I went into this movie with certain expectations. The expectations were met. There are no real surprises in this movie. Early in the movie, you know the set-up, man (and woman) against nature. All of the main players are likable. Their character is developed. You care about these people! The scenery is beautiful. There are plot contrivances, like shoddy cellphone coverage and random injuries. Of course, there has to be poor cellphone coverage or there would be no movie! You would just call for help and that would be the end of the movie! There has to be injuries to add insult to "injury" to the players struggling against the odds already. The ending is truly thought evoking instead of cliché. It could not have ended better. I recently saw the movie "Thirst." The two movies are very similar in plot line. This movie was enjoyable. I found "Thirst" tedious and overly predictable.
56 Reviews
Honeymoon from hell
LOL101LOL16 January 2011
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
By far not the worst film I have seen, and it deserves a solid 7 out of 10
If your planning on Daniel Booning it alone- See this movie
jcmann0114 August 2012
Plot: The possibilities of getting lost in the Grand Canyon escalate dramatically if you choose not to properly plan your trip into the canyon, use uncertified guides (esp with drinking problems), no wilderness survival training, no maps or compass, and have no way of communicating with the outside world. Having no food or water, lost in the canyon, under high heat conditions can alone kill you, much less the idea of wild animals attacking you? I must point out that idea about wolves in the Grand Canyon Park and outlying areas attacking people is totally absurd! Whoever thought this one up did not do much research because wolves, though they have been spotted in these areas on occasion, are for the most part rare and shy of humans. Timber wolves, which the movie portrays, mainly exist in Canada and the northwestern states towards Canada. So this part is completely unrealistic for an already busy plot. Wolves only act like this when they are starving to death, but the Timber wolves shown in this movie looked pretty well fed.
However this movie does make you think twice about roughing it alone out in no man's land. If you don't have the stomach to see what people have to do under desperate circumstances, then perhaps you need to look for another movie?
However this movie does make you think twice about roughing it alone out in no man's land. If you don't have the stomach to see what people have to do under desperate circumstances, then perhaps you need to look for another movie?
That Stunning Final Scene
Lechuguilla12 October 2010
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.
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.
Nothing new but not a bad movie
padron70220 November 2009
I, like this movie, have very little to say about it. It has been done before. In various locations, with a variety of protagonist and with very similar ending. The writing on this one was not very memorable with the one exception of the alcoholic guide played by Eion Bailey. The cinematography was outstanding, great images of one of the United States great remaining natural wonders.
That being said, I do wish that the filmmakers had given a little more time to the script and less to the backdrop. While I was watching this movie the one thought that did come across over and over was that of Darwin theory of survival of the fittest.
I don't think this movie deserves it's low rating. I enjoyed watching it even if I found it somewhat predictable it did have an interesting ending.
That being said, I do wish that the filmmakers had given a little more time to the script and less to the backdrop. While I was watching this movie the one thought that did come across over and over was that of Darwin theory of survival of the fittest.
I don't think this movie deserves it's low rating. I enjoyed watching it even if I found it somewhat predictable it did have an interesting ending.
Not bad
dbborroughs6 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Good thriller about a couple who hire a guide to take them into the into the desert canyons only to have to all go wrong.
The less said the better, not because its bad, rather because its the sort of film that is best left to its own devices. Its also the sort of film that you've seen variations on before. Normally that would make for a dull little film but the combination of characters and location (the photography is great) make for a really good little film.I liked it. Is it perfect? No. Its probably too long, but other than that its a good little film to pas the time. This is also a film thats going to be better on DVD rather than in the theaters where one is a bit more forgiving of the flaws.
The less said the better, not because its bad, rather because its the sort of film that is best left to its own devices. Its also the sort of film that you've seen variations on before. Normally that would make for a dull little film but the combination of characters and location (the photography is great) make for a really good little film.I liked it. Is it perfect? No. Its probably too long, but other than that its a good little film to pas the time. This is also a film thats going to be better on DVD rather than in the theaters where one is a bit more forgiving of the flaws.
