Rating: 
Summary: Not as good a movie as it would like to be
Review: One thing I expect a movie to do is move me in one way or another. What I mean is, even semi-skillful movies make you feel *something.* What a movie makes the viewer feel is directly related to the movie's vision -- its humanity and its perspective on "the human condition." Sometimes a movie gives the feeling that its "auteurs" don't really have such a perspective, or worse, that if there is one, it's not entirely worked out so that, ultimately, what's left is little more than empty cynicism. I'm not sure how the makers of *Chuck & Buck* feel about our common lot, but quite frankly, this movie gave me the creeps. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just a thing you should know before buying it: this movie is not entertaining. It doesn't mean to be, I suspect. It means, I think, to uncover something very unflattering and sad about us, our unwillingness to let go of the dreams (obsessions) that fail us. Leonard Maltin almost never tells you that there is gay subject matter in a movie, so if you don't already know that, there is. Unfortunately, add this to the long list of movies whose sole view of homosexuality is that it is "defective" and creepy. This is doubly unfortunate in a movie with such liberal pretensions as this one has. I'm sure that the film-makers would answer that obsession, not homosexuality, is the the focus here. But that begs the question, because the plot of this movie turns on the emotional distress that a straight man feels who is the object of homosexual obsession. Another thing Leonard Maltin doesn't tell you is that, while this movie tries very hard to be a good movie in a very typically independent and low-budget kind of way, it doesn't quite rise to the occasion. I'm not sorry I saw it, but I don't think that, in the end, this movie is wise enough to reach its moral destination. The denoument, for example, doesn't ring true (I'm talking about the "deal" that Chuck & Buck finally make in hopes of resolving their common problem). The reason for that is unclear, but I think it has to do with the movie's self-conscious ambivalence toward it's characters. Human beings are complicated, and this movie certainly knows that. I liked the film's willingness to be absolutely frank about something that is embarassing precisely because it is so recognizable. I suspect most people have felt the unique humiliation of unrequited infatuation (not love), and the terrible confusion that attends it. What most people don't do is act it out to the extent that Buck does in this movie. And if they do, they generally end up in jail, not eating cake. But, okay, I might have been willing to let that pass. I also very much liked the subtle way that "Chuck" (Charlie) initially reacts -- avoidance -- to a situation that he clearly did not ask for, (though Buck seems to believe that he did). Charlie clearly thinks of himself as, essentially, a "nice" guy. He's got a nice job, a fiance, he takes his morning run. He's handsome, oddly sexy. Chuck has convinced himself that life can be normal and relatively bump-free.) What I didn't like, and didn't believe, was what eventually happens. It strained credibility, but more than that, in its compromise, the movie seemed to have lost its way. The inevitable didn't happen: Buck doesn't wind up in a jail or an asylum. In movies, that's always a bad thing because it reveals a disturbing distance between a film's makers and their subject. IMHO, movie-makers have to be more responsible than these movie-makers are to some discernable world-view because movies, more than any other art-form in the 20th century, have carved out for themselves, a claim of moral authority. Whether we like it or not, movies, especially movies that give off an aura of having "something to say," tend inevitably to teach us something about what is wrong and what is right with human beings. In other words, a movie with "something to say" ought to say something, not just seek to make its audience unaccountably uncomfortable. When a movie fails or stumbles in this regard, it is a moral failure because movies affect us so directly and personally. I didn't know what to make of Buck *or* Chuck at the end of this movie, and I'm not convinced that the filmakers did either. Still, see it if you can stand it. Think how you'd do it differently.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent--nothing quite like it!
Review: This movie hooked me from start to finish. The acting was was excellent--Buck's genuine dysfunctional weirdness, Chuck's deadpan horror and annoyance of his former best friend, the kind but cynical lady who directs Buck's play, and Chuck's girlfriend who didn't fade into the background but held her ground. The story is basically an exploration of those of us who are afraid to leave childhood. It's something most of us can understand. Buck wasn't a character to loathe and despise; he was simply a guy who had trouble growing up, but luckily in the end, he starts to move towards that direction in life. Fine movie. Nothing quite like it!!
