Movie Review: Charlie St Cloud

Charlie St. Cloud (2010) 

Directed by Burr Steers

Written by Craig Pearce, Lewis Colick 

Starring Zac Efron, Amanda Crew, Donal Logue, Charlie Tahan, Ray Liotta, Kim Basinger 

Release Date July 30th, 2010 

Published July 30th, 2010 

“Charlie St. Cloud” is baffling in the most unique way. A supernatural drama that combines soft focus goofiness of a Nicholas Sparks romance with the 'I see dead people' conceit of “The Sixth Sense,” “Charlie St. Cloud” in the end leaves one wondering just which characters were alive and which were dead. How many films can claim to be this strangely flabbergasting?

Zac Efron stars as Charlie St. Cloud, class valedictorian of a small northwestern town where sailing is the sport of choice. Charlie and his little brother Sammy (Charlie Tahan) are first glimpsed pulling off a dangerous move to win a local sailing contest and Charlie is said to be heading off to Stanford in the fall on a partial sailing scholarship.

Charlie's plans are destroyed one fateful night when, while he was supposed to watch his brother, he sneaks out to go to a party. Sammy catches him before he can leave and insists on coming with. On the drive they are hit from behind by a drunk driver and sideswiped by an oncoming truck. Sammy is killed almost instantly; Charlie is brought back miraculously thanks to the efforts of a paramedic played by Ray Liotta.

Flash ahead five years and Charlie hasn't left for Stanford. Instead he works as a caretaker at the cemetery where his brother is buried. A vision of Sammy after his funeral convinced Charlie that his little brother is still around and the two meet at sunset in the forest each day for a game of catch.

Enter Tess (Amanda Crew) a fellow sailor who attended high school with Charlie though he doesn't remember her. She is about to leave on an around the world sailing trek but not before the two bond a little over a mutual love of boats. The two spend more time together just before she leaves for her trip but the more time Charlie spends with Tess the more complacent he becomes about Sammy until he is forced to choose between the girl of his dreams and his dead little brother.

At least that is kind of what I think was happening in Charlie St. Cloud. I am honestly unsure what the hell was going with this film's bizarre supernatural plot and confusing screenplay. By the end I could not tell which characters were alive and which were dead.

SPOILER:

Director Burr Steers throws a lot of bizarre complications into this story including a love scene in the cemetery that grows creepy even beyond the setting once the story adds some unique details about Tess that make Charlie look really bizarre and creepy unless Charlie is dead, which he may be. I would call that a spoiler maybe but I honestly don't know if any of the characters in this film were alive or dead, in limbo, in memory or a dream. “Charlie St. Cloud” makes “Inception” look like the picture of narrative clarity.

Adding to the troubled story is the soft focus cinematography of Enrique Chediak who paints everything like a Hallmark Hall of Fame low budget TV production. Long soft focus close-ups of Charlie brooding in a bar, Charlie brooding over coffee, Charlie brooding on the ledge of a lighthouse are dropped in repeatedly throughout the film lending a bland sameness to the look of the film.

Zac Efron does what he can with his goofy role, playing Charlie as a lonely, angst-ridden weirdo who happens to look like Zac Efron. Having to deal with multiple dead or seemingly dead characters that no one else can see, Efron not only must brood alone, he has numerous scenes played just talking aloud to himself and occasionally talking to ducks. As I said, the film is very confusing.

Bizarre to the point of utter bafflement, “Charlie St. Cloud” combines the worst elements of a Nicholas Sparks adaptation with M. Night Shyamalan at his most self involved and aloof. Burr Steers is a once promising director now floundering in his attempt to bring his indie film cred to mainstream features. In “Charlie St. Cloud” Steers attempts to subvert convention by sheer oddity and fails to deliver either quirky indie-ness or mainstream accessibility.

I could almost recommend “Charlie St. Cloud” for its sheer oddity. I’m not going to but I could. The film is so weird and confusing and just plain bad in such a unique way that I can almost appreciate it on an ironic, sort of camp level. If you like movies you can make fun of with your friends, ala “Mystery Science Theater,” you may be just the audience for “Charlie St. Cloud.”

