I wanted to but couldn't!

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

I wanted to see this movie because I like Jesse Eisenberg, who is like Michael Cera except with more indie cred. I also was curious to see if Fred Durst could actually direct.Durst has been out of the mainstream spotlight for a number of years. People who were in junior high or high school a decade ago know him as the manic lead singer of Limp Bizkit. The group's history of going from underground rock group to TRL darlings to pop music poison is well known. The group had a hard fall, and Durst particularly was shunned by his music peers (including Eminem)."Behind The Music" show idea aside, Durst really shows some talent in his directorial debut. "The Education of Charlie Banks" is quite impressive. It's not a perfect movie, but its weaknesses stem mostly from the story, not the efforts of the actors or director.Jesse Eisenberg is Charlie Banks, a mild-mannered kid from New York City who grows up knowing a kid in his neighborhood named Mick (Jason Ritter). Mick is the definition of a rebel without a cause as he walks with a swagger with a cigarette dangling from his mouth, and this is only when he's ten.The movie begins with a young Charlie seeing Mick through a school bus window, as his friend Danny informs him about Mick's reputation. It's only when Charlie and Danny graduate high school that Charlie actually meets Mick.Through voice-overs, Charlie refers to Mick as a bully, which isn't entirely accurate. Mick isn't the kind of bully who steals people's lunch money or beats them up without cause, and he doesn't target Charlie at any point. He does, however, have a violent temper, resulting in a no-holds-barred fight with two jocks that nearly kills them. Charlie justifiably reports the incident to the police, much to the chagrin of Danny (Chris Marquette).One year later, Charlie and Danny are in an Ivy League school (which one, the movie doesn't say, but it's a typical New England private college). One day, Charlie is taken by surprise when Mick comes to visit Danny (apparently they are good friends). While Mick initially was supposed to stay for just a few days, he ends up staying for a month as he hangs out with Charlie and Danny, sits in on their classes, and even develops a relationship with Charlie's crush, Mary (Eva Amurri).There are no doubt a lot of elements to this story, and one of the film's strengths is its great acting by all involved, and solid character development. Jesse Eisenberg plays the same milquetoast character he did in "Roger Dodger" (2002) and "Adventureland" (2009), and that sort of role certainly plays to his strengths. He actually provides a great contrast to Jason Ritter, whose performance in this movie is arguably his best to date. As Mick, Ritter provides the perfect balance between intimidation and charm, similar to (dare I say it) James Dean in "Rebel Without A Cause" (1955) and "Giant" (1956). He's a fish out of water in a private college setting among middle and upper class kids, but he's still a fish that moves to his own beat.I really liked how his charm earned him respect, but his temper, particularly when he got into fights, led to his losing that respect. It was completely believable how people reacted to him in both situations, most especially Eva Amurri. Amurri, like Ritter, is an up-and-coming actor who happens to be the child of someone famous (Jason Ritter's dad is the late John Ritter, whereas Amurri is Susan Sarandon's daughter). However, both of them really shine in this movie, and earn their place in this movie regardless of whom they are related to.With the strong acting came some weaknesses in the story that, had they been edited out, could have actually strengthened the film greatly. First, when Charlie informs the police about Mick's assault and battery, he ultimately withdraws his testimony solely at the urging of his friend Danny. That part didn't feel necessary because Charlie, at that point, had no personal connection to Mick, and he didn't seem to be in fear that Mick would come after him. It would have been better if they had just cut that part out altogether, because had Charlie gone through with his testimony, it would have created even more tension between the two characters later on.Also, there was a missed potential to create a true love triangle between Charlie, Mick, and Mary. I just never got a real sense of how Charlie felt about Mick moving in on his crush, and whether he was actually jealous or not. It could have been because Eisenberg underplayed that part of his character, or that there should have been more close-ups on his face. The big mistake came when Danny spoke about Charlie "over there just sitting around moping". It seems like a common enough thing to say, but it is telling, not showing.Finally, I thought the ending was a bit of a cop-out, where Charlie (again, in voice over narration) talks about what became of Mick after the film's climax. When you actually hear him explain how Mick made his exit, it will just sound hokey and entirely unrealistic. Plus, it's even more telling, not showing.These faults are mostly those of the script, not the director. Fred Durst's egomania cost him his music career, but he has really redeemed himself with this movie. It's not until the closing credits roll and you see his name that you realize the director was the same guy who went ape on stage during Woodstock '99. The new Durst shows real talent as a director, and can sit back (not even making a cameo) and let the story take you in.

