After watching it, I feel like I probably could have made it another 23.
It's hard to watch. The story is so messed up!
The only part I knew about going into it was the famed banjo duel. However, I always thought that it happened while they were on the river, and that the haunting refrain always accompanied whatever horrors they might run into.
First of all, I thought Burt Reynold's character was a jackass. Had he not been such a twit, everyone probably would have lived. But, that wouldn't have made for a very engaging movie.
Ned Beatty, of course, made his movie debut in Deliverance. And what a hell of a debut. "What work have you done before, Mr. Beatty?" "I was the guy that squealed like a piggy and got sodomized in Deliverance." "Oh. Yeah, we don't think you're really Gunsmoke material. Here, you can be in one episode."
And boy did John Voight come a long way after this film.
As for the film itself, it was not as "thrilling" as I expected out of a movie classified as a classic American thriller. It mostly made me not want to ever visit backwoods Georgia.
This was another film that left me with a lot of questions. The guy that Ed killed was not the guy that cut his chest open - whatever happened to that guy? Why did Drew decide to commit suicide? Why the hell did any of them disagree with Louis about getting rid of the body of the rapist? They wouldn't have gotten in trouble - it was self defense! Did the cop really know what happened with the killing and whatnot? When he said he wanted the little town to die quietly, did he really mean he wanted them all to die? What was so significant about Ed witnessing the graves being dug up relocation? What happened to Louis - he confessed and then Ed and Bobby hauled ass outta town. Why did Ed's wife seem so disinterested when he got home? Why the nightmare of the hand coming up out of the water at the end? Was the kid with the banjo blind or just so inbred he could hardly open his eyes?
Why the hell do hillbillies like to rape fat men?
I imagine that some of my questions would be answered in the book. And I will probably read it at some point. When I get through the other 300 books I want to read.
Length-wise, it was reasonable. Not too short, not too long, though there were a lot of time I wished things would just kinda move along.
The acting was very good. The nasty mountain men made very believeable nasty mountain men. Though, do you really want to be known for being able to do that so well?
The filming was great. In fact, it's my understanding that that's one of the things this film received one of its 3 Academy Award nominations for. I also know that it has been preserved by the Library of Congress as a national treasure of cultural significance.
The story, as I said before, was messed up. I understand that living in the mountains away from all technology must really suck, but these inbreds were scary. I mean, genuinely. On many levels. But while I think it was effed up, that doesn't make it suck. It was very good.
Length: 4.0
Acting: 4.0
Cinematography: 4.0
Story: 4.0
Overall: 4.0
I don't think I'll ever watch it again, but it was worth a viewing. Still creeped out by it, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment