Wie durch ein Wunder

I like movies that are exactly as they claim to be. "Charlie St. Cloud" is just that, a romantic drama, nothing more and nothing less.

There is nothing profound, although with a few thoughtful dynamics, it's just the story of a young man (Zac Efron) unable to overcome the tragic death of his younger brother until he meets a beautiful girl who shares his same passion for sailing.

The problems are plentiful, with cringe-worthy dialogue, supporting actors who haven't yet learned how to act, no affecting drama producing few tears, and there just isn't enough to completely hold your attention. But yet, because it's a simple love story that doesn't pretend to be grandiose and doesn't force out-of-place tears, I liked "Charlie St. Cloud". I found it to be sweet, subdued and modest.

It was also the perfect choice for Zac Efron as he matures in his acting career. Sure, there are probably a few too many shots of Efron standing in his jeans and t-shirts staring into the sunset with his longing, blue eyes, but that is, of course, partly why we would watch it in the first place.

Charlie is a very good looking movie, it's got style, production values, promising performances, a fairly convincing story- line (if a little odd) and a good score - although I thought Charlie, who was supposed to adore his little brother, could have appeared a little less of a bully toward him (modern 'clowning' around I suppose). Otherwise, the relationship was OK. We don't find out too much about what happened to their father and the mother (Kim Basinger) for some unexplained reason goes away early in the story, never to return. She was obviously just a star turn. The movie overall has an otherworldly, haunted feel to it and leaves us wondering if Charlie's grief has left him hallucinating or that he actually can see ghosts? It gets a bit cloying and maybe heads off-track when he sees the 'ghost' of a girlfriend who may, or may not, actually be dead.

Anyone liking Ghost-type stories with youth oriented themes should be happy with the outcome but it might not always be pleasing for many others.

I have to admit, that I never gave much thought of the phenomenon that was surrounding Zac Efron. The ladies seemed to love him and no one could have blamed him, if he just kept making the simple romantic movies, that would please his fan base.

He seems to have other things on his mind though. He is trying to act. And I have to admit, that I was surprised at how engaging and how truthful he seemed in this one. I do think he is better than the High School Musical tag he has stamped on him (which would mean, he is a bad actor, which frankly I don't think could be said of him).

His character does get a lot of attention from the female characters on display here, which seems natural. On the other hand, you do have the female lead in here, that does not seem to get any attention whatsoever, which makes you wonder if the male "population" in the movie is blind or into other things. Whatever it is, this is one of the things that do not feel right. The other being the mixture between the elements on display here. Let me just tell you, that this isn't neither your simple romantic movie, nor just pure drama. There is other aspects to it. I can see though that this might ruin the movie for quite a few people. Especially if they expected something more straight-forward.

Charlie St Cloud is the type of movie many people will love to hate. The plot is simply contrived and the script is somewhat identical to Shyamalan's film "The Sixth Sense" yet I was very much moved by the story of Charlie St. Cloud and by Zac Efron in the title role. It looks like Zac is going out of his way to shred that teenage 'High School Musical' image that he is now known for.

When we first meet Efron in the title role he looks to be a young man with a bright future. A scholarship to Stanford awaits as he graduates high school from his New England coastal town where he enjoys sailing with his younger brother Charlie Tahan. The two share some heart warming chemistry as brothers, those who have younger siblings will understand the brotherly love between the two.

However, a cruel trick of fate puts the two of them in the path of an oncoming drunk driver. Both die, but a determined, spiritual paramedic played by Ray Liotta manages to bring Efron back.

As per an agreement they made minutes before the crash, Zac and Charlie still meet in the woods every day to play catch and work on Charlie's baseball skills. It's all Efron lives for. By some trick of fate he can communicate and see his deceased brother. Efron's forgotten Stanford and he now works at the local graveyard, to be close Charlie so that He can fulfil the promise he made.

I won't go into it too much except that the climax is something that we have seen before yet it is still touching and shows that we must learn that the true value of life is to live and let live.

I came out of the cinema feeling good and that is what the film is all about- loving life. My only criticism is that Liotta and Kim Basinger(as the mother) don't have enough screen time, although i must say that Liotta still manages to impress even with this small supporting role. Zac Efron and Charlie Tahan deliver strong performances as the two brothers and Amanda Crew is pretty decent. The film is beautifully shot and the scenery is quite breathtaking at times.

