Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:05:13 AM
713394 Posts in 53059 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  THE EDUCATION OF CHARLIE BANKS (2007) « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: THE EDUCATION OF CHARLIE BANKS (2007)  (Read 1863 times)
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« on: December 20, 2010, 12:29:02 PM »



I didn't like it.  What a wasted opportunity.

First of all, let me just get out of the way that I really dislike Fred Durst.  The only thing he has done that I do like is the initial, live performance of "Outside" with Aaron Lewis (I like that version better than the studio version).  But hey, being part of one good song does not a movie director make.

The good thing I'll say about this movie is that I think the acting performances by the three main cast were very solid.  Jesse Eisenberg, Jason Ritter and the ever-lovely Eva Amurri (great in SAVED) gave at least some depth to their characters despite Durst's direction.

The plot is simple: Charlie Banks witnesses a "friend" commit a crime and turns him in to the cops.  Sometime later, they meet again and there is an attempt at "cat and mouse" psycho thriller elements in which we are trying to figure out if the friend knows it was Charlie who turned him in and thus bears a prone-to-violence grudge.

The set-up in Act I and all of Act II have great potential; Act III is a moronic let-down, and even in the "good" acts, Durst continually took me "out of the movie" with stupid crap.  Specifically:

(1) Secondary character Danny (Chris Marquette, "Joan of Arcadia" cast member with Ritter) was well-to-do but tried to play off as a NY street boy 'from the hood.'  This was supposed to be part of the glue that joins the two main male characters together (why else would Charlie give a snot about even knowing Mick if not out of the supposed loyalty to his friend Danny).

This character dichotomy was really stupid.  We got one shot of Danny's home, complete with doctor parents reading the NY Times and listening to chamber music (because in this glimpse into Durst's world, that's what RICH PEOPLE like Doctors REALLY DO all the time), and in Danny's room?  Huh?  His parents, as portrayed, would have NEVER allowed that room decor in THEIR home.

At various times throughout the movie, Danny gets very defensive with Charlie when threatened with Mick finding out he (Danny) is really 'rich.'

(2) Absolutely ham-handed camera work.  Recently, I asked the question about how much of the cinematography in a film is owed to the director vs the cinematographer, but in this case, I am comfortable putting all the blame on Durst.  Cinematographer Alex Nepomniaschy has a not-totally-unimpressive resume going back a couple of decades, and though I've only seen a few of his movies/TV shows, I don't recall specifically being taken "out" of the movie due to his work before this.  His most notable credit for fans of this site are probably WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE, 1986 (Rutger Hauer and Gene Simmons) and an episode of "Tales from the Crypt."

The panning/zoom shots and dolly work in this movie were just too much of a distraction, mostly because the extraneous movements were pointless.

Durst also gives us idiotically pointless scenes that are obvious attempts to create tension and suspense where none is needed. In his search for Mary, why is Charlie shown running into buildings we KNOW Mary is nowhere near?  It's just...a waste.

(3) Durst compounds his 'anti-rich' sledgehammer-over-the-head 'message' (should I let Durst share the blame with "Ugly Betty" and "North Shore" writer/producer Peter Elkoff?  Wait, I'm thinking this movie is making more sense now...) with the way rich boy Leo (Sebastian Stan) is always drunk and of course, VERY obnoxious.

What the heck, Leo's a throw-away, anyway, present only to drive Mick's "journey."  His action to drive the third act is so completely contrived (he is in essence inhumanly mean to someone for no reason whatsoever) just so we get to Mick and Charlie's final confrontation, and again, I was taken completely out of the movie with Leo's totally unbelievable act.

(4) The college where Charlie gets "educated" must be the only college in the country where (a) only about 15 students attend, (b) students quote classic literature ALL the time to make points to each other and only one girl (Amurri's Mary) studies (in the courseo of the movie, she studies Physics, Psychology and a few other subjects).

And, her studying seems to only be an excuse to dismiss her love interest at a given time.  When Charlie goes to her room to ask her out, she's too busy studying, so she blows him off.  Ditto later when she decides she is no longer interested in Mick.  Nice foreshadowing Fred, and nice plot device: college girl does college work.  Wow - the genius!

(5) The real travesty here is we get teased with Mick's redemption, and this would make this story VERY cool and interesting.  As it is, he's a street thug who realizes he wants to be something better, then does NOTHING honorable to move in that direction.  There is SO much potential to show Mick's "journey" through Charlie's eyes (hey, now I'm sounding like Joss Whedon with his "it's Mal's story through River's eyes"...but hey, what could a Whedon done with THIS story?), even if Charlie's "education" had to happen as the end showed.

Wow, that alone would have made this movie 100% better.

Without any character growing or moving one centimeter from where they started, the whole thing is pointless.  This movie is a like a joke that has no punchline, a thriller with no twist and a drama with no tension all wrapped into one.

Every character interaction comes off like a cheap plot device.  Mick has some depth, but Durst does NOTHING with it.  Charlie and Mary flirt with depth but never quite get it and the rest are cardboard cut-outs.

Sorry for the length; my passionate dislike for this movie is solely due to the potential wasted.  This COULD have been a good movie in the hands of a skilled director/writer team.

At the end of the day, I give it 2.5 out of 5.  The basic premise/story is enjoyable enough, and it is sorta fun watching it and thinking what someone like David Cronenberg would have done with it.  :)
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  THE EDUCATION OF CHARLIE BANKS (2007) « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.