The Canyon

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 ... for awhile.

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.

I'm not gonna say much. What struck me and really disappointed, which flavored the whole film, is how stupid they were to not stay put and find the mules. Idiots.

The general plot line of stranded individuals in any particular setting is nothing new to Hollywood, as we have seen many marooned protagonists go up against mother nature, blood thirsty villains, and both fictitious and very real beasts alike. However, of all the places we have seen films set in, the grand canyon is mostly new. With a fresh setting we should have endless possibilities and plenty of room for an exciting and unconventional script. Unfortunately, 'The Canyon' cannot capitalize on it's sources. The final product that director Richard Harrah presents us with is nothing short of boring film-making, extremely grating 'come on' moments, erroneous use of wolves, and a very empty script. The actors are very talented and do what they can with the material, but not even talented actors can save a script that is as empty, dry, and desolate as the grand canyon itself. There are a few shining moments, but not enough to carry this movie into the entertaining zone. There is a nice gore scene (that will surely make anyone who watches it wince), the scenery is put to very beautifully shot aesthetic use, and of course nicely acted moments that accurately evoke the hopelessness of the situation and sometimes are even ironically witty. Notice that I have yet to mention the word 'thrilling' or 'thriller', which is extremely sad because this movies is obviously supposed to be just that - a thriller. 'The Canyon' simply can't cut it as a thriller and is obviously too straight forward to be anything else. Avoid this one just as you would avoid going into the grand canyon with a guide who could possibly double as the homeless guy who shines shoes outside of your office.

If you're looking for something with the look and feel of an almost-major motion picture and the writing of a really boring b movie, this is definitely the movie for you.

The first thing that struck me about this film was that it was shot quite well. It had all the hallmarks of a professionally done, decent-budget piece: good cinematography, subtle and appropriate background music, and believable actors who obviously hadn't just been picked up at the 7 Eleven. Even the writing in the beginning did a good job of setting an interesting tone, albeit one that, as others have said, we have all seen a thousand times before. I personally don't mind that sort of redundancy in itself. There are only a finite number of plots available to any writer, and if the details are different and the film is well done I'll watch it without whining for originality.

But then the characters started DOING things. Honestly, I thought about it, and I really don't think these people made a single decision in the entire course of the film that was not completely ridiculous to the point of mental deficiency. I don't want to spoil it, but remember my words as you watch: this is simply not how people would behave (or at least I really, really hope not). Nothing they do makes any sense whatsoever. It is clear that whoever wrote this has absolutely no understanding of human behavior, cause and effect, or the need as a writer to put yourself in the position of your characters so that you can develop a realistic story line.

Nor, it seems, does the writer have any concept at all of human relationships. The people in this movie are supposed to be married, but for most of the film they seem more like roommates. Has this writer ever even seen a married couple? It would have been more believable if they had met on the tour bus on the way there! The script gives them no opportunity to show any real emotion toward each other, and almost none about their situation. It is really quite boring.

On top of that there are some utterly absurd (and offensive) happenings with wolves, as well as the equally unrealistic ability of the characters to deal with exposure to the desert elements for days on end without food or water with hardly a single complaint. Just ridiculous.

Anyway, this movie had a lot of potential that was ruined by a writer who obviously lacks both life experience and the imagination to invent it. The only cure for him may be to stick him out in the desert for a few days in a similar situation so he can see how a real person would react. I for one think we should try it.

I am well aware that us viewers have different taste and likes when it comes to movies, but I think this movie has been put down where as I think it is worth watching. The story line is nothing really new, but the acting was solid, sure no Oscar coming their way, but the actors got the story line across well enough. The film is set in nice surroundings even if it was not shot in the Grand Canyon as some people have pointed out, it is still eye pleasing. If the producers would have had a bigger budget, bigger stars I think this would have been received better by the general public, but it still makes for good viewing for what it is.

By far not the worst film I have seen, and it deserves a solid 7 out of 10