We've seen quite a few romantic dramas this year(Dear John, The Last Song)- but this has to be one of the most touching(not the most original i must say) but still, it'll make you feel good inside. So my advice is go watch the movie or rent it when it comes out on DVD and don't believe those critics who's job it is to tell us how bad the movie must be just because it didn't earn $100 million at the box office.

I enjoyed this movie, for what it tries to do. It's not trying to be an art-house Oscar-bait film. It's basically a story about a good man who loses himself to grief and how he recovers. The core message of letting go and moving on is a good one.

It's not a dumb, roll-your-eyes movie and it's not too clever. It sails the line between those two extremes, but manages to do so without being bland. There's a lot to enjoy here: Efron's excellent performance, Tahan's charm and chemistry with Efron, and Crew's solidity. Prew also has his moments, and although nobody manages to steal any scenes from Efron, they were all believable. I wish we could have seen a lot more of Basinger and Liotta, though, and Logue's relative lack of prettiness was actually a kind of relief.

Although the characters are clean, they still do foolish things, loose their tempers, and make poor choices about how to spend their lives. Personally, I'm not as moved by stories where the main character is a self-absorbed, self-destructive jerk who--no surprise--brings pain on him/herself and others and succumbs to the usual pitfalls: alcohol/drugs, meaningless sex, or general idiotic acting out. That might have made the movie "cooler" or made Efron seem edgier, but the story and character wouldn't have been as resonant for me. I can root for and identify with characters who are trying to do their best, to do the right thing, but it still leads them quite naturally into struggling with personal demons.

There's not much logic or explanation for Charlie's ability to interact with the dead physically. It's the conceit of the film and the whole plot falls apart without it, so if you're going to enjoy the story at all, you have to suspend that bit of disbelief. On the level of pushing emotional buttons, this film hits them pretty hard: everything from raw attraction (a nearly constant undertone) to outright laughing (I loved the running gag with the geese) to embarrassment (one scene shows how even someone as good-looking as Efron can fall completely flat on his face in an awkward blind-date situation) to aching from a sense of loss and separation and loneliness. I never actually got close to crying, but I certainly felt tugged (although more so with the Charlie/Sam relationship than with the Charlie/Tess relationship) more than once.

Clearly the main draw of this film is Efron. If you're going for Efron eye candy you'll get it in spades, but happily (despite the many reviews that sneer to the contrary), he actually spends most of the movie with his shirt on, so you have some hope of focusing on his face. Of course, easily a quarter of the scenes where he's got his shirt on, he's wet for one reason or another, so it doesn't actually help much. And even if you do manage to focus on his face, you again have to get past the "Damn, he's pretty!" reaction and focus on whatever emotions the character has. Happily, once you've invested that much effort, you find yourself caring about Charlie and responding to those emotions. The story is compelling because of Efron's acting, precisely because once you get past the pretty, there really is something there. When he finally does get around to taking off his shirt, it's not without reason, so at least you're not left laughing like you are with most of the embarrassing shirtless moments in the Twilight series.

Let me reiterate the part about the eye candy. There's lots of it. And not just the actors, but the indoor locations, the lighting, the framing, the ocean, the sailboats, the shoreline, even the sculptures in the graveyard. There's a gorgeous sculpture of a desolate angel crying on a gravestone near the end of the film. (Although there's a strange moment in the middle of the movie when the camera focuses on a child-angel gravestone for a little too long and you suddenly wonder if the movie is going to turn into a horror flick with the child-angel coming to life and terrorizing the townspeople. But the sensation passes, and you realize how clean the story is. Despite the fact that the main character talks to dead people, there's never a creepy sense of foreboding. It might have been more interesting if they'd taken it in that direction.) Perhaps the plot is a little bit predictable and the surprise twist isn't a huge surprise, but it does hit Charlie's character hard, and Efron and Crew make it work.

I gave it an 8 out of 10, because it mostly succeeds at what it tries to do. One interesting thing about it is that it tends to defy easy categorization. Is it a romance? A comedy? A tragedy? A star vehicle? A story about depression? A fable? A story about mental illness? A story about loss? A fantasy? A story about grieving? Predictable? Engaging? A thin excuse to watch pretty people standing in front of pretty things? Something with emotional resonance? The answer is yes. One thing I liked about it was the sheer variety of emotions that I experienced while I watched it. Small funny things happen alongside small moments of sadness, and vice versa. In that sense, it has resonance that dips below the pretty surface.