serafinogm
On a personal level take heart your troubles, even your triumphs are transitory and eventually of no import for you (however how you live your life does and will affect others)! That's the whole point of this movie and yet I failed to learn it's lesson and am continually stuck in the moment beset with regrets from the past and fears for the future and I know I'm playing a game that is fixed but more importantly temporary, yet I'm incapable of rising above the fray and see it for what it is, an accident! Because of my inability to separate my life and my reactions to life from this absurd game I make one mistake after another! Salman Rushdie said something very profound that sums up this movie beautifully (at least for me): "I am the sum total of everything that went before me, of all I have been seen done, of everything done-to-me. I am everyone everything whose being-in-the-world affected was affected by mine. I am anything that happens after I'm gone which would not have happened if I had not come." Salman you nailed it! By the way the movie is well worth a watch! I was very emotional whereas others I've talked with couldn't have cared less! Perspective based on life experience I suppose! There's a comment from another movie (Gladiator) that in this context seems rather cogent and it is the following: "What we do in life echos in eternity" (The law of conservation of energy?)! What an amazing quote! By the way the cast gave great performances save perhaps Steve Martin whose performance seemed, at times, stilted or perhaps more correctly not genuine! Therefore I couldn't rate this wonderful film 10 stars.
pc95
Lawrence Kasdan's "Grand Canyon" runs a fairly long feeling 129 min before the credits begin to roll. It reminded me of a Robert Altman Lite format of a movie, but instead with themes of race, parenting, and relationships. Kevin Kline and Mary Mcdonnell command the most screen time and are more-or-less the center characters for the movie. They both do a good job with Kline his usual inquisitive self and she on the verge of break-down in several scenes. (spoiler) By far the worst character in the movie is of Steve Martin's rich "film director" who is implausibly shot and is mockishly 80s materialistic. He should not have been in the movie. Another thin character is given a side-show status played by Mary-Louise Parker supposedly having an affair. The writing and thus the tepidness of the affair is measly and a distraction. "Grand Canyon" is exploratory and almost philosophical at times in it's dialog especially with Kline, but characters emotions seem detached and aloof on the whole. You'd think for a movie about life, there would be more real living. Doesn't quite hit the mark but has some interesting dialog and scenes - definitely feels 90sish.
tieman64
Lawrence Kasdan directs "Grand Canyon", a sprawling ensemble piece which recalls such films as "Magnolia", "Crash", "Short Cuts" and "City of Hope". With the exception of "Short Cuts", these films tend to be very contrived, filled with strained connections and spending much of their time making laboured points about fate, fragility, coincidence and the interconnectedness of life.Though better written than its imitators, "Grand Canyon" does the same thing. Set in Los Angeles, the film glides gracefully across a set of characters, all of whom share common experiences despite their different economic strata, ages and racial backgrounds. Though at times unfocused, the film is ambitious and contains a number of well written sequences, including one in which actor Kevin Kline describes the moment a stranger saved his life. Another scene, in which a father and son share a driving lesson, is particularly beautiful. It points to life's precariousness, the way every mundane activity carries with it both risk and bravery, as well as the infinite number of little "miracles" which occur everyday.On another level, "Canyon" is a "white, middle-class, suburban disaffection movie" in the vein of "American Beauty", "The Ice Storm", "Safe", "Far From Heaven" and "Happiness", most of which were released in the mid 90s. "Canyon", however, predates them all, and is resolutely upbeat. Where those films tend to end in violence, disillusionment and disaffection "Canyon" ends on a note of almost naive optimism. And while most of these films focus on a white, middle class, "Canyon" jumps from the staggeringly rich, to the middle class, to ghetto-trapped African Americans. Another distinction is Kasadan's direction itself, which isn't afraid to drop into surreal territory. The film includes several extended dream sequences, one of which recalls the Coens' "Big Lebowski", another LA flick."Canyon" indulges in two recurring metaphors or motifs, that of "The Grand Canyon" and that of permanently patrolling helicopters, the latter resembling the "med fly" aircraft of Altman's "Short Cuts". Kasdan's point: man is utterly inconsequential when stacked up against a universe that is simultaneously vast, beautiful, horrific, malevolent and seemingly time-less. Elsewhere Kasdam's patrol helicopters offer a mixed sense of guilt, danger and perhaps cosy communal safety, the world presumed dangerous, but rendered navigable alongside the watchful eyes, or even miracles, of others."Canyon" isn't as good as "Short Cuts", but it is better than all the other "ensemble movies" and "disaffection dramas" that came later. In terms of flaws, all of Kasdan's characters speak the same, regardless of their economic standing. The film is also at times very heavy handed, condescending and has that typically overproduced look of early 90s Hollywood.7.9/10 – There are a number of great scenes here, but the film can't sustain these highs. Worth one viewing.
Gunn
This film is truly a Masterpiece in every sense of the word. Although it is filled with metaphors, the film itself is a metaphor for 20th century life in urban America. It has scary scenes, beautiful scenes, heartwarming scenes and even some funny scenes. The cast is brilliant and the cinematography, set direction, direction and especially writing are superb. How this film slipped by audiences and high praise is beyond me. It could be that the title, which is a metaphor, confused people. That happened with the Shawshank Redemption which was discovered on DVD years after it hit the screens for about a week. I'm beginning to think that titles are equally as important as media promotion of a film. I am purposely, here, avoiding a plot synopsis in order to allow possible viewers the gift of enjoying the surprises of/in this film. It is a treasure and if you do not enjoy and understand it, I feel bad for you. And, if you have seen it before, I highly recommend seeing it again and again and again....
