MovieChat Forums > Charlie St. Cloud (2010) Discussion > Honestly people, it wasn't that bad.

Honestly people, it wasn't that bad.

posted 13 years ago by SamaraShawn
27 replies | jump to latest

Okay, sure... It had some major plot holes. But, hello.. Most films do. It was all in all a pretty good film. Zac Efron showed that he actually had acting abilities. I loved Amanda Crew. And pretty much everyone acted really well in it.

The script wasn't horrible. And it was a gorgeous film. The use of the colors and camera angles gave it a really beautiful look.

It was a good film. So, honestly if you want to gripe about a crappy movie.. Go gripe about The Last Exorcism or Salt or something that actually sucked.

Thanks :)

[–] niicis 13 years ago

SamaraShawn I completely agree with you! It was a lovely film with a nice twist and amazing camera work. Zac Efron is such a sweetheart and great actor too. Recommend it to everyone.

[–] petra-59 13 years ago

We enjoyed it. It was about people - not corrupt police, serial killers or 'loveable' mobsters. And it didn't depend on CGI. It was a pleasant story about love and caring.

[–] brand78 13 years ago

I totally agree - a very good and interesting movie dealing with the paranormal in an unusual way; 8 marks out of ten.

[–] LongarmPrime25 13 years ago

Agreed.

[–] dbwilyumz 13 years ago

Yes, the acting and technical aspects of this movie were excellent. But there were story presentation flaws. The director and studio admitted as much when they went back to Vancouver six months after principal photography and shot the new scene with Charlie and Tess on the dock, to clarify what the recovered Tess remembered.

What's missing in the script is someone Charlie can talk to about what was happening to him. By discussing his own questions with someone - even one of the "ghosts" like his Marine buddy - the viewers could have had their own questions addressed, even if the final reality remained a mystery (which, of course, it should).

[–] macbean-1 13 years ago

Yes, it really was that bad.

[–] bmalone135 13 years ago

You know OP backed up their claim with some points about why they thought it wasn't that.

You wanna maybe do the same, or are you content on just being a troll

[–] iCode_v2 8 years ago

Or he just thought it was bad and doesn't owe you an explanation why since taste is subjective.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

[–] chas437 13 years ago

Agreed, it was really bad. Bubble gum crap for 14 year old girls. Just like "the Lovely Bones", paints a rosey picture of death and the afterlife-again targeted at 14 year old girls. When people die, they are gone, end of story, grow up people.

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

I didn't particularly liked this film, but your argument is very dumb.

"paints a rosey picture of death and the afterlife-again targeted at 14 year old girls. When people die, they are gone, end of story, grow up people."

I guess you haven't enjoyed one single film in your entire life then? Since films are absolutely never 100% realistic. I guess you can't enjoy The Lord of the Rings, since it paints a world where elves and wizards exist. And you can't enjoy The Sixth Sense, since there are ghosts in there too, and we all know ghosts don't exist. Surely you are the one that needs to grow up.

[–] chas437 13 years ago

I enjoy a great numbers of quality films, and I fully understand 'suspension of disbelief'. I just can't stand this sort of traetment of death and the afterlife in film. This appeals to children's need to cope with death. I know how to cope from much experience, so I am fully grown up. Learning to deal with death and loss of loved ones is a sign of maturity. Its also a very serious matter. If Charlie is playing catch with his dead brother, then he is insane. Terrible film...

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

You are missing the part where different people believe in different types of afterlife. Your nihilist approach to death is not shared by all filmmakers or book writers, much less people in the entire world. Ghosts don't exist, wizards don't exist, monsters, superheroes and whatnot don't exist either. By your logic that films should despict death as it is, we wouldn't have horror movies about ghosts or haunted houses and whatnot. Ultimately, films are just an interpretation of reality, not an imitation, so as far as the premise for a film go, anything can be done really.

I don't know if this is truly a terrible film, I only saw about half of it and I found it to be another average teenage romance story, with a supernatural twist, but I will still defend the stance that death can be shown in any number of ways the filmmakers feel like.

[–] chas437 13 years ago

Fair enough, I think, and many film critics agree, that the subject of the afterlife and how it is shown in film is a very delicate subject. For examlpe, films like this one, "The Lovely Bones", "Ghost" or "What Dreams may Come" are universally reviled by film critics. Maybe its because they (film critics) and I believe the subject of the afterlife and personal religious beliefs are "off limits" in film, whereas not so much in books.

BTW, my attitude towards death and the afterlife are NOT nihilisctic, thay are just very personal. In the real world, at least our plain of existance, when people pass on, they are GONE from us, nothing more, nothing less. It took me some long hard times to realize this. Religion may comfort people in these times and I think that's great. I think a film maker ought to think long and hard about trying to show us what they think Heaven looks like.

[–] silvervintage82 12 years ago

So then you believe in film censorship? As in movies should only be made to represent one belief system or view of death, which also just so happens to be your own personal view? That's very narrow minded and also limiting to artists in general. Not to mention a very entitled perspective.

Filmmakers have every right to represent their own vision on screen, the same right writers have. And sometimes a story is just a story anyway. Not to mention this film was also based on a book.

That all said, why would someone choose to be a film critic if they pan a film because a filmmaker supposedly broke some made up rule about the afterlife being off limits? I guarantee not all film critics share this view. Perhaps some do, but definitely not all. Not to mention that there have been movies that contain elements of the afterlife, religion, etc... that have been universally praised. And you shouldn't just make stuff up either. Ghost was not reviled. It was even nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Not to mention it won Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress.

I don't expect every movie I watch to represent my own belief system, nor do I think it should. I like being able to see different perspectives and being open to different worlds.

To be honest, this film wasn't even preachy. It was closer to being a paranormal romance more than anything. It was a good film, not a great one, but harmless enough.

Basically, in my opinion to say that only the atheistic view of life should be allowed to be in movies is akin to book burning. That's fascism.

[–] ElectricEye 12 years ago

I disagree with this argument: this argument kills every movie from Ghost, The Crow, Sixth Sense, The Others, The Changeling, and 99% of all horror films. Can you imagine what would be of cinema if nobody asks "what if...?"?

No cinema at all: No King Kong, no Star Wars, no Matrix, no Space Oddisey, no Contact, no ET...

I disagree with your post.

Protective, Detective, Electric Eye

[–] glassrose385 13 years ago

I thought this movie was ok for what it was. There were some weird plot holes but those were kind of easy to ignore. Zac's acting wasn't too bad in this.

[–] jannahm1991 13 years ago

I didn't like this movie. It wasn't because the acting was bad or anything like that, I'm just not fond of this kind of movie.

[–] rsmlr13 13 years ago

I didn't think it was bad. I expected it to be, and I wasn't a fan of Efron until I saw him in this movie. I thought he acted well and showed emotion through his character.

[–] BulletProof011308 13 years ago

Agreed.

I enjoyed it also.

P.S. Efron has reallllllly beautiful blue eyes, just noticed that. haha.