Nicely shot and acted; HORRIBLY, unrealistically written
tania326018 August 2010
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.
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.
Reasonably compelling Man-vs.Nature tale
Buddy-517 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Newlyweds Nick (Eion Bailey) and Lori (Yvonne Strahavski) stumble into the honeymoon-from-hell when they innocently and foolishly allow a grizzled old cowpoke to talk them into taking an unauthorized mule-trip into the heart of the Grand Canyon. When Henry (Will Patton), the guide, is bitten by a rattlesnake, the couple is left to fend for themselves in this unfamiliar and brutally hostile terrain with little or no survival skills to help get them through the experience.
Based on a number of recent movie going experiences ("127 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.
Based on a number of recent movie going experiences ("127 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.
Splendid cinematography, unrealistic plot devices.
elgordo1518 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
As a veteran of nine expeditions down the Grand Canyon I was skeptical of whether one would get the feel of what the Canyon is like in its more remote areas considering that it wasn't filmed there. I'm happy to report that with the overview shots of the actual Grand Canyon coupled with what seems to have been carefully selected non-Grand Canyon sites to shoot this movie, I completely recognized the Grand Canyon I'm so familiar with. The slot canyon the honeymooning couple explored not long after the opening scenes suggested strongly to me the slot canyon at the end of Deer Creek just before the creek plunges over Deer Creek Falls into the Colorado River and other locations reminded me of some of my other favorite Grand Canyon sites like National Canyon, Shinumo Creek (near Bass Trail) and the Silver Grotto of Shinumo Wash (not technically in the Grand Canyon proper, but upstream of it in Marble Canyon, still in GCNP). So for someone seeking a vicarious look at what the more remote parts of the Grand Canyon might look like you should appreciate this film for that.
(spoilers to follow)
That said, the only thing I can say about the plot devices is that the only people who could be portrayed making the horrendously bad decisions might be a clueless couple from a big Mid- Western city who've never been in the wild before. They are made to make serious error in judgment after another until you almost feel as though there's no way that they had ever had any hope of getting out alive from the outset. I almost felt as though the movie makers were making a caricature of clueless city dwellers caught in the wild in over their heads.
But if the bad decisions that seemed almost calculated to doom the couple weren't unrealistic enough of a plot device, the main villains of the movie were. The early days of the Grand Canyon as a park saw a program of predator elimination that resulted in an explosion of the deer population on the Kaibab Plateau that lead to a very harsh lesson in trying to control nature by artificial means as the deer population subsequently crashed. The apex predators including puma and Mexican gray wolves were all but completely eliminated from the Canyon and recent efforts to re-introduce the Mexican gray wolf have thus far not been successful. In the nine trips I've made into the canyon representing over 4 calendar months total time I've never seen or even heard the presence of wolves in any part of the canyon. Thus the lack of the presence of the animals in the Canyon makes the portrayal of a pack of vicious wolves attacking the couple very unlikely, but even less likely is the possibility that the species that might have been encountered there by some slim chance, the Mexican gray wolf, much smaller than their Canadian cousins and a rather shy animal around humans, would have chosen to mount a persistent assault on a pair of adult humans.
I rate this movie a 5, an average of the superlative effort to realistically paint an accurate picture of the splendor of the Grand Canyon I love, contrasted against the abysmally misguided plot devices that doom what story there is to enjoy about the movie. There are better venues to see the Grand Canyon for its scenery and splendor, any number of beautifully shot documentaries, some of them by the GCNP itself. And if that only whets your appetite for what there is to see, go there yourself in person, that's why we have National Parks in the first place. But if you do go, take it from me that you'd have little to worry about from the so far non-existent wolf population in the Canyon.
