Chuck & Buck (2000)

Despite all Sundance and critical fanfare to the contrary, this intriguing indie hit is hardly an easily digested little winner. Miguel Arteta's film is more than a bit unsettling, and scene after scene plays with intense discomfort. After the death of his mother, strangely juvenile 27-year-old Buck (Mike White) heads off to L.A. with the oblivious, obsessive intent of working his way back into the life of childhood pal Chuck (Chris Weitz), with whom he'd sexually experimented as a boy. Chuck's engaged now, which only serves to increase Buck's determination ("When it's just you and me here, it's like I'm OK," he says. "And all this other stuff makes me feel dead."). Arteta and screenwriter White (who's quite good as Buck) stretch credibility more than once--Buck's troubling emotional state is sketchy, to say the least--and some of their humor is too smirkingly ironic for its own good, but the film's edgy sadness keeps poking at you. Whatever its flaws, there's something compelling here about the fear of growing up and the more unnerving dread of being found out. --Steve Wiecking Amazon.com

If only Buck wanted to hurt someone...

Following the death of his mother, Buck (Mike White), an extremely immature 27 year old, moves to L.A. in order to reestablish the friendship he had with his childhood best friend Chuck (Chris Weitz). However, when it turns out that Chuck has moved on with his life and doesn't want anything to do with Buck anymore, Buck essentially becomes a stalker in his effort to win back Chuck from Chuck's "evil" girlfriend.

"Chuck and Buck" is yet another one of those weird, slightly-off movies that will either fascinate or disgust, much like "Happiness" and "Spanking the Monkey". I, personally, enjoy films of this type and enjoyed "Chuck and Buck". Mike White, who also wrote the script, is perfect as the weirdo Buck, and he did a good job of writing a script that makes you feel for both of the main characters. Neither character is "evil" or trying to hurt the other. They are just behaving like two human beings who both have a different take on events that happened 16 years ago, which is what makes this film fascinating...up to a point. The fact that Chuck and Buck do, deep down, care for one another, means that the film's third act is a bit of an anti-climax. I guess that I was sort of hoping that the film would end with an over-the-top "Fatal Attraction"-esque showdown between Chuck and Buck. It doesn't. In fact, the film loses focus at the very end, making me wonder whether Mike White was having trouble thinking up an ending. Nevertheless, until the final 15 minutes, this is a very food film (if you're into this sort of thing).

After making "Chuck and Buck", writer/actor Mike White and director Miguel Artera went on to make "The Good Girl". Unlike "Chuck and Buck", this film does manage to hold up until the end, and is, in fact, one of my favourite films. If you like "Chuck and Buck", I recommend watching "The Good Girl" as well.
December 7, 2008

This is entertainment?

This movie, if you can call it that , is about the lamest thing I've ever seen---especially given the bait--"twisted and funny" or some such sentiment which appears on the package.

I saw this about 5 or 6 years ago, so my memory for all the details is shot; however, my friend and I both give it a zero ---for zero ideas, zero artistic integrity, zero effect...you get my point....

This is the Emperor's New Clothes of the indie movie industry...SOMETHING'S supposed to be there, but sadly, it isn't. July 11, 2007

Rated "R" for sexuality? Come on.

This just shows how confused the MPAA was, and is. The "sexuality" in this movie consists of... no nudity - and abbreviated remarks concerning sexual acts. But let's leave that aside. Just have a guy kiss another guy and the MPAA goes into a frenzy--knee-jerk "R".

Anyway, this flick was way better than critics had led me to believe. It's a movie about a guy who just can't get over his boyhood lover. He's about one step away from the loony bin, in fact. But the saving grace of this movie, which normally I would not like (not being a fan of crazies) is that there is NO violence. (Not that the stupid MPAA cared.) I kept expecting "Buck" to pull out a kitchen knife or some such trash - my expectations having been formed by Hollywood. But no, Buck's apparently a harmless kook. As most kooks are, if treated gently--perhaps.