Others here have expressed that this Indie film was good and I agree. I think it could have been better. I also agree, the educational part was not about Charlie Banks, who seems very passive and self centered with many short rather flippant comments. He really doesn't rise very high on the intellectual ladder. However, I also felt as a privileged kid who had all his little ducks in a row, and egocentric as most of these people are, the film seemed to project a kind of real life situational social drama.What exactly Charlie learned? Well, I was mystified how a moocher could live and walk about an Ivy League campus without some security officer kicking him out. I suppose this does happen where friends allow for social reasons something like these triangles to happen. But, gosh uncle Elmer how did he eat and live in a dorm room that was rented for two legitimate male students.I suppose the moral crisis comes late in the story, and in fact, Charlie and his Mich buddy were not physically matched for fighting. I would have thought Charlie would have attempted to undermine Mich earlier in the film, rather than passively sulking and accepting this man's total illegitimacy as a college student.However all these picky concerns did not over all make me dislike the flick. I have known students like Charlie before and wondered if they actually had any moral compass other than their own egocentric interests in sex and pleasing their parents.I rated it above my standard 5 to a 7. The film is worth a look !

Fred Durst from some music group called 'Limp Bizkit' directed this & it is his first effort. For a first timer he did a first class job.Peter Eckoff wrote this screenplay about some college students in the 1970's at Brown Univ. in Rhode Island. The screenplay is quite intelligent & not the usual college days & nights stuff we usually see.However I felt that the ending was a letdown & to me it hurt MY overall enjoyment of this very well acted & made drama. There are many comic moments BUT this is primarily a drama.Jesse Eisenburg is Charlie & he is just first rate. Jason Ritter who has usually done lighter roles is just magnificent as a confused non conformist & bully. Chris Marquette is there buddy & has most of the funny lines.This is one trio I would like to see again.Eva Amurri is also first rate as a love interest.the entire cast are all first rate.This is another low budget film that only had a very short USA run in March 2009. & released to DVD 3 months later.This is a darn good film,I just did not care for the ending. See it, you may or may not agree with me on the ending, BUT I feel you all will like it. It also is a wee bit overlong.Ratings: *** (out of 4) 84 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 100)

There are two ways you can look at this film. The first is simply as a drama film like any other, a well-set piece for the epoch it unfolds in; certainly the clothing and set accessories are all in their right place for the 70's/80's. The acting is quite impressive all around: Jesse Eisenberg and Jason Ritter are the stars of the show, commanding very well-built characters; one a more introspective, unspoken kid and the other a more domineering, swagger-carrying bad-ass. Chris Marquette and Sebastian Stan are also worthy of note, as is Eva Amurri as the typical thrill-seeking bored rich girl - the type that tends to want what she can't have, in this case a guy who is perhaps not to be trifled with, possibly of the kind she is ill-equipped to deal with, or at least to deal with as she does - again the typical heart-breaking machinery at work.The other way you can look at this film is as a Fred Durst production. Considering he was the director, you're ready to give it more credit than it would be worth straight out of the bat. It is quite impressive on his part that he was able to put this together (if such was the case), even if marks of a certain lack of experience are visible throughout. First we have the screenplay - some of what the characters are saying is repetitive and at times nonsensical. The dialogue could have been more elaborate - that would certainly have upped the quality and believability quotient - not that the film strays too far from reality - in fact it tends to steer back on track and find it's way safely to the end, yet scenes such as the one when Jason Ritter is in the bar by himself with only a few "workers" around him and the things the barman spouts there. These exhibitions of class demarcation and the like are ultimately unreal. There is also an ongoing attack at "rich people" in general, when the case being considered is that of the spoiled offspring of some rich people - not all "rich people" are worthy of scorn. Second there is the unnecessary use of swear words. At a certain point in the film these just become tiring. Not that films should forcefully not contain these, the simple fact is a film reads differently than, say, a rap album with explicit content.However you look at it, notwithstanding, the film still pulls through successfully. Considering the kind of garbage being thrown our way these days, The Education Of Charlie Banks stands. The title is fitting; indeed, even if we may think otherwise, Charlie is the one who ends up learning from things. He in a way corrects his ways and makes the right choice. He shows humanity, he tries to be cooperative as opposed to being oppressive. Here the film triumphs, in that it reveals a positive message.Kudos to otherwise career-dead Durst for carrying this one through; let's hope he learns from his mistakes and rises to make better things? One can't help but think this could have been so immensely better with a different director, yet it is still surprising that it was carried under his wing.6.5(7)/10