Deliverance

Deliverance

Intent on seeing the Cahulawassee River before it's turned into one huge lake, outdoor fanatic Lewis Medlock takes his friends on a river-rafting trip they'll never forget into the dangerous American back-country.

The movie follows four Atlanta businessmen as they canoe down a river in the remote northern Georgia wilderness before the valley is flooded by construction of a dam. Soon enough, the trip becomes a nightmare when they run into creepy rednecks, Gods forgotten creatures. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Deliverance torrent reviews

Jessica L (br) wrote: It wasn't a bad movie. Ashton in many ways did portray Jobs, though his walk really bothered me. I'm not too familiar with Jobs' story so I found this movie quite interesting. Perhaps it is a wise choice to watch this movie before reading about his actual biography. Overall, I think it's a good overview of his life. Similar to "the Social Network", you gotta piss off a few people in order to succeed in the end. ;)

Ramon E (ag) wrote: What the hell was the ending all about?Any write up on that? Using my imagination, I'm fond of.Abusing my imagination, I'm not a fan of.

Sean G (ru) wrote: A very good movie.Sunrise seldom disappoints.The plot twists are pretty good, i had a moment of "OH!! WAIT!!! Ive figured it out!!!"Just before the big reveal which is satisfying.

Matt H (jp) wrote: Really good, Walken doesn't have much screen time, but does a great job with what he has. The rest of the cast is excellent as well, of course. Mark Ivanir was a late replacement, but fills out the cast well.

Ethan R (us) wrote: Bad start, bad middle, bad end. Poor acting, poor directing, poor effects. Awful movie.

Renu K (ca) wrote: very good - very interesting - at least different!!

Amanda H (mx) wrote: Perfect example of a low-budget horror film. Doesn't stand out at all, isn't particularly entertaining, and really isn't good for much besides background noise. I watched because I'm an avid fan of music and I found that aspect of it kind of remotely interesting, but other than that I doubt I'll remember it within a few days.

Mloy X (jp) wrote: Ray Tierney (Norton): Have a few nips this evening, pop? Francis Tierney Sr (Voight): I had a glass of scotch, officer. Ray Tierney (Norton): Just one, huh? Francis Tierney Sr (Voight): I used that same glass, yeah.The movie had an interesting story about corruption within the police force and it's really kind of scary to think about how the people who are supposed to be enforcing the law are able to abuse that power; but what's more scary is that this situation is not completely fictional (I've know a few corrupt cops). I was kind of surprise that Ed Norton actually played the hero while Colin Farrell played ***SPOILER ALERT*** thevillain, I had expected it to be reversed. But they both did a wonderful job and performed each of their parts nicely. Actually, the whole cast did a wonderful job, even cookie old John Voight, but mad props goes to Noah Emmerich, who played Francis Tierney Jr. His character although being completely dumb and seemed as guilty as Colin's Jimmy, was a bit more sympathetic because he was stupid enough to give the guys in his force the benefit of a doubt and really, truly believed that they respected the office as well as the badge as much he did. It's such a pity really. Overall, the movie was fast-paced and a little too excessive with the grit but I guess it goes with the territory when the storyline deals with drug-dealers; it's not gonna be rainbow and roses. Overall, it was good to watch once but I doubt if this is worthy of a second look.

irem c (kr) wrote: I watched this movie years ago. And actually my crush on Sam Worthington started with this movie so it's kinda special :) First time when I saw this I didn't like it at all. I thought it was a story about a messed-up stupid girl's even more stupid decisions and struggles to get attention. I saw it again today I tried to be open minded this time but no I still feel the same way. Actually the main idea behind it is classic yet promising. It's about a young woman who tries to find herself away from home, starting from scratch. But the writing wasn't good enough so as a result Heidi who needed us to go that journey with her turned to an unrelatable, annoying, wittles girl. She seems dumb as a rock and that's why I couldn't like Joe cuz how someone can fell in love with that?? The only reason could be you're as messed up as her but he didn't seem like it. So my point is writing is awful. Empathy is the key for that kind of movies but I couldn't empathise at all. There was good acting in general not over the top but not unpleasant either. Nice cinematography but not breathtaking like some critics say. In conclusion Somersault was a midiocre independent movie which could have been great. Good intentions but poor writing and directing.

Jonathan B (it) wrote: Rating based on Parts One and Two: I preface this by stating that I knew relatively nothing about the Cuban revolution. With that stated, I cannot say if the events and intentions of the characters are presented accurately (I only can say that governments are often fueled by corruption and that corruption often follows power as well). As a film, Che is well-made. The story is quite slow, but also necessary, so I would not recommend this movie for everyone. The film is broken into two parts: the Cuban revolution which builds to an exciting conclusion; and the attempt at a South American revolution which decays until the arrest of Che.

Pete S (ca) wrote: Not bad for a TV made movie. Good performances all around.

Donovan H (es) wrote: Looks silly. Rent movie.

John B (jp) wrote: Another great effort by Zhang Yimou. The greatest Asian mob movie that I have seen thus far. Very entertaining.

Mikael K (es) wrote: This political film noir has a pretty cool air to it, but the story just doesn't manage to rise up to the challenges it faces. There is something off with the characters as well, and they are left somewhat distant and vague in a way that doesn't really serve the story.

Brett B (au) wrote: The last of Universal's "serious" monster mash-ups. The plot is the same old stuff, with mad doctors and hunchback servants, but Carradine and Chaney still bring the goods.

Richard O (ru) wrote: Some say the that the movie lingered too long on the relationship between Robert & Maria, but I see this as no different from the book. Although the film comes in close to the 3 hour mark it would have been longer if Woods had captured every nuance of Hemmingways text.Not a bad film and ready for a remake imo... but I feel the book is more satisfying and closer to the knuckle... go read

Stephen M (ca) wrote: Knowing what this genre is, it's entertaining. The acting is bad the premise is nonsensical, but it is entertaining. The main flaw w/the story is trying to rationalize what/how/why Freddy & Jason exists & what/how/why they function... to come up w/some way the two can tackle one another...that's the problem.There isn't supposed to be a rational or an Achilles heel, understanding to one another. Average teenagers were never meant to get up close to 'handle' either one of the two. Sigh... Story being horribly flawed... It was decent to watch. It's mostly action than it is thrills & more gore than it is horror.

Gmd E (au) wrote: Surprisingly great found footage horror movie made after first Paranormal Activity.

Daniel P (br) wrote: Zoe Kazan's intelligent and perceptive script is the anchor to this interesting high conceit film, that's a bit like a more disturbing Stranger Than Fiction.

Noah H (ca) wrote: Only funny to those moviegoers who will laugh at anything stupid... Like an Adam Sandler fan.