Rating: 
Summary: Yawn
Review: I have to say I was less than impressed with this movie. The motivations of Buck are less than wholly apparent, which makes him come across as an insanely stupid, whiny, and freakish loser whom ANYone would want to avoid or leave in their past.Chuck and Buck were best childhood friends. Buck has never really left his hometown to spread his own wings and has therefore never really grown up. Chuck is now "Charles," though, has moved on to a big city, and left behind his old life. Basically, Chuck has grown up into mature and independent adulthood. Buck tracks down Chuck nonetheless, and decides to move to Chuck's city with his life savings. (As an aside, how Buck can survive in L.A. for more than a month or two with only $10,000 and very little in terms of marketable skills is somewhat beyond me.) Without friends in the new city, Buck relentlessly tracks down Chuck and insists on renewing that "friendship." Only problem is the aforementioned maturity gap which makes Chuck remarkably uncomfortable in Buck's presence. That, in and of itself, explains Chuck's behavior. Buck is a loser who does NOT for the life of him fit in with the new crowd of people Chuck has surrounded himself with -- also known as professionals. However, Chuck is too nice until way late in the movie to just say something along the lines of "We've grown apart, we're no longer kids, we no longer have common interests, and we no longer are best friends." I suppose the "revelation" at the end of the movie (which shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone reading this because, well, the movie is listed in the "Gay and Lesbian" section) is supposed to explain Chuck's aloof behavior, but it was rather unnecessary. The plot as I've laid out above does a perfectly fine job of explaining Chuck's behavior. The twist adds nothing except to toss the movie straight into the "G/L interest" section. All in all, an odd plot line with Buck's motivations completely lackluster, and Chuck's absolutely transparent left me bored by the end.
Rating: 
Summary: Pluck Amok
Review: "Chuck & Buck" is not an enjoyable experience. You won't leave the theatre (or turn off the VCR/DVD player) humming a happy tune, content that the world is in good hands. It aims to disturb. Someone once said that the difference between mainstream and independent cinema is that mainstream cinema will confirm all your belief systems. "Chuck & Buck" is thus emblematic of independent cinema, which seeks to turn your belief systems upside down, challenging them with otherwise unheard of notions that might make you uncomfortable. Or in this case, creepy. Buck is the main repository of this creepiness. A 27-year old manchild, Buck has recently lost his mother, and reacquainted himself with childhood friend Chuck. Buck, as played by Mike White, has horrid teeth, blank eyes, and a wardrobe better suited for a third grader. Not a man suited for survival in the outside world. But Buck has a passion that can't be quenched. That passion is Chuck. Chuck, er, Charles, signs rock bands in Los Angeles. He has a charmingly social fiancee, Carlin, with whom he lives in a comfortable home. Charles has done a fine job until now of forgetting his childhood best friend, but once he's caught again in Buck's web, he can't seem to get himself out of it again. Chris Weitz, who plays Chuck, looks like Tom Cruise after a boxing match with Mike Tyson. He gets Chuck's exasperation just right, and never dwells too deep into his anger. The rest of the cast is minimal and unremarkable. Except, of course, for Lupe Ontiveros, who I've only ever seen play "the maid" (check out her filmography; the word is liberally peppered through her list of character names). Ontiveros neatly pulls off Beverly, house manager turned creative director of a small theatre company. She is imbued with street wisdom, blind passion, and fine maternal instincts, especially when it comes to guiding Buck. White, who doubles as the film's screenwriter, doesn't rely on flashy or stylish dialogue. Rather he goes for something much more real. Buck speaks in a stilted stutter that exposes his lack of intellect and maturity. Chuck can barely get out two sentences at a time, except when he's schmoozing with record industry types. The effect this has is that the characters become less like characters and more like real people. Couple this with the low-rent digital video cinematography, and what you get is a fictional movie that could easily pass for documentary. Further help with the script may have come from Chris Weitz and his brother Paul, who co-screenwrote the horrible "American Pie" movies. Paul also has a role here, playing a horribly untalented actor. Having three screenwriter's in the cast, which might have made the whole endeavor more verbose, actually made things more concise, and contributed to a fine screenplay. (Alas, a similar compliment could not be paid to "Armageddon", which had 4 screenwriters in its cast) As for the ending, well, I concur with the general consensus. Chuck's "choice" comes out of left field, for we don't really know what happened in his childhood. In hindsight, it appears to make sense once we fill in the gaps ourselves. Still, it's a bold move for the movie to make, trusting that its already perplexed audience is willing to go down one last road less traveled. This ending confused me at first, but upon further reflection it made just enough sense to be justified. Just like the rest of the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Disturbingly Great
Review: From the moment the theme song, "Freedom of the Heart" (the "oodley, oodley, oodley" song) was played on the soundtrack over the opening titles, this film had me hooked. No time was wasted getting us right into the story. And for all the bizarreness showcased here, the acting -- indeed, the whole production -- is generally superb. You will never see anything like Mike White -- as Buck -- in another movie. He plays this character with simple goofy honesty, doesn't round off the odd corners, and avoids the stupid "actorliness" which most Hollywood performers would bring to similar roles -- think Billy Bob Thornton in "Sling Blade", Tom Hanks in "Forrest Gump", etc. The rest of the cast is consistently superb. Especially Lupe Ontiveros. She brings to her role a sensibility that is sadly missing from the work of many actors. She's not trying desperately to entertain us. She's just doing her job. And, sure enough, we're entertained. Amazing how that happens. The casting of brothers Chris Weitz (as Charlie "Chuck" Sitter) and Paul Weitz (as Sam, (...) untalented, (...) with very grandiose illusions about his possibilities as an actor) is a wonderful touch. The characters need to be physically similar since Sam is selected to act the "Chuck" part in a play Buck scripts -- but these guys are terrific. Where Chris Weitz is all restrained cool and control, Paul Weitz hits the mark in every one of his scenes portraying Sam as (...) unabashed(,) he is without making the character into a caricature. There are so many fine moments in this film. Director Miguel Arteta and company did a great job. You get the feeling they made a genuine attempt to understand the story they were filming. That shouldn't be the sign of an exceptional film...but sadly it is these days. "Chuck and Buck" (...)displays an astonishing amount of heart, compassion, and psychological savvy. Sure, if you were relating the plot to someone, they might stop you and say, "What? Are you kidding me? Who would want to see a creepy film like that?" But they'd be wrong. This film portrays the creeps -- and all of the characters -- as human beings. Disturbed imperfect human beings, yes. But human beings nevertheless! This is a truly rare American film.
Rating:
Summary: A Difficult, Yet Effective Movie
Review: I must admit, I was a little put off by the newspaper reviews that I read about "Chuck & Buck". The subject of psyhological stalkers and arrested development are not two subjects that would appeal to a mass market. But, a friend of mine offered to loan me his DVD of the film. It took me a few days to get the nerve to watch it. All of my fears were unfounded. This is an incredible movie, which has a depth that is not found in conventional Hollywood movies. It makes no apologies, and is gritty and to the point. Mike White, who plays Buck, helped write the screenplay for "Dead Man On Campus", which initially piqued my interest in this odd movie. I mean "odd" in a good way. I like quirky movies, and this is definitely one of them. Chris Weiz, who portrays Chuck, is also an underestimated talent. He co-wrote and co-directed "American Pie" and "American Pie 2". Besides the "Behind The Scenes" of "American Pie", I've never seen him until this movie. Both gentleman are not your typical beautiful Hollywood actors, which makes this movie even more enjoyable. I do believe everyone knows someone like Chuck and Buck. The presentation of this movie reminds me of a mix of "I Shot Andy Warhol" and the lovely British film "Beautiful Thing". The lighting is very effective, considering this was filmed digitally. Many people will be turned off by the subject matter, which consists of sexual ambiguity and the apparent stalking of Chuck by Buck. I don't consider it stalking, really. I feel that Buck has suffered a great loss (his mother dying) and has been treated like a child his whole life, he needs someone to cling to who is familiar. Chuck has been Buck's pal