Chuck & Buck (2000) User Reviews (139)

fascinating movie that avoids predictability

[cherold · 8/10 · 26 May 2004]

The notable thing about Chuck & Buck is not just that it's a clever, well made movie with a fascinatingly odd central character, but that it doesn't go where you expect it to. At first Chuck & Buck seems like a more serious take on The Cable Guy, another weird movie about a strange stalker. Buck is a truly weird, disturbing guy, an adult seemingly incapable of leaving his childhood behind and unable to understand the world around him.

But the relationship between the principals is more nuanced than one is first lead to think and the movie refuses to make any of the obvious choices, moving it beyond fascinatingly weird to genuinely intelligent and thoughtful. Much of the movie's appeal is undeniably its weirdness, but the movie is far more than a one-trick pony.

Memorable film with strong performances

[ellkew · 8/10 · 30 January 2008]

Great film and quite unsettling in its handling of the relationship between the two men. The character of Chuck (the music exec) is a really awful character and I did find it slightly unbelievable that he would be so unsympathetic to Buck. I loved the immediacy of the shooting style and the quality of the video. It had a direct home video quality. I also liked the traits of Buck and his view of the world. That really comes across well. I remembered this film from years back, possibly a trailer and I was glad to finally track it down. It did not disappoint. I genuinely shocked me in a couple of moments but it was more about the use of language in an unexpected way which was in itself something I hadn't experienced for a while in a film. Great story, written by the actor who plays Buck and great performances. Very memorable film and a title that lingers.

What do you do in L.A., Buck?

[film-critic · 8/10 · 9 March 2005]

What a surprising beautiful and tragic film that Mike White has created. I say Mike White instead of the director (who also did an exemplary job) because it was his penmanship that crafted this film into such a powerhouse. When I rented the film, I did not expect to be so submerged with so many bold styles and emotional thematic elements. I was not expecting to see such a high caliber of acting and storytelling mixed together into one small Sundance winning picture. In other words, I wasn't expecting really anything when I placed this film into my DVD player, so when the film finished and I picked my jaw off the floor, it became instantly clear that I would never experience another film like this one again. From the way that it was filmed, to the small budget of the production, to even the taboo subject it presented, Chuck & Buck is one of those films that will shock, amaze, and really pull at the strings of your heart. It is a film, first and foremost, about friendship and the destructive impact that childhood moments can have on our futures.

I cannot speak of this film without mentioning first the brilliant mind of Mike White. Not only did he accomplish the first challenge of this film … writing it, but he also stole the entire film by also playing one of the leads, Buck. While most film watchers, sadly, will remember him as Jack Black's friend in School of Rock, his true talents are completely showcased in this film. He completely looses himself in this character and it is absolutely obvious to those of us watching the film. During all of this film, I never once saw Mike White, the actor, but instead I saw the character of Buck. That is a rare accomplishment in the acting world. Nine times out of ten in these types of films, you are handed moments where the actor or actress is simply themselves with a different type of voice. That is not the case with Mike White, he completely embodies his character. From the hand motions, voice, and even reactions, he is Buck. He is the character he has set out to play. This can happen because you can tell he is very compelled to this character. He is not into the story for the money, but instead to tell the story as honestly as possible. This was very obvious throughout the film. These actors, now directors and writers, placed their heart and soul into this picture, and it seeped through the television. This is truly one of those rare instances where you could see why people decide to make films.

While I wasn't overly impressed with the acting ability of Chris Weitz (since Mike White overshadowed him), he did help contribute to the overall scheme of the story. This is a thrilling tale, and it is difficult to see it as the comedy that IMDb has labeled. This was a completely human story told with such precise honesty and honor that I have no doubts that anyone that watches it will walk away with a different perspective. This wasn't your typical "stalker" film, there were so many different and deep layers to this story that you could easily watch it three or four times a day and still get caught up in a different aspect. I don't know if this makes sense or not, but there were moments when I could see the friendship, the insanity, and the sorrow. The ending brought the story full circle and really had me in suspense until the final moments. Nothing is handed to you right away, as the story develops, you are shown more and more until the utter power of this film is hanging on your own shoulders. It is deep and amazing, and I cannot stop using that word "amazing" enough.

Overall, I thought this was an exceptional film for 2000. I think that White should have been handed more and more acting roles throughout the years, but it still makes me happy to see him writing. This was a film about friends who never quite left their childhood years, and have been waiting for that one moment to close the door of to their past. This is not a film for everyone, but if chosen to explore will reveal some thickly layered characters with superb acting by Mr. White. This is a drama that carries relevance in today's society and will continue forever to be a cultural staple in the film world. I loved it, and hope others will see the powerful nature of Chuck & Buck.

Grade: **** out of *****

Comedy?!

[jdowling · 7/10 · 11 March 2001]

We saw this movie because we heard great critic reviews. It certainly was interesting and different; enjoyable to my artistic senses. But funny? No! I don't know how they can call this a comedy. I call it a drama. If folks are laughing, they're laughing at mental and/or emotional illness in a somewhat realistic plot - what's funny about that?!

Kinda Creepy

[W_L · 7/10 · 12 March 2001]

I agree this movie had dark undertones. The look and feel was definitely low-budget but the story stood up well. It definitely made me feel uncomfortable at times---kinda like when you want to say to a character in film "No, PLEASE, just DON'T do that!" I felt so sorry for Buck, he did not mean to be the way the was...he just didn't know any other way. This definitely is not a light-hearted fun movie. It makes you think and feel a lot. A tiny bit too short, by today's standard's but it got the point across well.

One of the best, least-seen films of the year

[repulsion · 10/10 · 17 December 2000]

The emotional world of Chuck & Buck's titular Buck is explicated early on as Buck (Mike White), a 27 year old mentally-challenged individual, is shown living in a kitschy suburban home that is decoratively informed by his taste for childlike pleasures. After his mother dies, Buck decides to re-establish ties with his boyhood best friend Chuck (Chris Weitz), a record executive now living in Los Angeles with his fiancée Carlyn (Beth Colt). Buck packs up his belongings and moves to the West Coast, setting in motion a troubling series of events so grotesquely humorous and touching that I'm pressed to call the film the scariest film of the year.

When Chuck and Buck were 11, they were best friends, and a decade and a half later they find themselves leading decidedly different lives. The phony-looking Tom Cruise-type that Chuck has become apparently leaves him incapable of realizing that the sixteen years that have separated the two men has caused Buck to live in a child-like world of arrested development. There is a rhyme to Buck's pursuit of Chuck and as Buck begins to stalk his friend it becomes clear that there was something entirely more complex to their friendship than initially meets that eyes.

One wickedly morbid utterance by to his friend Chuck reveals that the two men, as boys, shared a sexual relationship. Buck's mental state has little to do with his childhood experimentation so his pursuit of Chuck has little to do with homosexual desire than it has to do with wallowing in a childhood comfort that has long been lost. Chuck, who viewed the experiences with Buck as nothing but the curious experimentation between two young boys, is forced to face the ramifications of the actions he made long ago and the film takes an interesting twist that says plenty about the repressed and inconsiderate desires of yuppie America.

Lupe Ontiveros, thankless owner of stereotypically Hispanic characters in films like Selena and As Good As It Gets, almost single-handedly steals the show as the manager that decides to put up a play written by Buck called Hank and Frank. The psychodrama presented in Buck's play is a homoerotic (and misogynistic) tale of child-lust that is given a Wizard of Oz spin that makes the proceedings all the more troubling. Ontiveros juggles the right amount of dry wit and maternal instinct as she prods into Buck's dangerously unstable mind.

There is a sense of dread in Chuck & Buck that is near chilling. This isn't a gross exaggeration because there is a scene in the film between Buck and a young boy that is so twisted and misleading that one is forced to wonder if the scene is an outtake from Solandz' Happiness. From the film's oddly addictive theme song to colorful performances, Chuck & Buck not only harbors the creepiest catch phrase of the year (and the one least to be uttered) but the most sardonic and challenging take on the truncated sexual persona.

"Chuck & Buck" is a Twisted, Dark, and Highly Original Movie

[D_Burke · 7/10 · 4 January 2011]

It's very difficult to classify a movie like "Chuck & Buck". It has elements of a comedy, but is not laugh-out-loud funny and is quite disturbing throughout. It could be a suspense thriller about a stalker, but the story takes on a different angle and shows just how pathetic the said stalker is. Overall, it's a genre-bending film that, while bizarre and creepy in its story and character development, keeps you watching because it's strangely intriguing. The only problem lies in the last 20 minutes, where the actions of the main characters simply don't make any sense.

Before the ending, however, you're introduced to Buck (Mike White), a 27-year-old who still lives with his mother. When his mother dies of lung cancer, Buck invites childhood friend Charlie Sitter (Chris Weitz), whom he knew as "Chuck", to the funeral. It is only through Buck's interactions with Charlie where we learn how much Buck really hasn't grown up. Whereas Charlie has moved on with his life as an up-and-coming record executive who is engaged to beautiful Carlyn (Beth Colt), Buck is clearly in a state of arrested development.

Mike White, who also wrote the screenplay, is heartbreakingly convincing as Buck, and was very brave in playing such a vulnerable role. While we never find out exactly why Buck is so nostalgic for his pre-adolescent years, White's giddiness in seeing his childhood friend speaks volumes. He is very clingy in every manner from the way he hugs Chuck to the way he sucks his Blow Pops, which he does throughout the movie.

The film gets decidedly darker when Buck moves out of his mother's house and to L.A., where Chuck now lives. It's when Buck stands outside Charlie's place of work where we really feel for Charlie, but Buck's unhealthy obsession with Charlie does not stop there.

There is one jaw-dropping thing Buck says when he visits Charlie and Carlyn at their home. I won't give away what he says, but it happens when Carlyn goes to bed, and it involves certain childhood experimentation that Charlie put behind him, but Buck clearly has not. Charlie's reaction to Buck's statement is very understated given the circumstances, but would have motivated this critic to issue a restraining order immediately.

Buck is by far the most pathetic cinematic stalker since Rupert Pupkin, Robert De Niro's character in "The King of Comedy" (1983). Both characters are equally motivated by their own delusion and their search for love in all the wrong places. However, Buck is a lot creepier than Rupert Pupkin is, and probably would benefit from intense psychiatric counseling.

It was interesting how Buck began being active in the local theater across the street from Charlie's office. He befriends Beverly (Lupe Ontiveros), who is unaware of the true autobiographical nature of Buck's play, "Hank & Frank". A subplot like this would have felt out of place in a "Cape Fear"-like psychological thriller, but feels strangely welcome in an indie film like this one. It still contributes to Buck's unsettling delusion.

It is the resolution of this story where the film loses its ground, and ends on a very questionable note. The way Charlie ultimately decides to deal with Buck is very much out of left field, and was not so much a cop out as much as unrealistic given the circumstances. The last scene also feels half baked and inconclusive. Maybe it is the audience's wish for an alternative fate for Buck which leads to this feeling. Up until that point, however, the story was very intriguing and the characters incredibly well-fleshed out. Mike White's writing has always been quirky and weird, but it is always original and full of characters you feel for even when you don't agree with them. It just would have been better if such characters reached a better conclusion.

Forever Young

[valis1949 · 9/10 · 15 April 2009]

For me, it is beyond comprehension that people find this film humorous, however, CHUCK&BUCK does make a most peculiar and striking impression. Mike White, the writer/star, is to be applauded for confronting such an unusual subject. I guess you could say that the film observes an innocuous childhood friendship which has curdled under the pressure of time and testosterone. White's facial mannerisms are an unquestionable mimicry of male preadolescence, and extremely disconcerting on the face of an almost thirty year old male. Just his physical presence alone is enough to make one cringe. The wardrobe department did an outstanding job locating clothing to create the look of a man who, for all intents and purposes, is eleven years old. Much of the set and production design has been contrived to reinforce the idea of Buck's pathological arrested development. As the film continues, and it seems that there can be no possible resolution, a foreshadowing of violence or menace is introduced. This is largely a red herring since, in a way, Buck finds a possible chance for fulfillment with a character who is also at a challenged state of development. However, in no way can this be seen as a 'Happy' state of affairs since one comes away from the film with an overall sense of creepiness and unease. CHUCK&BUCK demonstrates that childhood is a singular human experience and can only happen once. The movie is a penetrating look at the misinterpretation of normal psycho- sexual development, and is truly a distinctive cinematic experience.

