The Canyons

م

source: The Canyons

Mr Paul Schrader Your a decent filmmaker with titles to your credits like Hardcore 8/10, American Gigolo 6/10, Cat People 9/10 and Mishima 6/10 (these are my scores) to name a few, and now there is The Canyons .... what a disappointment. Lindsay Lohan ??? is she even an actress or someone with a so/so face a some b**bs ? James Deen 1013 films to his credit !!! that's impressive, but in ALL of them the thing he uses best is his lower head .... Mr Schrader, did you saw the casting before shooting ? They don't act, at some parts they look like they are reading the lines. And what happened to the camera ? it shakes all the time, is that a new trend, low budget or just bad professionals ? The only thing i liked was the soundtrack, really well chosen and right for what was happening on the screen. I like the writing of Bret Easton Ellis, but this story was kind of a mess. Mr. Schrader, i hope to see a good movie from you, the next time.

I went to see this primarily in the hope that I would see some glimmer of earnest, hard-won acting ability and artistic craft not evident in the trailer. Conclusion: The producers should pull this immediately, rewrite it and re-release it as a documentary about a gaggle of studio sycophants in search of, and failing to find, legitimacy as writers, actors and directors. Just the attempt of such could be considered somewhat professionally redeeming. I won't dump on Ms. Lohan here--there's obviously already enough self-loathing in that husk of a human to out-gun every critic who's ever mumbled her name in vain. I wrestled between the Evil Me and the Good Me as to whether I should vote this *film* a "1" or a "2". The Good Me won out--I give it an honest "1" for just plain 'awful'. .

This may be the worst movie I have ever seen in my lengthy life. Pure garbage. What was the point in making this? It says nothing, it's not even Showgirls-level camp. I've never been fond of Bret Easton Ellis, but I figured Paul Schrader might be able to do something with his vacuous, self-absorbed characters. NOPE! I know Schrader had to promote this movie after its release, but it is baffling how he constantly defends Lindsay Lohan's terrible acting. Actually as bad as she is, she's not even close to being the lowest on the acting scale here. Deen is terrible, but I guess he wasn't really hired for his speaking skills. What I can't understand is how the Ryan character gets acting jobs. I mean, do you want your movie to be at the level of community theater? Hell, at least the actors there try. At this point I have lost all respect for the once great Schrader and consider him little more than a dirty old man with a Lohan obsession. If you're interested in the * scenes, save your money & just seek them out on Utube.

Very early on in the Canyons you sort of resign to the fact that you will be sitting through a B movie. The acting is for the most part amateur hour, the cinematography looked cheap and the editing choppy. That's not to say The Canyons isn't an entertaining film - I found it to be pretty well written though I would have preferred to see some better actors in many of the roles, which would have given Ellis's dialogue more weight and energy. I kinda appreciate the approach of choosing a * actor as your leading man but James Deen as Christian mumbles his way throughout the film when his dialogue is calling for him to be more assertive. It's a casting mistake and as a result much of the cast crumbles around him. The one bright spot was Lindsay Lohan, I actually thought she was the best cast in her role and the best actor in the bunch. The Canyons works best as a metaphor, for what film is and what film has become, the degradation of the medium, the cheap video look, the broken cinemas.

'The Canyons' portrays a collection of characters deceiving and manipulating each other to distract from the emptiness of their lives. Chief among them is a sociopathic film producer, Christian, whose jaded girlfriend Tara reluctantly consents to the sex orgies he arranges with random internet strangers. After Tara helps a former boyfriend, Ryan, get the lead role in Christian's new movie, they resume their old affair, despite Ryan having a girlfriend called Gina who is also working on the film. Christian grows increasingly suspicious of Tara's fidelity outside the group sex dynamic, and has her followed by a slacker private eye, while he hooks up with a former assistant, who is also an old girlfriend of Ryan. This incestuous merry-go-round is merely the set-up, and director Shrader fails elevate the subsequent hokey-pokey above soap opera level after making disastrous casting decisions with Lindsay Lohan, James Deen and Nolan Funk as his lead trio. The only competent actor is Amanda Brooks who plays the scorned Gina in a minor role - although she's actually five years older than Lohan, she looks fifteen years younger and fifty times more desirable than the supposedly irresistible Tara. Sex is a crucial plot element, but no erotic intensity is generated since the characters are more robotic than human. The film wastes many tedious minutes on lengthy shots of them entering and exiting cars and buildings. 'The Canyons' limps along with wooden direction, dialog, acting and storytelling until the deceptions and manipulations lead to a pointless act of violence and an implausible conclusion.

I read an article yesterday in which the writer of this movie, Bret Easton Ellis, said that he couldn't understand the hate for this movie. Really? You don't know? How about the fact that you cast a * star as one of your leads? There's one reason. James Deen gives you a performance here that is no different than what he gave you in "Anal Buffet 8" (not making that up folks). I half expected him to show up at Lindsay Lohan's door in a pizza delivery uniform. The other lead, Nolan Gerard Funk, was slightly better than Deen...slightly. Here's another reason for the hate. The script was dismal. Christian(Deen) and Tara(Lohan) are living together in a huge house in LA where they enjoy, or at least Christian does, an open relationship where Christian gets his meat and two veg off sharing Tara with other men. When he finds out that Tara is having an affair with the lead in a movie he is financing(Funk), he goes nuts. Huh? Christian has Tara followed everywhere and starts messing with Funks's character by hacking his bank account and pretending to have him replaced in the movie. At this point Christian is in firm control over Funk's character and Tara. So much so that he decides to murder Funk's ex girlfriend?! Say what? To top it all off, he confesses to Tara that "something happened" to this poor girl and needs an alibi. All this while Tara is trying to break off the relationship. Christian is of course upset that Tara is leaving...I think...You know, I couldn't tell. That's how good Deen is here. I won't give away the ending because I had no idea what the heck happened at the end...yeah. To summarize, this movie had terrible acting, a ridiculously bad story and dialog fit for Deen's main profession. Don't see it, really. I thought the critics were being too hard on this movie and I was wrong. So very very wrong.

... Is a message that cinema is dead. This movie is certainly a sign. I would have expected at least some titillation from Schrader and Elllis. Some decent violence, sex.... A worthwhile story maybe? This movie is unbelievably flat. The rest of the actors are so incredibly awful they make Lohan look good (well better than them). Deen is a real revelation. Possibly the worst performance I've seen and it is not a style decision. Hope his * performs better than the rest of him. Did Gus owe these Gus a favor? Unbelievable how beaten LL looks. Has the face of a 50 year old alcoholic and that's with professional makeup. Just because everyone in the flick keeps telling me how beautiful she is doesn't make it so. I honestly hope she can clean it up.