A NEW LOW FOR LOHAN

Is this really news? Is this really a surprise?

We've seen Lindsay Lohan naked before. We've seen her in bad movies before.

Now factor in piracy. Lindsay's movie was on KICKASS and other torrents as soon as it was in theaters. Not the case with Woody Allen's new movie, for example.

Now factor in what piracy has done...it's forced budgets to new lows. But it's rare when a low budget movie has quality directing, script, acting or even lighting. Probably half the budget went to Lohan's fee, and to the other "big" names; has-been hack screenwriter Brett Easton Ellis and has-been hack director Paul Schrader.

How long did it take to make this movie? A weekend? The production meeting could not have lasted more than a minute:

"Quick...let's make a film while Lindsay's still in the news, and is momentarily sober because she needs the money! Surely the Kardashians can move over on premiere night and let us have some publicity!"

Uh, no. The Kardashians, Amanda Bynes, Lady Gaga and the other suspects didn't cooperate. It didn't help that Lindsay's last movie, a made-for-TV fiasco about Liz Taylor and Richard Burton, wasn't "so bad it's good," and failed on the very easy task of at least having Lindsay look like Taylor (talking or carrying herself like Taylor being too much to ask at this stage of her career).

The Lohan Ranger flops again. Even big budget movies are flopping (Johnny Depp's ridiculous "Lone Ranger"). Why? We've seen it before. We're no longer in the habit of going to smelly, expensive movie theaters. We get amusement FREE.

Ageism has tossed out experienced producers, directors and writers. Disney-Pixar uses up most of the decent ones left. Old hacks working on deadlines and tight budgets (Here, Ellis and Schrader) can't get the job done. Most new films, especially chick-flicks and stupid "sitcom" movies with Sandler or 20-something slackers, are the work of 20-something amateurs who only know how to copy from bad 80's and 90's movies they saw...having refused to attend Film 101 when they were screening anything in black and white. Let's remember that Lohan's last good movie was nearly TEN years ago, and scripted by Tina Fey, who put in many years on "Saturday Night Love" honing her writing skills. That helped make "Mean Girls" one of the better films of 2004.

Woody Allen makes very low budget movies, but a) not as rock bottom low as "The Canyons," which is almost at YouTube level, and b) his skills as a writer and director, and his ability to get the most out of top stars means his movies always have some spark that will bring a reasonable amount of people into an art house for a month.

How interesting that tabloid publicity, lurid headlines, nudity and the use of a porn star ("actor" James Deen, fresh from a "scandal" over actress-wannabe Farrah Abraham) failed to bring in bucks because of piracy and a profound apathy from a public that does not like to spend money on entertainment.

Me? I've always felt badly for Lohan, because she had some looks and some talent. I don't consider her in the same category as Kim Kardashian or Amanda Bynes. But who the fuck cares at this point?? I downloaded "The Canyons" last week. Didn't even bother to watch it. Not even the nude scenes. So when it comes to piracy and profound apathy, I do know what I'm talking about!