(spoilers to follow)
That said, the only thing I can say about the plot devices is that the only people who could be portrayed making the horrendously bad decisions might be a clueless couple from a big Mid- Western city who've never been in the wild before. They are made to make serious error in judgment after another until you almost feel as though there's no way that they had ever had any hope of getting out alive from the outset. I almost felt as though the movie makers were making a caricature of clueless city dwellers caught in the wild in over their heads.
But if the bad decisions that seemed almost calculated to doom the couple weren't unrealistic enough of a plot device, the main villains of the movie were. The early days of the Grand Canyon as a park saw a program of predator elimination that resulted in an explosion of the deer population on the Kaibab Plateau that lead to a very harsh lesson in trying to control nature by artificial means as the deer population subsequently crashed. The apex predators including puma and Mexican gray wolves were all but completely eliminated from the Canyon and recent efforts to re-introduce the Mexican gray wolf have thus far not been successful. In the nine trips I've made into the canyon representing over 4 calendar months total time I've never seen or even heard the presence of wolves in any part of the canyon. Thus the lack of the presence of the animals in the Canyon makes the portrayal of a pack of vicious wolves attacking the couple very unlikely, but even less likely is the possibility that the species that might have been encountered there by some slim chance, the Mexican gray wolf, much smaller than their Canadian cousins and a rather shy animal around humans, would have chosen to mount a persistent assault on a pair of adult humans.
I rate this movie a 5, an average of the superlative effort to realistically paint an accurate picture of the splendor of the Grand Canyon I love, contrasted against the abysmally misguided plot devices that doom what story there is to enjoy about the movie. There are better venues to see the Grand Canyon for its scenery and splendor, any number of beautifully shot documentaries, some of them by the GCNP itself. And if that only whets your appetite for what there is to see, go there yourself in person, that's why we have National Parks in the first place. But if you do go, take it from me that you'd have little to worry about from the so far non-existent wolf population in the Canyon.
Surprise
endura-113 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Well I am positively surprised how good this movie actually was. Not sure why sometimes it's branded 'horror'because it's more like dramatic thriller. I liked the story and I liked the characters who were rich and believable. For the first time 'a chick' didn't annoy me:)and there was more to her than meets the eye. The story begins when a couple of newlyweds decides to take a trip to the Grand Canyon. Their guide is a rough, heavy drinking guy, who promises them an unforgettable experience. The trip however does not go as planned. I think this film is a solid piece. Don't expect more than 140min of adventure/survival flick and you won't be disappointed. It kept me focused and interested. Well worth seeing.
It could've been good
karaokebowl5 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I just can't get past how many unrealistic things are going on in this movie. First and foremost, these people surviving in the hot desert for days with no water or food. You probably wouldn't even last a day out there with no water. Second, the woman gets attacked by wolves multiple times but somehow survives all of them with little injury. Third, who would ever go down in a freaking canyon with a drunk you met at a bar??? Lastly, a trained medic would never not give this dude CPR!! They can tell if someone is clammy or not! Seriously people!!
It could've been a really good survival movie if those things had been incorporated into it. I'm happy to see that Yvonne Strahovski has moved on to bigger and better things.
It could've been a really good survival movie if those things had been incorporated into it. I'm happy to see that Yvonne Strahovski has moved on to bigger and better things.
Great movie!
slaughlin-976252 May 2021
A little slow, but for the most part it was enjoyable. You get to know and like the characters and feel for them in this situation.
To all you know it alls who commented about this movie, please make your own and let's see if you can do better. Highly doubtful.
To everyone else I think it's worth it.
To all you know it alls who commented about this movie, please make your own and let's see if you can do better. Highly doubtful.
To everyone else I think it's worth it.
will patton
halfdleach-613808 February 2022
Dry & Desolate Canyon
FightOwensFight19 November 2009
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.
The Canyon Review
handsomebwonderfull16 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
*SPOILER WARNING BELOW THE 1ST PARAGRAPH* The one thing that usually bothers me about these types of films is the lack of reality....I try to picture myself in the situation that the protagonist is in, and I'm usually disappointed when the film sways from common sense, to sheer non-sense. This film is no different...
*****SPOILER ALERT******
Apparently this film is set in a world where the concept of C.P.R has not yet been discovered!!! I mean the guy wasn't even dead for 30 seconds before help arrived, and even the paramedics didn't try reviving him???????????????????????????????? That's a little too unrealistic for my taste...If I were in that same situation, and I had just "mercy killed" someone I was in love with(so that they weren't alive to get eaten by a pack of hungry wolves) I damn well would of done anything, and everything I could to resuscitate them like 10 seconds later when I saw a helicopter land!!!!!!!!. I understand the suffocation part so my sweet-heart is not eaten alive, but come on....as if you couldn't hear a helicopter coming for at least 30 seconds(especially in a canyon)?????? Then the Paramedics don't even try A SINGLE THING to help revive him!!!! I'm from Canada and I know our health care is a little bit better then it is in the U.S, BUT COME ON!!!
*****SPOILER ALERT******
Apparently this film is set in a world where the concept of C.P.R has not yet been discovered!!! I mean the guy wasn't even dead for 30 seconds before help arrived, and even the paramedics didn't try reviving him???????????????????????????????? That's a little too unrealistic for my taste...If I were in that same situation, and I had just "mercy killed" someone I was in love with(so that they weren't alive to get eaten by a pack of hungry wolves) I damn well would of done anything, and everything I could to resuscitate them like 10 seconds later when I saw a helicopter land!!!!!!!!. I understand the suffocation part so my sweet-heart is not eaten alive, but come on....as if you couldn't hear a helicopter coming for at least 30 seconds(especially in a canyon)?????? Then the Paramedics don't even try A SINGLE THING to help revive him!!!! I'm from Canada and I know our health care is a little bit better then it is in the U.S, BUT COME ON!!!
Good
hnsharrow23 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I was sick at home watching movies a couple months ago. The Canyon came on and was a slow start. Just as I was about to change the channel it got really good. There are no surprises throughout the movie but it is good to watch what people act like when a situation occurs. When two people who are opposite are trying to work on their relationship have to come together to find their way out of one. It's very sad and intense because of the constant drama and slow pain when someone gets hurt. It really shows that love is thicker than darkness and one person will do anything to keep a person alive and their spirits up to survive. No matter the outcome. Not a spoiler! The trailer shows what I was just talking about. However I did click the box just in case someone felt I was spoiling it. Hope you enjoy the movie.
Top Notch Survival Epic
chicagopoetry6 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In the vein of Survive (or Alive, if you saw it in the 70s like I did), The Canyon traps human beings in unforgiving terrain only to push the limits of survival. There are a couple of really shocking scenes here, one involving a rattle snake and another very disturbing one involving an amputation, but if the kids close their eyes for a few minutes there isn't anything else that would make this anything but a PG film. Some of it isn't very plausible, in fact the entire idea of the heroine suddenly becoming Grizzly Adams and fighting off wolves with her bare hands, creating a stretcher out of thin air, cauterizing a wound with a red hot knife, and keeping her beauty and sense of humor through it all, is actually pretty ridiculous if you think about it, but it doesn't matter that much: this is a disaster movie of sorts, so don't think about it. It'll keep you going, keep you interested and engaged, and from time to time it will make you cringe. But, be warned, the ending is the anti-climax of all anti-climaxes.
You'll really enjoy it...if you haven't seen the kajillion other renditions of this exact same thing
MBunge12 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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. Nature and that tale usually doesn't end well for Man.
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. Nature. 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. The standard cliché is to have the external conflict exaggerate the internal conflict, such as being stranded in the Grand Canyon making the personal difficulty between Nick and Lori more bitter and divisive at first, with the need to cooperate to survive eventually leading Nick and Lori to resolve the conflict between them.
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.
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. Nature and that tale usually doesn't end well for Man.
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. Nature. 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. The standard cliché is to have the external conflict exaggerate the internal conflict, such as being stranded in the Grand Canyon making the personal difficulty between Nick and Lori more bitter and divisive at first, with the need to cooperate to survive eventually leading Nick and Lori to resolve the conflict between them.
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.
Dumb, just...DUMB
elcoyoteloco6327 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie only a city-dweller who's never seen anything wilder than pigeons and squirrels would believe.
First, I've hiked into the Grand Canyon twice and it's by far the safest park I've ever been in. Practically the only thing there that could hurt you is your own carelessness. Most of the animals are so used to humans that they're more likely to pester you for handouts (which you shouldn't give them) than to attack you.
Second, I'm so tired of wolves and coyotes being portrayed as savage man-eaters. There's never been a documented case of a human being attacked by either in a normal encounter, i.e. the animal wasn't injured, rabid, etc. They're far too wary of humans to try it, so you'd be lucky to even see one in the wild. (If you do, just be quiet and non-threatening, and take as many photos as you can before it runs off in a panic.)
Finally, some of the scenes were NOT filmed at the GC, they were filmed at the Narrows in Utah. Which is normal for films, just do your research first if watching this movie made you want to come see the GC for yourself. Both canyons are definitely worth visiting, just be aware they're a few hundred miles apart.
First, I've hiked into the Grand Canyon twice and it's by far the safest park I've ever been in. Practically the only thing there that could hurt you is your own carelessness. Most of the animals are so used to humans that they're more likely to pester you for handouts (which you shouldn't give them) than to attack you.
Second, I'm so tired of wolves and coyotes being portrayed as savage man-eaters. There's never been a documented case of a human being attacked by either in a normal encounter, i.e. the animal wasn't injured, rabid, etc. They're far too wary of humans to try it, so you'd be lucky to even see one in the wild. (If you do, just be quiet and non-threatening, and take as many photos as you can before it runs off in a panic.)
Finally, some of the scenes were NOT filmed at the GC, they were filmed at the Narrows in Utah. Which is normal for films, just do your research first if watching this movie made you want to come see the GC for yourself. Both canyons are definitely worth visiting, just be aware they're a few hundred miles apart.
What happened to common sense
dingusbird18 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS .The scenery in this movie is excellent, I have a feeling they shot some of it in Utah though. Anyways I just had to post a review for this movie.
I can almost imagine how the screen writing went. They decide somehow the guy is going to get his leg stuck then of course there will be a following scene where the woman has to cut it off. I think after they decided on that scene they handed over the reigns to a monkey with a typewriter to make it fit. It makes no sense for them to just decide to climb a 200 foot cliff when they have no climbing gear , probably no experience (aside from 1 rock wall climb lol), and were heavily fatigued. It was a poor attempt to get from point A (they are lost in the grand canyon) to point B (he is stuck and must cut the leg off). Not to mention that any little crevice like that would be long filled in with sand.
The movie just has so many parts that aren't believable because the characters do such stupid things. The biggest part was the fact that they didn't just retrace their footsteps after the dood was bitten. Nope they had to wonder off and get lost. If you put aside the ridiculous script this movie isn't bad.
I can almost imagine how the screen writing went. They decide somehow the guy is going to get his leg stuck then of course there will be a following scene where the woman has to cut it off. I think after they decided on that scene they handed over the reigns to a monkey with a typewriter to make it fit. It makes no sense for them to just decide to climb a 200 foot cliff when they have no climbing gear , probably no experience (aside from 1 rock wall climb lol), and were heavily fatigued. It was a poor attempt to get from point A (they are lost in the grand canyon) to point B (he is stuck and must cut the leg off). Not to mention that any little crevice like that would be long filled in with sand.
The movie just has so many parts that aren't believable because the characters do such stupid things. The biggest part was the fact that they didn't just retrace their footsteps after the dood was bitten. Nope they had to wonder off and get lost. If you put aside the ridiculous script this movie isn't bad.
