| “You’re late. I thought we had a deal?” – Sam St. Cloud (Charlie Tahan).
The tag line reads…”Life Is For Living” and Charlie St. Cloud is trying hard – real hard. He lives on site at a cemetery, working as its caretaker. He works mostly alone, keeps to himself, and has the occasional quipfest with his friend and co-worker, Alistair. Charlie also maintains a daily one-hour game of catch with his younger brother, Sam, in a forest clearing. Every day Charlie is there, and every day Sam is ready – glove in hand, ball in the other, ready to take grounders and tossed pop-ups. What Charlie tends to ignore or forget is that Sam is a ghost – dead from a tragic car accident when Sam was 11. Nevertheless, Charlie and Sam have a pact that neither of them will ever be late for their game of catch and Charlie has seemingly resigned himself to this life, day in and day out.
So why does he do it? Guilt? Delusions? The hope that somehow Sam will come back from the grave? Well, one of the biggest problems with “Charlie St. Cloud” is we never really know. In the title role, Zac Efron plays Charlie, an amiable, loving brother, who after winning a sailing regatta with his brother, earns a full ride sailing scholarship to Stanford University. One night, when the boys’ single mother (Kim Basinger) takes a double shift, Sam catches Charlie sneaking out for a high school graduation party. Sam asks Charlie to take him over to a friend’s house and on the way, tragedy strikes and Sam is killed in the aforementioned accident.
As you can see from the premise and set up, there is a lot of exposition to “Charlie St. Cloud” and for a few minutes, the film has promise. Efron and his young co-star, Charlie Tahan (as Sam), develop believable chemistry and the film has some affecting power when the tragedy strikes. And then the good film becomes a Zac Efron love fest, because going forward from the tragic events of the story, we observe every nod, wink, smile, wince, cheek quiver, tear, muscle movement, and emotion Efron can muster up close and tightly framed.
That Efron’s close ups derail “Charlie St. Cloud” is perhaps unfair. Certainly, he cannot be blamed for the way Burr Steers (17 Again, Igby Goes Down) directs the camera. Realistically, I really have no idea what type of movie “Charlie St. Cloud” wants to be. Steers seems to be unsure himself. Are we dealing with a family-oriented drama, a kids film with intensity, a supernatural thriller, or some hybrid romantic/paranormal/TV-Movie-Of-The-Week? Haphazardly presented post-accident, Efron gives a good effort here and “St. Cloud”‘s failures are hardly his fault.
Although the more I think about it…
Charlie has endured a tremendous loss, an event which occurred while his brother was in his control. He grieves, often at the cemetery where his brother is buried. He has virtually no relationship with his father, trusts no one, rarely speaks to his mother since the accident, seems to have an ability to see certain people that have died and lest we forget, he plays catch with his 11-year old dead brother. That sounds like one helluva movie with limitless opportunity for motivations, soul-searching, and well-written emotional drama.
Look at what’s here to explore. How do we grieve at the loss of someone who died at our hand? How do we let go and yet preserve our memories of those who have passed on? Isolated, shamed, and in pain, how do you ever move past such an event and restore yourself to something close to whole again? How do you simply stop blaming yourself? Well, I wish Burr Steers had a script that had the courage to tackle even one of those questions. But no, instead we get Charlie throwing back sips (sips!) of Jack Daniels and stewing at his kitchen table. Riveting.
After seeing the film, my wife and I read a spoiler-filled review of the acclaimed Ben Sherwood novel, which served as the source material. Frankly, I want that movie. Without reading the novel, I can assure you that there are countless changes implemented in this Craig Pearce and Lewis Golick adaptation which seem to soften and polish up some of the character depth and darkness conveyed in the novel. Rare is the film that I wish was darker and plunged deeper into harsher and more disturbing territory, but “Charlie St. Cloud” is certainly one of those few.
Charlie does develop a love interest, Tess, played admirably by Canadian actress Amanda Crew. Crew and Efron work well together but again have their connection and chemistry bogged down by poor decision-making in the direction of the piece. When a twist hits in the middle of the film, we should be surprised and gasping, but…I’m sorry…he has such blue eyes, and cries real tears, and those arms and that chest…
All in all, “Charlie St. Cloud” the film, and the character, deserved better. Zac Efron deserved better. If ever a film desperately needed more edge, more grit, and more ugly, then we have found it. A couple of good performances cannot save what might have been here. But then again, if a shirtless, romantic, crying Zac Efron is all you want for a couple of hours, Burr Steers has delivered the year’s most rewarding film.
Yet, with the effort expended, I bet deep down inside Efron wishes the film were less the 109-minute teen fan magazine honoring his body and appearance and something more relevant, important, and topical. Then again, those eyes are so…so…blue… |
|
YES
In his first real move away from light comedy and Disney musicals, Zac Efron shows he is a pretty capable actor, adept at playing an emotionally troubled character.
Efron fans, if you are one of them, are going to probably love this. Zac is in virtually every scene and Burr Steers and the lighting director and the cinematographer and probably the screenwriters love putting him on screen.
The interesting premise, while squandered away, makes for some interesting thought and debate. Even with the film’s major problems, I am intrigued to check out the source material; namely, the Ben Sherwood novel.
For the third time, those eyes are really blue! |
NO
What is it you want with this? The film is so saddled with message and sappiness that twists and turns become meaningless and there is little to no emotional connection. The film just sits there and fails to really mean anything. Unless you just want to stare at Zac Efron.
I am going to go out on a limb and say that those who read and loved the Sherwood novel will scream “No” audibly at various times during this film.
There is so much crying and tears shed that I began to laugh in sad portions of the film. Probably something you will do as well.
Why this film doesn’t take more chances – any chances – is beyond me. Everything is too safe and too carefully crafted, almost as if to not offend anyone. |