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.
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.