Based on a number of recent movie going experiences " Hours," "Gerry" and "Open Water" there seems to be a real genre developing here - which, for lack of a better term, we'll call the cocky-outdoorsman-gets-his-ever-lovin'-butt-kicked-by-Mother-Nature scenario.
Like those other films, "The Canyon" really makes us empathize with the plight the citified couple is going through, offering cringe-inducing scene after cringe-inducing scene of their often ham-handed attempts at staying alive. Also, like those previous works, this movie explores the themes of how easy it is to find ourselves without warning at the mercy of an uncaring and capricious Fate; of how quickly stupid decisions made in the heat of the moment can lead to long-term, disastrous consequences; of how ill-equipped modern Man is at grappling against the forces of an impersonal Nature; and of how indomitable the human spirit can be in even the most dire and hopeless of circumstances.
Replete with an "ironic" ending that will have you throwing things at the screen in frustration and dismay think of it as the ultimate anti-deus ex machina , "The Canyon," which was written by Steve Allrich and directed by Richard Harrah, makes for gripping and grueling, if not always, edifying or uplifting viewing.
It will also make you think twice before ignoring signs posted at national parks. And, oh yes, perhaps the biggest lesson of all is to always give heed to women's intuition. MBunge 12 July The Canyon is a new version of a very familiar story.
It does a relatively effective job of telling that story, but does nothing with it that hasn't been done before. The result is a legitimately entertaining but ultimately forgettable movie. Nick and Lori Eion Bailey and Yvonne Strahovski are a young couple that have just eloped and are running away to the Grand Canyon for their honeymoon.
Nick wants to take a mule trip into the Canyon while Lori's not that excited about the idea. However, the spur of the moment nature of their marriage means they never had time to get the proper permits and it seems like Nick and Lori will just have to spend the weekend having sex in their motel room which will probably end up being the porn version of this film.
That's when Henry Will Patton , an old guide who puts the "grizz" in grizzled, offers to help them out. He claims he can get a permit and will lead them into the Canyon himself. Lori is again leery but gives in to Nick's enthusiasm for the whole thing. Though Henry seems a bit sketchy, everything starts out fine when they meet Saturday morning to head into the Canyon. Henry has all the pack mules and supplies and appears to actually know what he's doing.
The trip into the Canyon is the wonderful experience Nick thought it would be and Lori even lets herself enjoy it all. In the interest of spoiling as little as possible, particularly since this film doesn't have a lot of original twists and turns, I'll just say that things go very wrong for Lori, Nick and Henry. They wind up lost, isolated, bereft and at the mercy of a Mother Nature who's in a sadistic mood.
The Canyon is the old story of Man and Woman vs. Outside of one complaint, this is a pretty good production. The plot is logically and frighteningly plausible.
The scenery is beautiful, though it's Utah and not the real Grand Canyon. The three main characters are all interesting people and the actors in those roles give fine performances. There's a real sense of tension and dread which is broken every so often by flashes of humor and defiance.
This movie has all the right pieces and it assembles them in the proper fashion with enough talent and effort to make The Canyon a gripping little tragedy. I do have one complaint and it's a not a tiny one. The tale of Man vs. Nature has been around forever. This variant of people stranded in a hostile wilderness and having to survive has been done in books and movies and television countless times to varying degrees of success.
The Canyon is rated R and anyone old enough to be watching it has almost certainly read and seen and heard this story many times before. When a narrative is built on that sort of familiarity, it becomes very important to either add a twist to the proceedings or add a second level of meaning to what's going on. These filmmakers did neither.
There is no twist to The Canyon and the story only functions on the surface level of people in peril. I'm sure you know what I mean by twist, but let me give to an example of a story having more than one level. Nick and Lori are facing a conflict, them vs. That's the first level.
A second level would be to establish some sort of conflict between Nick and Lori, a problem that is independent of their hazardous surroundings. As the story goes along, those two separate conflicts would both mirror and diverge from each other. But outside of a single moment of recrimination, there's no conflict between Nick and Lori in this film. It's just Man vs. Nature with nothing else going on. Watching The Canyon is like hearing a funny joke for the third time.
It's still amusing but something has definitely been lost in the repetition. I'd still rather hear a funny joke for a third time than a bad joke for the first time, so I'd still recommend this movie as worth watching. Just don't expect much more than a momentary diversion. The wilderness can be a great place to visit, when everything is going okay.
But introduce some unexpected problems, and an excellent adventure, far removed from other people, morphs into a nightmare. It's a story premise that has a long history in cinema, and it's the premise on which "The Canyon" is based. An attractive newlywed couple hires an old backwoods coot played by Will Patton to guide them through the back-country of the Grand Canyon. Everything goes well The script's characters seem credible. But the plot lacks creative imagination.
One particular adversity propels the film's second half, which goes on and on, tediously. Either the editor needed to chop off some of the plot repetition, or the writer needed to introduce additional, more varied, adversities. Further, the story's inciting incident, which involves a reptile, is not remotely credible.
And the characters react to this event in ways that add to their misery. What would films be without characters who make stupid decisions? Casting is acceptable. Acting is okay until near the end when one performance becomes almost laughable. Sound effects and background music are fine. Scenery is spectacular, helped along by competent color cinematography.
And the final scene is arguably the best scene in the entire film. As the camera zooms out, viewers get a stunning visual perspective, one of the best such perspectives I have ever seen in any film. An unimaginative and at times silly plot renders the story somewhat tiresome and tedious. But this is partially offset by terrific visuals, the most impressive of which is right at the very end. The soundtrack is decent and somewhat haunting which mixed with the cinematography almost gives the movie a life of it's own.
All in all, I thought it was well paced with plenty of "uh oh" moments. It's not completely unbelievable that something like this could actually happen I mean wasn't 'Open Water' based on a true story?
Don't people slip in and out of common sense mode all the time? So, why is it so hard to believe that people cut corners to get what they want, or get bitten by rattle snakes, or get lost in the Grand Canyon for that matter? And, I'm sure if I was a starving wolf, a good looking yuppie couple would be damn appetizing to me.
In the end, I would definitely recommend this film to others. Click here for trailer. Anonymous December 23, at PM. Kline arranges a blind date between Glover and Alfre Woodard , a single woman who works in his office, and later that evening, the two of them, realizing he really hardly knows either one, surmise they may be the only two black people he knows.
McDonnell falls in love with the baby she has found. A regard develops between Kline and Glover. And so on. Then a mugger shoots Martin in the leg, and he feels real pain, and has a great awakening and vows not to make any more violent movies. We doubt that he will keep his promise. Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from until his death in In , he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.
Rated R For Language. Danny Glover as Simon. Does she make another? Nope, now she fashions a crutch and makes the injured guy walk. Does she go on alone? Nope spoiler , she smothers him to death, in order to rip off The Mist rescue arrives about 12 seconds later. If there is a single moment in this film that her character did something intelligent, I must have missed it, probably from still laughing at the idiotic thing that preceded it.
Screenwriter Steve Allrich seems equally intelligence-starved, considering how real-world logic-free the script is. They have no water, but they manage to survive 3 days in the desert with only some chapped lips to show for it. Our couple is constantly menaced by wolves, who hunt them in both day and night alike and are attracted to their campfires.
They also graciously take turns when attacking; one will strike while the other three in the PACK just sit around. He also seems to forget about the concept of texting, an act that would allow them to compose an SOS that would automatically send once a signal was available. I started to get the idea that he was refused a mule permit in the spring and decided to write this movie as a plea to the Mule Permit Committee to show them the possible consequences of their seasonal restrictions.
These morons would likely try to rub salt in the bite mark.
0コメント