ASK & DISCUSS
INDEXThe Canyons - so bad it's good?
12 years, 6 months ago - Helen Jack
The recent piece (http://nyti.ms/TNmUsc) in the New York Times about the making of Paul Shrader’s last film, The Canyons, is seen by some as the final nail in the coffin. The “erotic thriller” penned by Bret Easton Ellis and starring Lindsay Lohan, clearly seemed like an exciting collaboration (to them, anyway), but has become the laughing stock of Hollywood after it’s rejection from Sundance and the leaked response from SXSW, where the film was described as having "an ugliness and a deadness to it" - ouch. But we’ve seen clips (http://nyti.ms/13kSwbE) from the movie and think it has some serious cult potential. Critical flops such as The Room and Showgirls have reached success through the power of audiences (and their desire to laugh at bad movie making) and The Canyons looks set to carry the torch. So bad it’s good, or so bad it’s just baaad? Discuss.
Only members can post or respond to topics. LOGIN
Not a member of SP? JOIN or FIND OUT MORE
12 years, 6 months ago - Stuart Wright
They own the film and at £250k estimated production costs they'll also recoup easy enough and make all the profit ... with the porn star and Lindsay alone they'll find a big enough audience... with all the pre-publicity it's received it's already punching way above most films with regard to column inches and attention in the media ... nothing wrong with a shitty dirty film... Holly wood is a shitty dirty business and Schrader, Easton-Ellis and Lohan know that only too well
Response from 12 years, 6 months ago - Stuart Wright SHOW
12 years, 6 months ago - Shoaib Vali
Canyons does seem like a grindhouse flick, as Dean mentioned above, the post-production seems left half done, as if the editor thought, "ah that'll work, frig it!" anyone watching Hobo with a Shot Gun can mistake it for an amateur film given how extreme its color grading and how OTT the acting of the cast is, But Canyons do seem to go the extra mile by making it look like a half-assed job on the editing, the sound design is terrible. Besides such films loose their charm when you find out that the filmmakers intentionally wanted a poor film, lot more fun when you know the filmmakers were dead serious about making a serious film, but you know, ends up being a film where you dont mind ruffling the popcorn bag, with complete disregard of the noise it makes.
Response from 12 years, 6 months ago - Shoaib Vali SHOW
12 years, 6 months ago - Martin Wallace
The NYT article made we want to see the film, but that clip dashed my hopes that Canyons could possibly be an offbeam treasure; it just felt desperate.
Response from 12 years, 6 months ago - Martin Wallace SHOW
12 years, 6 months ago - Dean Hesom
From what I've seen and read about The Canyons it seems like it is a film that has been especially designed to be so bad its good. Like the makers of such films as 'Sharktopus' they know the exact market they are aiming for. I mean why would people of the calibre of Bret Easton Ellis and Paul Shrader cast Lindsy Lohan and a male porn star named James Deen as the leads in their film, when plenty of A-list actors would love to work with them.
And all this press coverage about how bad the film is and how its been rejected from Sundance, is just the publicity they probably wanted for the film. The first trailer for the film, sold it as a homage to Grind house and exploitation cinema, The colours being desaturated, grain added etc, which might be another reason it appears to be deliberately bad.
Response from 12 years, 6 months ago - Dean Hesom SHOW