This film was intriguing to me for a few reasons. I was curious how Lindsay Lohan fared in this role. As her private life imploded, her career vanished in an instant. Not that I'm a big Lohan fan but she showed promise once and I was curious if that spark was still there. I was also intrigued by the fact that Bret Easton Ellis had written the script and that the film was created on a mere $250,000 Kickstarter budget.
A fairly simple (if not somewhat familiar) plot, Christian is a trust fund baby turned movie producer who is in a swinging relationship with Tara. When Christian discovers that the lead actor in his film has a past with Tara and that they are having an affair, he decides that murder is the best way to deal. As another reviewer stated, this film basically felt like one big soap opera. And a weak one at that. The film focuses on the assumptions and dramas that surround the characters but we never see them actually working. In fact, the film only occasionally ventures outside of the characters' impressive apartments/homes so we don't see anything of these characters other than their sordid personal lives. I was unimpressed with Ellis' screenplay. The concept of sleaze, sex, money, violence and apathy has been done to much greater effect in his other works, such as American Psycho and Less Than Zero. With a runtime of 1 hr 40 min, it feels much longer. I found myself fighting to stay invested in the story. I wasn't interested in the characters and the plot was thin. After watching Ellis slam yuppie Wall Street and trust fund baby drug addicts in the previously mentioned films, his trademark of extreme actions performed in an unaffected way when applied to the world of Hollywood and filmmaking felt derivative. We already know Hollywood is heartless and superficial. What's new? The acting, while not bad, wasn't too good either. The dialog seemed rushed, as though the actors were just waiting on each other to finish their lines. Lohan looked tired and bloated and her performance too subdued. I'd like to think Lohan can turn out some quality work but it's difficult to tell from this film, as I just didn't feel she was the right fit for the role and I couldn't tell if it was truly bad acting or just botox and booze that was limiting her range. Nothing yanks me out a film faster than an actor whose face doesn't move. It renders any scene involving expression of emotion ineffective. I've read somewhat positive reactions to James Deen's acting. While I do feel his acting exceeded my expectations, my bar wasn't set very high. Porn actor or not, his performance was better than I expected but still a bit too subtle for me.
Funny thing is, for me, I think the film would've been much better if the actors never said a word. I found the cinematography outstanding. Desaturated, washed out images of decrepit, abandoned movie theaters scattered throughout the film and during the end credits were visually stunning. I found myself enjoying the end credits more than the film itself.
I haven't yet decided if I disliked the script because of the script itself or because of the acting. Something I've discovered after watching The Canyons is that Ellis' work requires very strong, talented actors. Otherwise, the overall effect is hollow, unconvincing and uninteresting. The characters are detestable and one dimensional. I did wonder for a moment how this film might have been different if it had a Hollywood budget. But then again, one could argue that this film was a big middle finger to the world of Hollywood and the studios.
Overall, I wouldn't say this film was a waste of time. The stylized visuals set the mood and feel so if the actors themselves didn't compel, the visuals did. I also stop short of saying the acting was "bad". It wasn't good but not bad considering the actors were paid next to nothing. I wouldn't pay to see this but it wouldn't be a total waste if you happen to catch it on cable. Watch it on cable and form your own opinion but I don't feel it's worth shelling out any money.
A fairly simple (if not somewhat familiar) plot, Christian is a trust fund baby turned movie producer who is in a swinging relationship with Tara. When Christian discovers that the lead actor in his film has a past with Tara and that they are having an affair, he decides that murder is the best way to deal. As another reviewer stated, this film basically felt like one big soap opera. And a weak one at that. The film focuses on the assumptions and dramas that surround the characters but we never see them actually working. In fact, the film only occasionally ventures outside of the characters' impressive apartments/homes so we don't see anything of these characters other than their sordid personal lives. I was unimpressed with Ellis' screenplay. The concept of sleaze, sex, money, violence and apathy has been done to much greater effect in his other works, such as American Psycho and Less Than Zero. With a runtime of 1 hr 40 min, it feels much longer. I found myself fighting to stay invested in the story. I wasn't interested in the characters and the plot was thin. After watching Ellis slam yuppie Wall Street and trust fund baby drug addicts in the previously mentioned films, his trademark of extreme actions performed in an unaffected way when applied to the world of Hollywood and filmmaking felt derivative. We already know Hollywood is heartless and superficial. What's new? The acting, while not bad, wasn't too good either. The dialog seemed rushed, as though the actors were just waiting on each other to finish their lines. Lohan looked tired and bloated and her performance too subdued. I'd like to think Lohan can turn out some quality work but it's difficult to tell from this film, as I just didn't feel she was the right fit for the role and I couldn't tell if it was truly bad acting or just botox and booze that was limiting her range. Nothing yanks me out a film faster than an actor whose face doesn't move. It renders any scene involving expression of emotion ineffective. I've read somewhat positive reactions to James Deen's acting. While I do feel his acting exceeded my expectations, my bar wasn't set very high. Porn actor or not, his performance was better than I expected but still a bit too subtle for me.
Funny thing is, for me, I think the film would've been much better if the actors never said a word. I found the cinematography outstanding. Desaturated, washed out images of decrepit, abandoned movie theaters scattered throughout the film and during the end credits were visually stunning. I found myself enjoying the end credits more than the film itself.
I haven't yet decided if I disliked the script because of the script itself or because of the acting. Something I've discovered after watching The Canyons is that Ellis' work requires very strong, talented actors. Otherwise, the overall effect is hollow, unconvincing and uninteresting. The characters are detestable and one dimensional. I did wonder for a moment how this film might have been different if it had a Hollywood budget. But then again, one could argue that this film was a big middle finger to the world of Hollywood and the studios.
Overall, I wouldn't say this film was a waste of time. The stylized visuals set the mood and feel so if the actors themselves didn't compel, the visuals did. I also stop short of saying the acting was "bad". It wasn't good but not bad considering the actors were paid next to nothing. I wouldn't pay to see this but it wouldn't be a total waste if you happen to catch it on cable. Watch it on cable and form your own opinion but I don't feel it's worth shelling out any money.