It's one of those cheap movies that they make by getting two well known people (not necessarily stars anymore), two take a week out of their "busy" schedule to make a quick film.The story in the film is pretty decent about an expedition to find another exception gone missing in an attempt to find a treasure of a long lost civilization that worships a CGI monster like a God.I also like Micheal Shanks performance as a snobbish archaeologist on the expedition for a personal agenda. It also has a great set of interesting characters played out by some good actors, including the other name in the movie Shannen Doherty.It's one of those things that when it repeats on Syfy, you'll catch it and you'll like it, but it's not worth going out of your way to see.

In case you ever wonder if Canadian content laws for television are a good thing or not, a look at "The Lost Treasure of the Grand Canyon" should give you a really big clue. Although officially made for the American Sci- Fi Network, Canadian movies like this are also used to be played endlessly on Canadian networks simply because there's nothing better available. To call this movie cheap would be a complement. Although filmed in semi- desert areas of British Columbia, it still looks NOTHING like the Grand Canyon in the United States. The rest of the look of the movie is even more tacky, with minimal (and cheap-looking) props, sets, and CGI effects. But the worst thing about the movie is its tone. It's utterly joyless, lacking awe when we should be amazed, instead giving off a depressing feel for the majority of the running time. Nobody connected with this movie seems to be trying, so you shouldn't be trying to track down the movie on TV or in your local video store.

...not about the CGI or the budget. I can deal with those. I'm no expert, but they seemed acceptable to me. I figure SciFi channel movies are basically 2 hour episodes of the Outer Limits - story telling with a limited budget, usually done on 2 sets with a total of 10 people.Michael Shanks' character is ridiculous, and the archaeologist character is total type-casting, but I can deal with that.And its kind of ridiculous that *SPOILER* the critter explodes at the end. *SPOILER* But I can deal with that too.My questions are...Why is the sun never shining in the shots of the desert & the Grand Canyon? It looks like a foggy day in San Francisco. In reality that are is 100 plus degrees and blisteringly bright most days. Is it so expensive to send one camera guy to film some wide shots in the actual southwest for a few days? The plane fare from Vancouver or LA can't be more than a few hundred dollars.Who wrote this atrocious dialogue? It feels like a first draft.Who determined the accents the actors would use? They seem pretty random, and change from scene to scene. At least be consistently Canadian or Boston blue-blood or Californian.It seems like even if the filmmakers don't have a lot of cash for production they could still have a solid story. I imagine writing is the cheapest part of the entire process.

The story line is pretty basic. Nineteenth century archeologists seeking lost treasure find bad things instead. There are few stupidities perpetrated by the script/cast save perhaps those of Dunbar and friend (comic relief?), and Dr. Langford (well played by JR Borne) who is somewhere between evil and uncaring, and the self-serving bitch Hildy, nicely performed by Ms. Doerksen. Hildy's fate is cleverly left indeterminate. One hopes she wound up as the willing sex slave of an Aztec warrior, rather than as a meal. There are ample heroics by the good guys, Jacob Thain (Michael Shanks) and Dr. Jordan (the venerable Duncan Fraser). There is also a surfeit of evil (well, badness maybe) from the natives and from the monster (Quetzalcoatl – who never looked like this), poor CGI though it is. The still toothsome Shannen Doherty, though not the stone fox of her "Charmed" youth, does well with what little she is given by the script writers. Her role coulda/shoulda been much stronger. Speaking of writers, 20th century idioms, such as "hang in there" and "take him out", seem quite out of place in 19th century dialogue. And the human sacrifice scenes are thoroughly disheartening.