no reason. The film is grainy, with a TV-quality look and acting level. There are a few "sexy" scenes that are alright -- the boys writhing in bed in their boxers, feeling themselves up; or being tied down and making orgasmic faces while wine is poured on them -- and some of them are kinda funny. And I liked the digs at L. Ron Hubbard and the intended irony of a story about religious cultists told with intense gay overtones, but it still isn't any good. 3/10

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Very well done and spooky horror movie from poverty-row film company PRC who usually put out really cheesy films like DEVIL BAT or THE FLYING SERPENT. German expatriate director Wisbar does wonders with a small budget and his studio-bound swamp set. Gaunt and ghoulish Charles Middleton is effective as the Strangler.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
Unlike many other films, which are disturbing either by dint of their naked unpleasantness (Man Bites Dog) or their sheer violence (most Peckinpah films), Deliverance shocks by its plausibility. Certainly, the buggery scene is pretty straightforward in its unpleasantness, but the film's effect derives far more from its slow build-up and the tangible sense of isolation surrounding the four leads, both before and after everything starts to go wrong. The moment when the canoes pass under the child on the bridge, who does not even acknowledge the men he had earlier played music with, let alone show any sign of human affection towards them, is among the most sinister in modern film. The tension increases steadily throughout the canoe trip, and perseveres even after the final credits - the ending makes the significance of the characters' ordeals horrifically real. The movie's plausibility is greatly aided by the playing of the leads, particularly Ned Beatty and Jon Voight as the victim and reluctant hero respectively. Burt Reynolds, too, has never been better. The film's cultural influence is demonstrable by the number of people who will understand a reference to 'banjo territory' - perhaps only Get Carter has done such an effective hatchet-job on a region's tourist industry. I can think of only a handful of movies which put me into such a serious depression after they had finished - the oppressive atmosphere of Se7en is the best comparison I can think of. Although so much of it is excellent of itself, Deliverance is a classic above all because there are no adequate points of comparison with it - it is unique.