Rating: 
Summary: Weird, Unsettling yet Fresh, Original
Review: This film just won an Independent Spirit Award in its category of being made for under $500,000. You could never tell that this movie was made for that little money. One big thing it has going for it is that the lead people in it are all talented screenwriters so that this film does not lack for a well written script. This in itself is refreshing. I think I could make it to 5 stars despite its being unsettling and weird. The creativity of it more than makes up for that. The fact that Chuck and Buck were sexually active with one another as children and now Chuck is marrying a woman is all right too. The single hardest thing, however, that I had trouble getting beyond was that the screenwriter-actor who plays Buck is so physically unattractive (whether this is true in reality or deliberately done for the film I do not know). That the personality Buck portrays in this film is even less attractive further sinks that 5th star for me. My biggest question is not whether Chuck is still bixesual but why Chuck would ever want to be sexually active with Buck at any time. Chuck is immensely attractive, lives in LA, is rich, successful and more than a little arrogant. Why does Chuck even show up at Buck's mother's funeral? It seems as if he could have easily taken a pass. And he is not the kind of guy that puts himself out for anyone, which is made perfectly clear by his recording industry executive career with many women coworkers ready and willing to lie for him to Buck. For awhile I was worried this was going to turn into a mad slasher film but it does not. It is solely about Buck's fixation on Chuck as the man who will make him right again, as if he were ever ok in the first place. If a really drop dead gorgeous guy stuck in his childhood obsessions and fixated on the Chuck from his past had played this part, it could have well been 5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Tragicomedy?
Review: I have to agree this movie is not for everyone. So many times a movie is improperly labeled as a comedy or a drama, when in fact it happens to be a hybrid, a tragedy-comedy of sorts. This is the case of Cable Guy, Jack, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Raising Arizona, and so many others that escape my brain. This is a sad movie with a hopeful ending. There are two main morals to the story: *Be careful what you do in life, because sooner or later the chickens come home to roost *The corny "behind each cloud there is a silver lining" Paul Weitz (the bad actor), Lupe Ontiveros (Beverly, the theater's house manager) and Paul White (Buck) all have stellar performances. The only complaint i have is that Buck sometimes comes up with statements that are incongruous for someone of his mental age.
Rating: 
Summary: Chuck and Buck
Review: I'm not sure why people find this movie funny. Its not funny, its depressing. The entire movie is about one persons misery and how he tries to cope with suppressed childhood homosexuality. I was expecting a dark comedy, which its not.
Rating:
Summary: An original coming of age story, but not for everyone
Review: Most people label what they do not understand as wierd or strange. This movie is hardly either, but in fact a sad and moving film of how some people in life really are. There are millions of different types of people, this films deals with one specific. It's not your thick budgeted or "talented" dullness cineplex theatre movie. It makes a good story, builds it better than most, and takes you away. If you're in the mood for raw honesty in that shaded part of adulthood, then this is your film. If you want some glossy, tweaked (...) typical Americans love to slobber over, then keep walking.
Rating:
Summary: Investors were bilked out of their money to fund this film
Review: Don't waste your time, money or energy on this one. It is a strange little film about a strange little man. Buck is so weird that you think he is retarted, only to find out in the end that he's not, he's just really weird. The investors should have saved their money.
Rating:
Summary: Save a few "Bucks"
Review: This movie is the opposite of entertainment-it is pain. Painful to watch. Painful to think that I spent 3 dollars to rent it. Painful that I took around two hours of my life to watch this film. Save your money. Better yet, make your own film. Have fun. Just stay away from this film, too dumb and poorly made to be truly disturbing. It might even ruin your taste for candy.
Rating:
Summary: CREEPY, UNNERVING, TOP-NOTCH
Review: "Chuck and Buck" is a curious film. You find yourself laughing even as you're a bit discomitted and even creeped-out by the characters. The story is excellent and the acting is quite good. Although the characters seem, at times, nearly implausible, the spot-on acting and directing make us believe. The production values are good. The look is crude and cheap, but effective. The viewer is propelled right into the midst of these people and their strange drama. The mysterious pull of childhood is very well documented in this film.
Rating:
Summary: A combo of bad acting & less than interesting characters...
Review: Comments on DVD version... When you start watching this movie, first thing that you notice is the bad acting...if you can get over that irritation, then you are left with watching a Gay character portrayed as a perversed peeping tom & a relentless stalker. If it isn't for the way the movie ends, GLAAD should step-in and get this movie banned! Romance - well, you'll have to wait till the end of the movie, by then you'd be so irritated by all the stiff faces & the lack of any feeling in the movie, you'll never get to see any chemistry between the two intended romantics. The strory line - well, no surprices or anything new to keep the interest of the viewer, and the plot is fairly lame and un-imaginative! Bottom line...this is one BAD movie! if you can get it for free and you have time to waste, get it & watch it...otherwise, blind fold your self, go into any movie rental or seller, pickup any movie at random, there's a very good chance you'll enjoy that one more than you do watching Chuck & Buck!
| 
