Truly Dreadful Film

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

After reading a few of the reviews here I had to toss my hat into the group.This flick is wonderfully scripted, casted, acted, directed, edited, etc. The story will take you into Charlie Banks life and the people in his life. It also shows how Mick (the dorm mates friend) doesn't belong in a setting outside of his world of street life.This is where the story became most compelling for me when Mick has just enough maturity and comprehension to engage himself into the privileged well educated circle of students. Even Charlie believes there is possibly more to Mick than meets the eye. Mick even has a sense of duty when the spoiled yuppie boy fails to return the key to a girl whom he has used to fulfill his idea of 'having fun'. Even Mick deludes himself into thinking he's 'one of them' through his friendship with Mary.Mick is wrong because when he tries to explain himself to his friends all the brief knowledge he repeats makes no sense to those who properly learned it. Mick is in over his head so he turns to the only thing he truly understands with disastrous results!How anyone disliked this movie - I don't understand.

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.

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.

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.