Vale do Pecado

This is a failure from the normal standpoint where films are the perfected sum of their construction. There is no beauty to speak of, no clever writing. They could have found better actors. But is this the only way we have to evaluate films? Sure, we celebrate Kubrick for his meticulous beauty, Nolan for his mechanics of story; there's none of that here. But we also celebrate makers like Herzog or Cassavetes for their intuitive pull to unmask a real life trying to balance, the stories all about this effort.

This strangely works for me because Schrader reached out to where the cracks and damage have settled on real lives by the turn of things.

For an enhanced effect, you might wanna see this in a row after Mean Girls and a bunch of James Deen porn—I didn't but I could feel a faint tension humming at the edges, already interwoven with the fiction. And if you read about the shoot, there's I think a Variety article that covers the gonzo wreck it was, Schrader jeopardized the whole thing several times over by casting Lindsay. I'm sure she was the most recognizable name he could get on his budget, but it's also obvious he had to have someone like her and not any other girl.

It is soap as others say: games of power over the viewer with nervous exposing of souls as the trophy of cruelty. But having Lindsay and Deen in there asks of us to recognize the bare selves we know before anything could be touched over, it's to see her withered beauty, cloudiness around the eyes and sense of being lost as truly heartbreaking because we know it's not all acting. Deen is much less interesting, a simple lust for control. But it registers as a callousness that was already there before any character trying to act; no one who slaps women in hundreds of videos is merely 'acting'. So when we see Lindsay trying to avoid another character prying into her life, when later she's on a bed making out with a girl for a movie like this (and being filmed in it) or when Deen erupts on her in a frenzy; that's real dust flying through the air.

This is the kind of stuff Herzog tried for when he got Bruno to America for Stroszek, looking for entries into someone experiencing this as not simply artifice. We're in lesser hands here but having this as our anchor rubs off on everything else, suddenly we have a whole mess of things that are no longer just flaws but the thing showing itself. I like that it's not all dressed up and somewhat raw, that the acting is inexperienced, that Deen's mansion is that mansion from porn videos, that the camera discovers an ordinary Los Angeles. It wouldn't be the same without LA around these people. We reinvest all the cinematic dreams we've had from Sunset Blvd to Mulholland.

Oh, all the stuff about the abusive richboy being a filmmaker, acting as life and feeling objectified in images are as obvious now as that whole filmmaker subplot in films like Last Tango and Blackout. The film does reflect Ferrara who was caught in the 90s between obvious constructions and evocative air. So it's not some great film by design. But Schrader was smart (or cynical enough) to know he could create a situation that would pull everything else, bending it to where he'd like to go, skiing on the pull.

Watch like you were unsure yourself where real life picks up again.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy The Canyons. It's trashy as hell, but it manages to be somewhat intriguing throughout. If anything, it gives me a lot of hope for Lindsay Lohan. She's actually pretty great in this, by fat the best. Nolan Gerard Funk is also pretty solid. Now, James Deen is one beautiful man, but the shot of his junk is probably the most impressive thing about him in the film. I think he needs some serious acting classes, and while I appreciate his effort, he totally overplays the narcissism and many times delivers lines without any range or charisma. The ending is sort of weird and unsatisfying, but overall, very much a guilty pleasure.

Release Date: 2nd August 2013 (US)

After starring briefly in two of the years worst films, Lindsay Lohan makes her full length return in Paul Schrader's "The Canyons". A film that documents just how crazy one individual can go, when he finds out about the secret love affair between his girlfriend and the lead on his film project.

With this being Lindsay Lohan's first full length appearance since the critically panned, "Labor Pains" released in 2009, there has been a lot of correspondence and speculation surrounding this indie flick.

Despite hearing some very mixed opinions, I have to say I wasn't particularly fazed by "The Canyons". The film is littered with problems, yet I never really had any trouble sitting through it. It is overdramatic and slightly ridiculous, but at times, that alone makes it a very compelling watch.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't enjoy the movie, but I didn't dislike it either. It's a very middle of the road experience. Well at least it was for me anyway.

The films production budget is very low. So don't go into it expecting some extravagant revenge-romance esque thriller, because that's not what it is. In a way, the films plot-line could be compared to that of a soap opera. It's not particularly exciting, but it is partially entertaining watching it unfold.

However, for such a low budget film ($250,000 to be precise), the film is actually rather attractive. It is very well lit and the various locations work with the direction that the film goes in. It's well cinematised, and in terms of shots, whilst it doesn't do anything original, there were times when I was watching the film amending some of the cinematography.

Now a lot of media outlets have compared to the film to porn. I don't necessarily agree with that statement. Sure there are specific body parts that are revealed on numerous occasions, but whilst there is an emphasis on sex, it's not as explicit as a lot of people have made it out to be.

