It might have been breathtaking had the entire film's emotional core not rested on that allegory; the Grand Canyon as both decidedly American landmark and a 'gulf' in social classes. I found it laughably obvious.

It, like many films of its kind, is too hasty in showing these social problems, but woefully naive in solving them. I don't think Kasdan would argue too much if I said that it's an idealised solution at the end of the film, using family as a means of reconciliation and bringing together generations and race.

It's open to the worst of clichés, but is probably aware of that (hopefully). Of course, we have the "magical black man" who is used only as a means of bringing the white man to redemption - The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption being others. And we get Steve Martin, the stereotypical movie producer who wants a money shot of brains on a window one minute, gets shot and pisses his pants in another, and then sees the light, giving us a preachy lesson in what is acceptable and true to life in films, and what isn't... I was pleased his character changed back on itself again.

The acting was fine, I had no problems with it. But as one of those multi-character LA dramas, what makes it stand out, for you guys? Everything which you would expect to happen in it does, but nothing which you don't expect to happen in it does. That's a sign of an ordinary film, for me.