since childhood. Chuck has moved on into adulthood, yet Buck has stayed childlike. There are very fine performances by the supporting cast, most notably Lupe Ontiveros, who portrayed Yolanda Saldivar in "Selena". Finally she doesn't portray a stereotypical Latina, yet she portrays a very straightforward person, who sees what's going on between Chuck and Buck. Without saying a word, she speaks volumes with her face. But also, her dialogue is the funniest stuff you'll ever hear in an indie film. She's so abrasive and to point. What a breakthrough performance by such a highly underrated actress! Hollywood should take note of movies like this. Even though the subject matter is tough to digest, it is one that could truly happen. Not all movies should have happy endings, and not all characters should be sweet and gorgeous. I love the dialogue of this film. It's almost ad-lib in the style of "Annie Hall" blended with Andy Warhol's "Trash". I believe that many will be shocked at the characters. Not that they are shocking in an odd sense, but shocking as in you will actually know these people. Everyone knows these characters, in some form. I highly recommend this movie! It is one that you will want to see over and over, just to get a deeper sense on where these wonderfully conceived characters are coming from. This is indeed in my collection now. You will not be disappointed in the least if you love real, true, gritty and, in some way...great characterizations of true to life personaes. Buy it, rent it, borrow it...just see it. It's a very very very satisfying movie.
Rating:
Summary: Boys Do Cry...goes digital!!!
Review: The film deals with a subject that Hollywood wouldn't even dare to be near of. The film is shot on digital video. The cinematography is beautiful and the montage is very impressive. I really loved the performances of Mike White, Chris Weitz, and everybody in the film. It shows that boys do cry in a Coca-Cola-lollipops-and-television-culture.
Rating:
Summary: Way Offbeat and Oddly Affecting
Review: Yes, it has some problems in tone and technique, but I could not get this quirky gem out of my mind for weeks, not to mention that annoying title song "Ooooogly, Ooooooogly, Ooooogly, Fun, Fun, Fun". I mean, where in tarnation did Mike White find that one? Of course, this is the sort of uncompromisingly deranged tragicomedy that is going to wholly upset some of the more mainstream PC viewers. I was willing to take some leaps simply because I couldn't take my eyes off of it, and the film just kept pulling me in deeper and deeper. On top of that, Lupe Ontiveros is hilarious and lovingly human theatre manager who supplies Buck with some reality-testing ("Honey, I'm a mess!" she tells Buck at one moment). Chuck and Buck are also rendered three-dimensionally (as two dimensional characters coming into three dimensions, I should qualify). Consider it sort of a no-budget "Mr. Ripley" that could be peversely summed up as "The Graduate" of the year 2000 in its handling of uncomfortable issues where 'arrested development' teeters on the edge of sociopathy (well, in Ripley, it topples over, for sure). What's affecting here is the final scene where Chuck does tell Buck "Yes, I remember you." The terms leading up to the encounter are iffy, but it's at that moment one realizes that Chuck has been as 'arrested' in his own way as the childlike Buck. Neither can progress to the future until the past is healed.
Rating:
Summary: rememberance of things past
Review: This film takes a righteous swipe at two much loved and pernicious stock in trades of Hollywood- the manchild and staker. It challenges the audience to look at why it seems to approve these streotypes and what assumptions underlie their popularity. No wonder some run screaming. More fool them. This film has more heart and soul than several years worth of most studios output. Tremendous directing, acting and writing. As for the question about Charlies behaviour near the end. Not all apparently 'straight' men are entirely straight and this film attempts to acknowledge that they have their struggles. Chris Weitz should be praised for making Charlie a sympatheic character (maybe one day he will be more remembered for this than 'down to earth'?) This film caused nowhere near as much contreversy in the UK as it did in the US- different expectations and attitudes? The extras were very interesting- two commentaries (listen out for the same stories!- the commentary by the two crew members is a scream and a revealing insight into indie filmmaking) and some deleted scenes. Pity the transfer wasn't great. Thank you to everyone involved in making this film for firstly producing something so wonderful and for putting up with the undeserved flak you got in some quarters.