I'VE BEEN STRUCK BY LIGHTNING...TWICE
nogodnomasters11 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Newlyweds Nick (Eion Bailey) and Lori (Yvonne Strahovski) decide to spend their honeymoon in the Grand Canyon. They are lead by Henry (Will Patton) a colorful crusty freelance guide who becomes Nick's BFF. As the wild encases them, this turns into a survivalist tale. I thought this film was better than "Grey" with its colorful support characters and character development. If you enjoyed "Grey" or "Open Water" check this one out.
Rare f-bomb, implied sex, no nudity.
Rare f-bomb, implied sex, no nudity.
Where's the twist?
ilziite4 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Where's the twist? As I was watching the movie, I kept waiting for that little something that would make The Canyon something different from the countless 'stranded backpackers / explorers in danger' movies we've all seen. And while watching the protagonist kill her husband and the helicopter arrive, frankly - I was disappointed. There's nothing to tell about this movie. Nothing really happens in it. No personal intrigues (except for one of the couple's first fights), no true heroism, no wit from the characters.. Nothing, except for the fact that it's the Grand Canyon, that there's a pack of wolves hunting, and that the two 'survivors' are lost and looking for a phone signal. The script is everything but profound. Nothing happens. The lack of action does not make one think about anything really.
The hungry wolves is a recurrent theme. Since its beginnings (if we don't count myths and legends about wolves) with the amazing Jack London, there hasn't been a book or movie that has been able to recreate something more intriguing, something more vital. The Canyon is just a repetition of a superficial fact. It offers nothing more than the recount of a pack of wolves following two hungry and weakened humans.
Yes, the girl and the guy are lost, and yes, the girl is courageous and has the guts to cut her husband's leg off. She's strong enough to keep going and supporting him even when she knows he's not going to make it alive. She just keeps going. But the end, when she just falls apart after having attacked several wolves and killed one - is plain disappointing.
As to the director and the script author - I don't understand where they're going. The movie does not offer exceptional special effects, the story's boring and offers no insight whatsoever as to what it feels like when you're trapped in the canyon. Yes, humans are fragile, but didn't we know that already? Isn't there any better way of showing it? Isn't there a little twist to add? A little something to ponder about?
The hungry wolves is a recurrent theme. Since its beginnings (if we don't count myths and legends about wolves) with the amazing Jack London, there hasn't been a book or movie that has been able to recreate something more intriguing, something more vital. The Canyon is just a repetition of a superficial fact. It offers nothing more than the recount of a pack of wolves following two hungry and weakened humans.
Yes, the girl and the guy are lost, and yes, the girl is courageous and has the guts to cut her husband's leg off. She's strong enough to keep going and supporting him even when she knows he's not going to make it alive. She just keeps going. But the end, when she just falls apart after having attacked several wolves and killed one - is plain disappointing.
As to the director and the script author - I don't understand where they're going. The movie does not offer exceptional special effects, the story's boring and offers no insight whatsoever as to what it feels like when you're trapped in the canyon. Yes, humans are fragile, but didn't we know that already? Isn't there any better way of showing it? Isn't there a little twist to add? A little something to ponder about?
(SPOILER!!!!) The female lead was sooooo stupid!!!
miacat996620 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
okay what made me mad was her utter lack of common sense. Have wolves harassing you? build a huge circle of fire wood surrounding your camp, keep the fire burning that way you will not only deter the diabolical doggies but also provide smoke for rescuers to see. Thirsty? if they can eat the dogs then why not go ahead and drink the blood. Then towards the end I guess she is just tired of dragging him and dogs looking at her so what does she do to her beloved new husband, who when they are rescued could lead a normal life with what there able to do with prosthetics these days...smothers him for no apparent reason just as a helicopter is in the distance. Also the stupidity of climbing a precarious cliff and leaning way out holding a shaky rock on the most narrow ledge of the climb not even halfway up to wave your cell phone around is begging for disaster. I thought this may be a decent survivalst movie, but your much better off watching man vs. wild episodes.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
