SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

ministersick I figured the exclamation points would get the attention of people, as to say I'm just another mindless troll with empty opinions.My Review on "the education of Charlie banks" I actually bought this DVD in the bargain bin, looked interesting and finally popped it in, and was very surprised to see Mister Durst's name in the credits. I wasn't even sure if it was him, until I came here, after watching the movie. I don't know the guy, although you hear things, and I'm not a person who bases opinions on mass hysteria, or rumors. I like to give everyone a chance to personally give me an impression. His music wasn't my cup of tea, but I wouldn't go as far as to say he sucks...Ever watch the American idol auditions? However, he may have found his niche as a director. The story was humdrum, but the directing, and the atmosphere of this movie was definitely pretty good. How can anyone say this is the worst movie they've ever seen. My problem with the movie was mostly story..Had some interesting points, but not enough to burn the midnight oil thinking it's going to be a ground breaking script. Plus a lot of it went nowhere. The dialog was well written, but the story...I was also displease on how they made Mick the bad guy when he stuck up for that nerdy girl who could lose her financial aid. Good for him for sticking up for her, yet now he is a hated monster, when he gave that guy a well deserved ass kicking? Yeah he took Charlie's love interest, but that was his own fault, for handling it the way he did. He didn't step up his game, not that he is the kind of guy to have game, but he could at least been a little more sly about keeping them separated. In fact Charlie's character was not very likable. Mick said it best, when he calls him a "cold b*tch" I think the movie would have been better without Charlie's character, and just kept it with Mick and Charlie's friend. I applaud the directing, the acting, and the cinematography. If you're going to hate on this movie, at least be fair, and intelligent about it.Minister Sick.

tieman64 Limp Bizki frontman Fred Durst directs "The Education of Charlie Banks", a very good drama in which a charming but violent thug called Mick visits his egghead buddies, one of whom is played by Jesse Eisenberg, at a prestigious university.The film has a melancholic tone, Mick drifting through university halls and wandering what his life might have been like had he not been a victim of circumstance. Coming from a violent, lower class background, Mick was never given the chance to pursue academic interests or make much of his life. Suddenly surrounded by rich kids and smart students, he feels jealous and left behind.Toward the end of the film it is revealed that Mick is visiting his buddies because he's hiding from the cops and trying to jump a murder charge. When his friends learn of this, they all turn against him. The film then mentions French philosopher Jacques Derrida's writings on deconstruction, the point being that were society to "deconstruct" Mick's life, upbringing and past, they would sympathise with him and understand his actions. Jesse Eisenberg's character realises this, learns to view Mick with sympathy rather than as a bully, but by then it's too late. The cops arrive and Mick disappears again, doomed to a life on the run. An outcast, because the world looks without seeing.The film is not as good as Hal Ashby's "The Last Detail", the film it most resembles, but it is as good as "Scent of a Woman", "Bad Influence" and "Starter For Ten", all of which cover similar material. The film's direction is competent, but the plot is largely held together by several young actors who rise above the material, most notably Jason Ritter and Eva Amurri. The usually annoying Jesse Eisenberg does well here (though his geeky persona gets old fast), particularly the look of horror on his face when he witnesses a boy being attacked.The film contains several references to Scorsese (posters, dialogue, references to "Mean Streets" etc), but whatever pretensions it has toward being a gritty drama erode come the film's very rushed ending. Another flaw includes the script's contemptuous treatment of its rich white students, a tactic used to engender sympathy for Mick. Such tactics go against the very message of the film.8/10 – Though it can't touch "The Last Detail", this is nevertheless a very good independent film. Worth one viewing.

bkoganbing I guess some folks who were young during the Reagan Era got a little nostalgic flashback when seeing The Education Of Charlie Banks. It's a perfect brat pack movie, even being set during the Eighties. And some of today's younger players looked pretty good in Eighties fashions.Jason Ritter is the one who educates young Charlie Banks who is played by Jesse Eisenberg. If this were made in 1987 their roles would have been played by Rob Lowe and James Spader respectively. In fact the film has some similarity to a film they did co-star in back in the day called Bad Influence. Eisenberg is this nerdy rich kid who has been fascinated by tough kid Ritter since childhood. At one point he called the police on Ritter after at a party Ritter beat up and left two others badly injured, but later recanted and Ritter was set free.Years later while at college Ritter comes to visit, ostensibly to visit Eisenberg's roommate Chris Marquette who also knew Eisenberg back in the day. He insinuates himself into college life, maybe a little too much.Jason Ritter does a fine job in displaying both charisma and tension at the same time. We know what a violent individual he is, we can never know what little thing might set him off. And does he know exactly what Eisenberg almost did to him years ago?Sebastian Stan is also in the cast playing what back in the day would be called a wastrel. Here he's just a rich kid floating through the halls of higher learning, just training to be a wastrel. I've met a few like that before and after and Stan's portrayal rings true. I did kind of like what Ritter did to him.The Education Of Charlie Banks takes you back to 1985 to what some call the good old days.

ssimon55 This is an excellent film with a great cast. Jason Ritter gives an outstanding performance. I thought the title should be "The Education of Mick". It's really Mick that we see undergoing a transformation when he visits the college from a thug to a misunderstood kid trying to find a better life for himself. I really didn't find Eisenberg's character Charlie Banks interesting or sympathetic at all. I didn't identify with his character who was mostly cold & distant and very little was revealed about him personally. Part of this is the fault of the writer, but also Eisenberg was just wrong for the part. He was mainly just an observer & didn't get into any conflicts until the last scene.Mick on the other hand reveals his complex nature and shows he's not just a bully with a difficult upbringing but someone who has compassion and is a loyal friend. Without a doubt Ritter is the star of this film, not Eisenberg.