Rating:
Summary: Forrest Gump meets Fatal Attraction
Review: Certain members of the pseudo-intellectual crowd, the type who attend film festivals to be "challenged" by a film instead of merely "entertained," will flock like lemmings to see or rent this film. I know this type well, because I am currently dating one, and he persuaded me to view this film with him. What a waste of two hours of my time! Before I receive hate mail for being "mainstream," let me make it plain that I have enjoyed many films which are off the beaten path: Maurice, My Beautiful Launderette, Beethoven's Nephew, or the recent (WONDERFUL) Big Eden, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, the main characters of this tiresome little opus have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and neither does the script. Buck, the main character, is an emotionally retarded man in his late 20s, who has never moved past an early adolescent sexual experience with his best friend, Chuck, who HAS grown up and is preparing to get married. After Buck's mother dies (the first scene in the movie, a charming way to start a film, don't you think?) Chuck attends the funeral, where Buck makes a pass at his old friend in the restroom. When Chuck rejects Buck's advance, he remains undeterred, and moves to Los Angeles to, in effect stalk Chuck. While Mike White tries to portray Buck as fragile and lovable, he merely comes across as creepy and irritating. Frankly, I wound up having more sympathy for Chuck and his fiance, and kept wondering why they didn't go to the police for a restraining order. That's what any real person would have done. In another instance of unreality, Buck befriends a young boy who injures his hand with a firecracker. But would any responsible (or even semi-responsible) parent let a character like Buck get within a hundred feet of her son? The utter lack of verisimilitude in these characters' behavior makes it impossible for any semi-critical person to suspend his/her disbelief. The movie rambles through several subplots until Buck winds up blackmailing Chuck into one, final, sexual encounter. The saving grace of this scene is that the viewer knows that the film must be finally nearing an end. There are those who call this type of film deep and relevant. Frankly, I can find more depth and relevance in an episode of Star Trek.
Rating:
Summary: Effective but ultimately meaningless
Review: Undoubtedly effective in summoning forth feelings of uneasiness, but by the end, I was thoroughly confused by the artifices in the film and what they're supposed to signify. Films do not necessarily have to be about anything but "Chuck & Buck" seems to desperately want to be about something. The whole film, with its numerous contrivances, appears to be set up as a parable. Even the contrivance of the story within the story, "Hank and Frank", seems to be a purposeful allegory of some sort. It is apparent that "Chuck & Buck", by contrasting "normal" Charlie's self-denial of his sexuality with "abnormal" Buck's ingenuous naturalness to his, is ostensibly commenting on how social propriety can bury one's sexual nature. On the other hand, it is also apparent that "Hank and Frank" is a manifestation of Buck's indictment of Charlie for his "crippled" development, as brought about by Chuck's sexual exploitation of Buck. Maybe it's me but these two points do not jibe with me -- is it Chuck or Buck who's "crippled" anyway? And then there's the climactic scene between the two eponymous characters in Buck's apartment. I don't know but it didn't look to me like Charlie is trying very hard to bury his sexuality, nor is Buck equally diligent at preventing himself from being exploited again. It also didn't help that Chris Weitz, who played Charlie, is as poker-faced as Lorenzo Lamas. The muddy digital-video camera work isn't anything to write home about either. Lupe Ontiveros, who played the stage director, however, is terrific.
Rating:
Summary: chuck and buck is a big fun filled barrel of monkeys!!
Review: this was one of the best movies i've seen in a long time. outstanding. it doesn't quite capture the brilliance and magic of films such as " while you were sleeping", "bring it on" or "chairman of the board" (starring the hilarious carrot top), but chuck and buck will have to do. it made my grandma sin in her pants!
| 
