drpakmanrains I was surprised after just viewing this movie through Netflix to see the glowing reviews of this little known art-house style film. The acting was satisfactory, and the story had potential, but the pace of the film after the first 15 or 20 minutes became rather sluggish, and the characters behaved more like high school students than college kids. I must confess that I attended University from 1958 to the mid 70's, earning a doctorate, so I may be behind the times when it comes to campus behavior. Yes there was drinking and parties, (no drugs until the mid 60's), but I only saw one fight in all that time on campus, and none in the 2 years I lived on campus. I never saw Limp Bizkit, but I saw Fred Durst in an indie called Population 436, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and he acted quite well, so it doesn't shock me that he showed genuine competency in his directorial debut. Jesse Eisenberg may annoy some reviewers because he tends to play similar characters in many of his films, but he was the only male in this film that bore any resemblance to college students I knew. I won't restate the plot, as many others have covered it adequately. I didn't hate the film, but I did fast forward a few times using subtitles. And I am no fan of action movies, it's just that this one dragged and rarely came to life. I give it a 5.4 (so I don't have to round it up to 6).

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.

Jim This is one very boring movie from beginning to end. Jesse Eisenberg is especially so, and annoying as well. The movie is mostly about the competitiveness of those on a college campus, to see who can be the wittiest and most pretentiousness. Eisenberg's clever banter that he uses as a defense, wears thin very quickly.Jason Ritter's acting wasn't bad, but the character that he played seemed to be a bit exaggerated and over the top. One of the minor characters, Mr. Banks (Charlie's father) played by Dennis Boutsikaris was good, but it was a relatively small roll. Sebastian Stan (Leo) seems like a good actor, but the nature of his character seemed unbelievable.There really didn't seem to be much of a story, so of course, it never really went anywhere. I couldn't recommend this movie to anyone.There was a few good songs used as background, but that certainly doesn't make for a good movie on it's own.There aren't a lot of comments on the movie at this point, and almost all of them are glowing in their praise. I felt obligated to post a negative opinion. This is not a good movie.

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.