After wincing for the first 30 minutes, I actually began getting into the whole scene of Chuck's continual rejection of Buck. This is a most unusual movie and wins points for originality. Have we ever seen one like this from the movie industry? No. Is it a subject worthy of treatment by film? Yes. Some of us have indeed thought about old flames from the past - and wanted to do something "crazy" to try to win them back. This movie is an interesting exploration into one crazy guy who stopped short of almost nothing. December 8, 2005

Too thin for a feature

Chuck and Buck is another underwhelming shot-on-video indie that isn't nearly as good as it thinks it is or needs to be to justify its feature length. The biggest problem is Mike White's character, an infantile gay stalker obsessed with the childhood friend who has moved on in the world. The premise is workable, but White's own script never develops him beyond a single defining note, which makes for an increasingly unbelievable lead easily outshone by the supporting players - not so much Chris Weitz as the object of his obsession but definitely by Paul Weitz as a spectacularly bad lookalike actor Chuck casts in a frightening autobiographical play and Lupe Ontiveros as the show's down to earth director. It does pick up as it goes along and it's not unwatchable, it's just one of those films that really offers too few reasons to see it. November 14, 2005

An Amusing/Disturbing Look at Obsessive Love

This cleverly conceived film could be called a new twist on the theme of obsessive love, yet that would not really do it justice. "Chuck and Buck" explores the classic tale of unrequited longing not only from a new angle, but attempts to sound the very depths of that longing.

Directed with great assurance by Miguel Arteta and written by Mike White (who also plays Buck), this is a film that really succeeds in taking an audience somewhere they have (probably) never been. Nearly everyone can relate to a tale of frustrated love. Buck's monomaniacal fixation of his love object is nothing new to movies. This character could recall John Heard in "Chilly Scenes of Winter" or Isabelle Adjani in "The Story of Adele H.". And, like those and myriad other lovesick character studies, "Chuck and Buck" offers the viewer some basis of the obsession. Where the newer film is unique is in the extremely close observation of a lovestruck character as a manchild. Buck has-in the deepest emotional sense-truly never left his childhood behind. His bedroom is replete with every little-boy accessory: piles of boxed board games, stuffed animals, and the persistent motif, an illuminated plastic globe that displays lollypops. When his mother dies at the outset of the film, Buck-now 27-instantly transfers his emotional dependency onto Chuck, his best friend from childhood. Not surprisingly, the latter has moved forward into an adult life. Chuck has gone to LA, taken a job with an independent recording company, and gotten himself engaged. Buck tracks his old friend down, inviting him to his mother's funeral, and wastes no time in letting Chuck know that the special quality of their childhood relationship-a sexual one-has not been forgotten. In fact, Buck wants to take right up where they left off some sixteen years ago. As might be expected, Chuck, his fiancee in tow, heads immediately for the Hollywood Hills. When the indomitable Buck relocates himself to LA to pursue his romantic destiny, the two men embark upon one of the oddest and most wrenching psychodramas yet encountered on screen.

Among many notable aspects of the film is its completely unapologetic attitude to homosexuality. Buck certainly has a problem, but it is one of infantilism, not of sexual orientation. Even in moments of dire frustration at Buck's relentless advances, Chuck never condemns his friend for who he is. For some, an identification of homosexuality with infantilism may be seen as a subtext here. But to this reviewer, the sexuality issue serves a more symbolic end: these childhood friends whose names rhyme are two sides of one coin. They have more in common than Chuck, perhaps, would admit and their bond goes deeper than even Buck could know.

Chris Weitz does good work bringing an exasperated Chuck to life. Although his character is much less finely drawn, Chuck can elicit as much audience-identification as Buck does. Weitz' facial expressions, as realizations slowly dawn upon him are expert and compelling. In the role of a neighborhood theater guardian angel, Lupe Ontiveros is a marvel. She finds the exact key to a character who discovers herself through association with the enigmatic Buck. Best of all is Mike White as Buck, a textbook case of perfect casting. White could not look more suited to the role: his slightly drooping, half-open mouth and shock of red hair are both comic and oddly endearing. So identified with is White with Buck that it is difficult to avoid thinking the role is somewhat autobiographical.

In a film of many fascinating and clever touches, one especially stands out. Running out of avenues to Chuck, Buck decides to write and produce a play about his frustrating friendship. With the help of the Ontiveros character and some hilarious backstage tribulations, the play is performed and, as a conciliatory gesture, attended by Chuck. The upshot of this entertaining, but disturbing episode is unexpected and moving.

Shot on digital video tape by Chuy Chavez, the film has a fuzzy, home-movie quality. And the many hand-held shots have only a slight documentary feeling, due to the complete lack of any sense of improvisation in this tightly scripted venture. "Chuck and Buck" takes chances with it characters and its narrative. While some of its components may work better than others, it boldly questions the meaning of emotional maturity and friendship. Highly recommended. November 4, 2005

More reviews at Amazon.com ...