The performances are average. Nobody really impressed me and whilst nobody is bad, some of the dialogue is very cheesy and repetitive, but of course that can only be blamed on the writers. Lindsay Lohan offers a solid turn as does real life porn star, James Deen, but nobody does anything that you're going to love or remember the next day. Everyone's very mediocre, and due to how ridiculous the film eventually becomes, the characters all end up becoming rather comical.

Whilst the film does lack in its key areas, along with the cinematography, one of the aspects I liked was the score. I will be the first to admit that it does sound very amateurish, but the electronic nature of it occasionally works, with what the movie is trying to present. That presentation being that shouldn't have affairs, especially if you're dating a complete an utter psychopath.

I have to admit The Canyons was lot of better than I expected it to be. I didn't necessarily enjoy it, but there were aspects to it that I liked. Perhaps I'm being too nice, but for a low budget production I didn't find it too bad. If you have a partial interest in seeing it, see it. But if you don't, then I wouldn't bother.

5/10

Check out my website: www.jacks-reviews.com

This film suffers heavily from a distinct lack of sexiness and way too much boring dialogue. And that is just the beginning of the problems. You really know a film is bad when Lindsay Lohan is the only bright light in it!

The Acting: Lindsay Lohan does quite a good job in a couple of scenes involving emotion, though she is much less effective in the (too abundant) dialogue heavy scenes. James Deen shows a few flashes of talent but mainly seems as if he is trying to emulate a method actor with no real understanding of how to actually pull it off. The other "performances" are uniformly bad to less-bad.

The Writing: One word... Awful. Boring dialogue and unbelievable story. Poor ending. I think Bret Easton Ellis is a one-trick pony. He has never managed to equal what he achieved with American Psycho.

The Directing: Same word as above... Awful. Paul Schraeder really should sink back into obscurity. This project is definitely not going to help his career. Poor choice of camera angles and poor framing abounds. He shows no sign of his earlier talents. I think he is lost in his own imagined "genius" as he tries for a gritty realism and gets ugly pretentiousness.

Camera, Lighting, etc.: Poor lighting in almost every indoor scene. It looks like it was shot on a smart phone. The music is irritating. Wardrobe... What wardrobe? It looks like the actors supplied the clothes they wanted to wear. There is no costume design or set design in evidence here.

Sexiness: Basically there is none. Lindsay Lohan looks pretty sad with her prominent beer belly, sagging breasts and 1960s style lingerie. Control-top granny panties are not lust-inducing! The sex scenes are boring and much less spicy than the hype suggested. The "orgy" was so badly filmed it and lit that it was impossible to find it sexy or even interesting. Women or those with a gay interest may find it more sexually appealing but I don't find dangling limp penises to be anything but silly looking. The entertainment media painted this as shockingly graphic but it is pretty tame compared to cable shows like True Blood if you discount the number of penises on view.

In Conclusion: Not really worth a look even if you just want to see Lindsay Lohan in the buff. There was more of her on view in Playboy and her body looked at least a bit better in the magazine. If you are looking for titillating sex scenes you would be better off with Skinemax. If you want to see a dramatic expose of Hollywood's dark underbelly look elsewhere. In fact just look elsewhere. Period.

The Canyons (2013)

1/2 (out of 4)

Paul Schrader's latest deals with the rich Christian (James Deen) who's living in Los Angeles and seems to have it all until he learns that his girlfriend/sex partner (Lindsay Lohan) is having an affair with a man (Nolan Gerard Funk) who he hired in his latest movie. THE CANYONS is without question the greatest WTF movie in the history of cinema or at least to date. I say this because there was never a single second during this film where I understood what was going on or what director Schrader or screenwriter Bret Easton Ellis were trying to say or do. This film is without question a complete and utter mess and for the life of me I can't understand what the point of it was unless the only goal was to make it as cheap as they could and hope that the Lohan nude scenes would gain enough interest to make some money. Both Schrader and Ellis are so incredibly talented that it would be easy to make fun of this picture but I personally found it rather sad as neither man has found themselves involved with something this bad before and worse of all is the fact that the film makes no sense. It's meant to be some sort of twisted erotic thriller but there isn't a single thrill and the sex scenes aren't nearly as shocking as it appears the filmmakers think they are. Had this been made twenty-years ago then it might have been considered shocking but in today's day and age everything just comes across as pretty lame. Deen is fair in his first non-porn role but he certainly doesn't show enough here to warrant any future movies. The supporting players are all either bland or downright horrid and often times it seems like we're watching line rehearsals instead of an actual take. As for Lohan, well, sadly she once again is pretty bad. She just doesn't have any emotional depth here and even during her nude scenes she just looks incredibly uncomfortable and especially during a shower sequence. I'm sure this nudity is what's going to make most people check this thing out but it's really not worth it. The film also features a bad music score, some forgettable cinematography and worse of all is how deadly boring it is from start to finish. The dialogue is downright laughable and the overall feel is something cheaper and worse than what you'd expect to see on Cinemax at three in the morning. I guess the best thing I can say is that it's actually the best of the three movies Lohan has released in 2013.