"The Canyons" is probably one of the most talked about low budget indie films ever made thanks to Lindsay Lohan. People aren't talking about her acting work in the film, but her on set antics instead. Since 2004 or so, Lohan has been a tabloid fixture as a Hollywood party girl, and her tabloid profile has only escalated thanks to her brushes with the law, rehab stints, and fame hungry parents. Her personal life eclipsed her acting career and sometimes it's hard to remember that Lohan started out as an actress...a promising one at that! I am a fan of low budget, indie films. Sure, they aren't the best quality, but I find most of them to have interesting concepts and passionate ideas. I love the idea of saying "fuck the Hollywood studios, let's go film this the way we want to". That's why I've always enjoyed low budget independent films. They're made out of love, and not made for money. So when I heard about "The Canyons", I was of course immediately drawn to it.
I just finished watching it, and I'd saying it had a lot going for it, but ultimately fell short of my expectations. For what it was though, I'd say it was a fairly decent film.
"The Canyons" is a skeleton of a great film, but doesn't have the goods to back it up. It has a neo-noir style/tone but it doesn't stay consistent with it. It's visible in some scenes, but not so much in others. It has a lot of interesting themes about Hollywood, fame, power, and the film industry. It sets-up these interesting themes in the first half hour of the film, but they are never really incorporated into the plot. The script was good, but the story got lost in the relationships/dynamics of the characters. I felt it sort of lost focus halfway through and never found it again. It was enough to keep me interested, but ultimately the film wasn't deep enough to get much of an emotional reaction out of me.
Now, onto the acting...obviously having Lindsay Lohan in this brought a great deal of press for the film. Without her, this movie would have been released and nobody would have known about it...it would have faded into indie film oblivion. But what's really interesting is that Lohan not only gave the film publicity, but she actually carries the entire movie! I wouldn't say her acting was astounding, but she did successfully create a great character out of Tara, who otherwise might have come across as underwritten if another actress had played the part. Lohan gives her character a lot of depth and emotion that probably didn't even appear on the page. It is clear that despite all the intense drama that surrounds her on a day to day basis, she still has talent. What sets her apart from other actors, though, is her amazing screen presence. She is no longer the teen beauty queen she used to be back in 2004-2008, but something about her makes you focus all of your attention on her whenever she is on screen. She has a rare gift of commanding a scene no matter what role or what movie. Lohan is clearly a star. She has a horribly notorious and infamous reputation in Hollywood, but she can still act pretty damn well. If she just got her personal life sorted out, she could have a chance at a major comeback.
James Deen, on the other hand, has the looks of a movie star, but not the acting chops. In some scenes, he is fine. In others, he is very wooden and, unlike Lohan, fails to give his character depth or layers. Not that he had much to work with, anyways, because his character, Christian, is VERY unlikable. And not in a fun or epic villain kind of way, but in more of a forgettable and wimpy sort of way. Christian has no redeeming qualities at all. The script has Christian written as a fairly one dimensional character, and Deen unfortunately doesn't have the acting chops to bring the character to life or do much with him. Deen was such a bore to watch other than the scenes where he was naked. Deen does not have any charisma or screen presence (again, unless he is naked). He might want to take some acting classes if he wants to continue getting roles outside of porn.
Nolan Funk, the other lead who plays Ryan in the film's love triangle, does an adequate job in the film. I think he has a lot of potential and I'd like to see where his career goes from here. I think he has a lot of natural talent.
Overall, "The Canyons" was not a complete waste of time. I think people are being very hard on it because Lindsay Lohan is in it, but she is honestly the best thing about it. Its biggest flaw was that it was not consistent. Also, casting James Deen in the role of Christian was a mistake because he is simply not talented enough to give a character like that any sort of depth.
I think with a better script and a bigger budget, the film could have been great. But there just wasn't any "umph" to it.
It is worth checking out if you are interested in and can appreciate low budget indie films...otherwise I doubt you'd enjoy it.
I give this movie a 5.5 or a 6 out of 10.
I just finished watching it, and I'd saying it had a lot going for it, but ultimately fell short of my expectations. For what it was though, I'd say it was a fairly decent film.
"The Canyons" is a skeleton of a great film, but doesn't have the goods to back it up. It has a neo-noir style/tone but it doesn't stay consistent with it. It's visible in some scenes, but not so much in others. It has a lot of interesting themes about Hollywood, fame, power, and the film industry. It sets-up these interesting themes in the first half hour of the film, but they are never really incorporated into the plot. The script was good, but the story got lost in the relationships/dynamics of the characters. I felt it sort of lost focus halfway through and never found it again. It was enough to keep me interested, but ultimately the film wasn't deep enough to get much of an emotional reaction out of me.
Now, onto the acting...obviously having Lindsay Lohan in this brought a great deal of press for the film. Without her, this movie would have been released and nobody would have known about it...it would have faded into indie film oblivion. But what's really interesting is that Lohan not only gave the film publicity, but she actually carries the entire movie! I wouldn't say her acting was astounding, but she did successfully create a great character out of Tara, who otherwise might have come across as underwritten if another actress had played the part. Lohan gives her character a lot of depth and emotion that probably didn't even appear on the page. It is clear that despite all the intense drama that surrounds her on a day to day basis, she still has talent. What sets her apart from other actors, though, is her amazing screen presence. She is no longer the teen beauty queen she used to be back in 2004-2008, but something about her makes you focus all of your attention on her whenever she is on screen. She has a rare gift of commanding a scene no matter what role or what movie. Lohan is clearly a star. She has a horribly notorious and infamous reputation in Hollywood, but she can still act pretty damn well. If she just got her personal life sorted out, she could have a chance at a major comeback.
James Deen, on the other hand, has the looks of a movie star, but not the acting chops. In some scenes, he is fine. In others, he is very wooden and, unlike Lohan, fails to give his character depth or layers. Not that he had much to work with, anyways, because his character, Christian, is VERY unlikable. And not in a fun or epic villain kind of way, but in more of a forgettable and wimpy sort of way. Christian has no redeeming qualities at all. The script has Christian written as a fairly one dimensional character, and Deen unfortunately doesn't have the acting chops to bring the character to life or do much with him. Deen was such a bore to watch other than the scenes where he was naked. Deen does not have any charisma or screen presence (again, unless he is naked). He might want to take some acting classes if he wants to continue getting roles outside of porn.
Nolan Funk, the other lead who plays Ryan in the film's love triangle, does an adequate job in the film. I think he has a lot of potential and I'd like to see where his career goes from here. I think he has a lot of natural talent.
Overall, "The Canyons" was not a complete waste of time. I think people are being very hard on it because Lindsay Lohan is in it, but she is honestly the best thing about it. Its biggest flaw was that it was not consistent. Also, casting James Deen in the role of Christian was a mistake because he is simply not talented enough to give a character like that any sort of depth.
I think with a better script and a bigger budget, the film could have been great. But there just wasn't any "umph" to it.
It is worth checking out if you are interested in and can appreciate low budget indie films...otherwise I doubt you'd enjoy it.
I give this movie a 5.5 or a 6 out of 10.