*1/2 out of (****)
Charlie St. Cloud, the film that bombed critically and financially, had to at least target a specific demographic, which typically consists of teeny boppers. Unfortunately, one of my guy friends had highly anticipated the film, so since nothing else that peeked my interest was playing, I decided to give the film a try. I literally had zero expectations. I didn't know whether to expect this great cinematic extravaganza or one of the most filthy, syrupy romances in cinematic history. Fortunately, Charlie St. Cloud isn't the latter, but alas, it's neither the former. My review is simply non-bias because I am not a Zac Efron hardcore worshiper yet I don't loathe the guy either. Basically, Charlie St. Cloud is a syrupy, melodramatic piece of filmmaking. The plot is rather bitter and cliché, the performances are pretty much standard, and the picture offers nothing new in terms of originality or entertainment. I'd go as far as saying that this was a pretty terrible film. If one must have their thirst quenched, a rental is the most sufficient.
Charlie St. Cloud revolves around the namesake character who shares a strong bond with his brother Sam Cloud. Unfortunately, Charlie and his brother get into a severe car accident. Alas, Charlie's brother passes away in the unusual car incident and now Charlie has to cope with the death of a brother. Strangely, Charlie starts hallucinating his brother after the tragic situation. Albeit, is Sam really alive or just an image in Charlie's mind? Meanwhile, Charlie starts to go head over heals with this woman sailor. However, will Charlie's relationship deteriorate the wall Charlie built for his bondage with his brother?
First off, the plot is simply contrived and paint-by-numbers. The script is somewhat identical to Shyamalan's film "The Sixth Sense" because of the picture's last thirty minutes. Moreover, the whole "girlfriend-interfering-with-friendship" situation has been done to death. Furthermore, the relationship portrayed in the film is as formulaic and disposable as the viewer has been witnessed to countless times before. Additionally, the acting is nothing to write home about. Zac Efron gives a decent performance and Amanda Crew gives a passable performance as well. To top it off, the pacing of this film is uninteresting. There were moments that seemed so tedious that switching theater chairs would have been a more preferable choice instead. Also, the film is painfully anti-climactic and melodramatic. I get that this film is suppose to be depressing, but the film milked its tear-jerking moments and even those, felt so predictable and dry, that it comes off as a gimmick rather than tragic.
While the cons outweigh the pros, there are still some nifty things about the film. For starters, the cinematography is just eye-popping and simply gorgeous. Furthermore, the bondage between the two brothers is the only thing that caught my attention. To add to that, the film's opening twenty minutes or so were actually pretty intriguing and not too bad.
Overall, it's highly improbable that Charlie St. Cloud will walk home with a Razzie, although it certainly won't walk home with my money again. The film could have been passable entertainment but it's another paint-by-numbers flick that rather than coming off sincere and touching, it sadly, comes off as gimmicky and a quick buck. I'm surprised this film was on the radar for green lighting. This type of film has Lifetime written all over it. Let me put it to you this way: Charlie St. Cloud is like that dopey Hallmark "get well" card which contents are so dry delivering that it's like beating a dead horse. Okay, maybe my criticism is a tad preposterous, but I just want to get the message across that this is another cliché Hollywood film. Here's a little game for all my fellow readers. If you had a nickel for every time I made my 3rd last sentence of the review, could you make your own movie?
Charlie St. Cloud, the film that bombed critically and financially, had to at least target a specific demographic, which typically consists of teeny boppers. Unfortunately, one of my guy friends had highly anticipated the film, so since nothing else that peeked my interest was playing, I decided to give the film a try. I literally had zero expectations. I didn't know whether to expect this great cinematic extravaganza or one of the most filthy, syrupy romances in cinematic history. Fortunately, Charlie St. Cloud isn't the latter, but alas, it's neither the former. My review is simply non-bias because I am not a Zac Efron hardcore worshiper yet I don't loathe the guy either. Basically, Charlie St. Cloud is a syrupy, melodramatic piece of filmmaking. The plot is rather bitter and cliché, the performances are pretty much standard, and the picture offers nothing new in terms of originality or entertainment. I'd go as far as saying that this was a pretty terrible film. If one must have their thirst quenched, a rental is the most sufficient.
Charlie St. Cloud revolves around the namesake character who shares a strong bond with his brother Sam Cloud. Unfortunately, Charlie and his brother get into a severe car accident. Alas, Charlie's brother passes away in the unusual car incident and now Charlie has to cope with the death of a brother. Strangely, Charlie starts hallucinating his brother after the tragic situation. Albeit, is Sam really alive or just an image in Charlie's mind? Meanwhile, Charlie starts to go head over heals with this woman sailor. However, will Charlie's relationship deteriorate the wall Charlie built for his bondage with his brother?
First off, the plot is simply contrived and paint-by-numbers. The script is somewhat identical to Shyamalan's film "The Sixth Sense" because of the picture's last thirty minutes. Moreover, the whole "girlfriend-interfering-with-friendship" situation has been done to death. Furthermore, the relationship portrayed in the film is as formulaic and disposable as the viewer has been witnessed to countless times before. Additionally, the acting is nothing to write home about. Zac Efron gives a decent performance and Amanda Crew gives a passable performance as well. To top it off, the pacing of this film is uninteresting. There were moments that seemed so tedious that switching theater chairs would have been a more preferable choice instead. Also, the film is painfully anti-climactic and melodramatic. I get that this film is suppose to be depressing, but the film milked its tear-jerking moments and even those, felt so predictable and dry, that it comes off as a gimmick rather than tragic.
While the cons outweigh the pros, there are still some nifty things about the film. For starters, the cinematography is just eye-popping and simply gorgeous. Furthermore, the bondage between the two brothers is the only thing that caught my attention. To add to that, the film's opening twenty minutes or so were actually pretty intriguing and not too bad.
Overall, it's highly improbable that Charlie St. Cloud will walk home with a Razzie, although it certainly won't walk home with my money again. The film could have been passable entertainment but it's another paint-by-numbers flick that rather than coming off sincere and touching, it sadly, comes off as gimmicky and a quick buck. I'm surprised this film was on the radar for green lighting. This type of film has Lifetime written all over it. Let me put it to you this way: Charlie St. Cloud is like that dopey Hallmark "get well" card which contents are so dry delivering that it's like beating a dead horse. Okay, maybe my criticism is a tad preposterous, but I just want to get the message across that this is another cliché Hollywood film. Here's a little game for all my fellow readers. If you had a nickel for every time I made my 3rd last sentence of the review, could you make your own movie?