Movie Review A Haunting in Connecticut

The Haunting in Connecticut (2009) 

Directed by Peter Cornwell 

Written by Adan Simon, Tim Metcalfe

Starring Virginia Madsen, Kyle Gallner, Martin Donovan, Amanda Crew, Elias Koteas 

Release Date March 27th, 2009 

Published March 26th, 2009 

Virginia Madsen is a very talented actress. This assertion on my part is well demonstrated in her Oscar nominated performance in Sideways. However, her name on a marquee inspires the kind of fuzzy, hazy, disconnected state that only Pink Floyd could properly describe. Place her name above the title The Haunting in Connecticut and the combination inspires the kind of yawn that can only be described as jaw breaking.

The Haunting in Connecticut is a movie that commits the cardinal sin of movies. It is not merely bad, it's boring. Not boring merely in the way that one could be doing better things with their time but boring in a way that one is subjected to. As if locked in a room with blank walls and no windows. Gene Siskel put it best 'This movie does not improve upon a blank screen viewed for the same length of time.'

Virginia Madsen is ostensibly the star of The Haunting in Connecticut though one might fairly claim ennui as the film's true marquee element. Madsen plays a country mom to a cancer-addled son, played by Kyle Gallner, who decides to move her family to a suburban home closer to the local hospital. Because the family is not rich she accepts the first home in their price range. This, despite the fact that the home used to be a working funeral home. Poverty is stronger than the darkly ironic, fate tempting idea of moving her dying son into what used to be a funeral parlor.

Dad (Martin Donovan) is forced to stay in the country for work reasons but the rest of the family is coming to the creepy new house. The rest of the family include a toe-headed little brother and a pair of female cousins whose living arrangements are somewhere in the exposition, likely during the onset of my movie-long malaise.

Of course it's not long before the ghosts begin tossing plates and the shrieking musical score begins trying to convince us that all of this is pretty scary. I remain unconvinced. Along the way we greet a few more unhappy clichés including conventional horror movie misdirection where people hear noises that they think are scary but are really cats or birds or relatives.

There is even a brief digression into the child in danger plot as the youngest children are briefly menaced by apparitions. This is thankfully brief but hey if you are going to fly by on cliché you may as well throw them all in there. Clichés at the very least are familiar and even distracting yet somehow even they come off as boring in this film. It's difficult to describe this level of boredom. Imagine Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller mode reading the instruction manual for a ford fiesta. Now take that down a notch and you can imagine something close to what I felt during The Haunting in Connecticut.

This is surprising considering the 'true story' the film is allegedly based on. Al and Carmen Snedeker are a real family who moved into what was a former funeral home in Connecticut back in the mid-80's. After moving in they did indeed report a number of creepy goings on. Their story inspired Ed and Lorraine Warren, the spiritualist con artists who crafted the Amityville Horror legend years earlier, to come and craft an elaborate haunting for the Snedekers.

Not surprisingly, the whole thing became a bestselling book and now this movie. Except that the movie seems to have left out some of the more juicy and entertaining details. Not the ghosts, the bodies allegedly stuffed in the walls, or the alleged séances that may or may not have taken place as a regular bit of funeral home business. That's all in there somewhere, I think, I may have blacked out briefly. 

No. It's the part where Al and Carmen cop to having been raped by apparitions repeatedly over the TWO YEARS they lived in this house. Disturbing on so many levels? Yes, but definitely not boring. This detail was dropped from the movie either in a nod to good taste (Booo) or because writing this detail into the movie would take more effort than the writers were willing to put into it. 

Or, even more likely, it was a commerce over creepiness decision. The film is more bankable as a PG 13 feature not featuring ghostly forced sex. I'm not sure what this says about me but I cannot honestly tell you whether I preferred the boredom or the creeptastic, ungodly alternative left out of the final film. I guess we'll never know. The Haunting in Connecticut is what it is, an utterly mind numbing bore.