“Charlie St. Cloud” would be the love child of a Nicholas Sparks novel and an M. Night Shyamalan film, were such a thing possible. It’s on the one hand a relentlessly sentimental tearjerker and on the other hand a supernatural mystery, with a throwaway plot twist added for good measure. To say this film is awful would be harsh. Still, it certainly doesn’t aspire to be anything more than what it so obviously is, so seeing this movie really isn’t necessary – unless, of course, you’re a tweenybopper hoping to lose yourself in the dreamy recesses of Zac Efron’s eyes. That may, in fact, be the only reason he was cast, since the role is so generic that any actor could have played it to more or less the same effect. I suppose it doesn’t really matter; his performance is decent enough, and I’m sure he will someday be recognized as the dramatic actor he always wanted to be.
 
Adapted from Ben Sherwood’s novel “The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud,” the premise is that the title character, played by Efron, gains the ability to see ghosts after surviving a car accident. One of the ghosts is his kid brother, Sam (Charlie Tahan), who unfortunately was in the car when it crashed. Every day at sunset, the two meet in a secluded spot in the woods to play catch, since, in life, Sam was a devoted Baseball fan. It’s a nice idea, although the filmmakers never take full advantage of Charlie’s sixth sense, not even after he gives up on college and yacht racing, stays in his seaside hometown, and becomes a cemetery groundskeeper. The details of the plot prevent me from elaborating on this, but rest assured, he doesn’t see anywhere near as many dead people as you might think.
 
Despite his reputation as a nutcase (which is itself painfully underdeveloped), Charlie attracts the attention of local yacht enthusiast Tess Carroll (Amanda Crew), who hopes to sail around the world and tests herself by heading into rough, stormy waters. As their relationship turns romantic, Sam – or rather, his ghost – begins to worry that he will be forgotten. Tess, in turn, tells Charlie that, at some point, he has to let go. He can’t let go, he tells Tess. He made Sam a promise. This, of course, will be challenged in due time, although I’m afraid I can’t say any more than that.

I’m making this sound like a complete film, but the truth is that everything about “Charlie St. Cloud” feels oddly condensed and unfocused. It’s well established, for example, that Charlie can speak to Sam’s ghost, but that’s about it as far as character development is concerned. Never once do we see anything resembling brotherly love – anything, at least, that goes beyond the obvious spectacle of a young man and a boy playing catch in the woods. Likewise, we don’t see any real love blooming between Charlie and Tess, maybe because (1) it happens far too quickly for us to believe it, and (2) we don’t know that much about either one of them. For all I know, this may be more an issue of editing than of how the screenplay was written. Whatever the case, the film is so sparse that, even when it leads to something thematically, characteristically, or structurally, there’s no sense that anything has led anywhere.
 
Other touches, like Charlie’s encounter with the paramedic who saved his life (Ray Liotta), do little more than serve as an excuse for sermonizing. I don’t mind being sermonized to, but the message involved has to have some thematic significance. What this movie tells us about life, living, and letting go is ultimately so broad and disconnected from the material that it fails to resonate. It’s bad enough that the paramedic just happens to be sick with cancer upon reuniting with Charlie; this isn’t plot advancement, but emotional manipulation, and that never, ever works when presented so obviously. At least, it never, ever works for me. This is the kind of overwrought storytelling that keeps me at a distance from Nicholas Sparks film adaptations. It seems he has had quite an influence. Will no one learn from his mistakes?
 
I will give this movie credit for its cinematography, with wonderful shots of picturesque harbors, open waters, and quaint shacks filling the scenery. A sequence of Efron and Crew frolicking through a foggy, moonlit cemetery is especially memorable; what would normally be associated with the Universal horror movies of old is instead a surprisingly effective example of high romance, if not mild eroticism. The film looks so good that it’s a shame more of an effort wasn’t put into the plot, the tone, and the characters. “Charlie St. Cloud,” despite having its heart in the right place, is too sappy, too meandering, and too weak in its story. The only real draw this movie has for audiences is Zac Efron, although it may be a moot point since he’s actively trying to outgrow his teen heartthrob status.

- Chris Pandolfi

More Recent Reviews:

Chronicle (2012)

Innkeepers, The (2012)

Kill List (2012)

Woman in Black, The (2012)

Man on a Ledge (2012)

 

  Recommendations: