Reviews

I love those big Bette Davis eyes!! Mary Astor was at her peak for this movie... so natural and believable. Add in the great George Brent, and you have one super film, especially for the early 40's. I'm sure the plot of the movie has been overworked over the years of film-making, but this is one of the best adaptations I have yet seen. I was a little disappointed with the brusque ending. After building up the suspense to the point where Sandra shows up at Pete and Maggie's home, one expects the movie to unravel with a little more complexity. (SPOILERS FOLLOW) Instead, we first see Sandra coerce Maggie to confess the big lie to Pete. Then Pete resigns himself to giving up the baby to Sandra, after which he declares his unconditional love for Maggie, vowing he will stay with her always. Sandra realizes that she will not get Pete away from Maggie, so wishes them happiness as she starts playing the piano. Maggie is elated and flashes Sandra a very greatful smile. Smile flashed, she now has to rush away with Pete to greet guests coming for a luncheon they are giving. As they rush away to the guests, THE END flashes up. All of this takes place in a few short minutes, like the screenwriter had finger cramps. Great movie overall, and it had a HAPPY ENDING.

I watched this movie in the wee hours of the morning when I should have been asleep. This, in itself, was testimony that Deliverance was a spell-binding movie. I think Boorman did a wonderful job on directing this film. How expertly the early scene with the hill folk and the dueling banjos was done. It showed so well and early on how inherently reserved and simple the people of the area were. Case in point - near the end of the "duel", the banjo-playing boy was smiling (loved his banjo), but when Drew tried to shake the boy's hand after the "duel", the kid was too reserved to respond. The river trip never left you bored, for sure. The rape scene was brutal, but necessary to show just what the group was up against in this backwoods area of Georgia. I think Beatty's traumatic shock afterward was well done. Some have said he was pretty unaffected by the ordeal. I disagree - if you really payed attention, he was unresponsive during the entire action immediately following, in which Reynolds put the arrow through the attacker and they chased off the toothless guy. It was confusing when Ed killed the other guy later, at the top of the cliff. It almost appeared that the arrow was shot while Ed was curled up and expecting to die, but then you realize the arrow he had shot earlier had finally taken effect.

Anyway, a great movie, and I was wavering between an 8 and 9 on my vote, but after reading a message from a disgruntled voter who gave it a "1", I gave it a "10". This individual's reasoning seemed based on personal bias, rather than an objective viewpoint, and his vote was obviously a non-correlating attempt to lower the rating.

Most westerns of the 30's and 40's are all alike. Usually shallow representations of the wild west, with no real development of the characters, and always a hero cowboy present to steal the show. This old gem of a movie appeared to be a sincere attempt by the excellent director (Lew Landers) to go a step further. The main character (and only survivor) was a middle-aged sheriff of so-so looks versus the handsome super cowboy. Along with the laughable bullet-flinging scenes (*sigh*) we are shown some of the personality of the other actors. How many times have you seen an old old western where the Lord's Prayer is prayed aloud by one of the cowboys? Barrat does a good job as the sheriff of the posse. I wish they hadn't killed off Henry Cluff (Andy Clyde) so early in the film. Further development of his character might have added to the film, in my opinion. It was fun to see Noah Beery Jr. in his 20's in this film (remember the Rockford Files?). Although it was a short role, great to see John Payne, who was a favorite of mine as a teenager. I rated this a 6/10, which is a good rating.