Not a Comedy

[roedyg · 6/10 · 25 August 2005]

The box paints this movie as a comedy. It perhaps can be viewed that way, but it is really the tragedy of Buck obsessed with his childhood friend Chuck. He can't understand that Chuck on longer wants to play the sex games they had so much fun with as children.

Buck is also like a moth to flame with a Chuck look-alike who also has no sexual interest in him. He is powerless to look elsewhere for love.

The movie does not have a Hollywood ending, nothing particularly resolved, just like real life, with a little hope of better things to come.

Buck has some minor mental problem. His directness gets him in repeated trouble. This is a weird movie the way it pulls at your heartstrings getting you to sympathsise with an idiot, who stands flawed, oddly symbolic of everyman.

Who needs another pathetic gay loser?

[mm1-2 · 5/10 · 30 July 2000]

This movie gave me the creeps. As a gay man I'm tired of seeing gay men portrayed as pathetic losers. Buck is borderline retarded and probably should be in some kind of treatment facility but here he is out on the street stalking his childhood best friend who is now an adult straight male. This movie would be much more interesting done from the point of view of Chuck (the sane straight guy) rather than from Buck's twisted, pathetic point of view. It would have made the movie more interesting to see it from Chuck's mature adult POV, watch him struggling with his past and the ghost in his closet, his relationship with his fiance, with his colleagues. Buck's not that interesting. He's just another case of arrested development. He's as interesting as any 11 year old can be. I found it really hard to care about Buck because he was so annoying and what was more interesting was why the other adults allowed him to get away with so much. He did hire a director to direct his play for cash which just goes to show you that in Hollywood people will do anything for money.

"I've got freedom of the heart, it's a brand new start"...or is it.

[Teebs2 · 8/10 · 26 July 2004]

Chuck & Buck (2000) was one of those small US films that created a big buzz a few years back. I finally got round to seeing it on DVD and was quite impressed.

It follows in quite a long history of 'loser' cinema, the sort of film where the anti-hero is the star. I suppose you could mention many of the film noir detectives such as Kiss Me Deadly's Mike Hammer as some of the earliest examples. Penn's Bonnie and Clyde also challenged the popular conceptions of hero/antihero which continued into the 1970's with films such as Scorsese's Taxi Driver. It is still a popular genre in US cinema to this day with such films as Happiness by Todd Solondz, Zwigoff's Ghost World and Todd Louiso's Love Liza or One Hour Photo to name but a few recent examples. The challenge is inevitably how to get the audience to care and sympathies for characters which you would otherwise probably avoid at all costs; people who are otherwise repulsive, morally reprehensible or even down right sick.

Full credit to Miguel Arteta and his team for this very good film centring around two childhood friends Chuck and Buck who meet up again in adulthood. Buck, played by writer Mike White, is a mess. His mother dies in the first scene but this seems to take a back seat as soon as Buck sees his old friend at the funeral. However when Buck comes on to Chuck after the wake, the innocence of their earlier relationship and Buck's current motivations is thrown into question.

Although better known for his writing, White is actual a very good character actor (You may have recently seen him in School of Rock as Jack Black's room-mate, held captive by his dictator of a girlfriend). He's one of those actors that just look naturally pale and sickly, as if he hasn't seen the light of day for some months. This is not far from the truth as regards to the character of Buck who has been caring for his sick mother, whose ghastly coughs are among the first sounds in the film. He catches perfectly a guy verging on the mentally retarded with some severe emotional problems, but whose nervous twitches and stammering speech are also strangely endearing and charming. Chris Weitz (better known for unleashing the American Pie franchise with his brother Paul, also in this film), plays Chuck, or Charlie as he now prefers to be known, a successful LA record company executive with a pretty wife, a nice house, BMW...the works. Weitz is an interesting casting decision. His relative inexperience in acting shows, but in a good way, manifesting in the superficially charming yet wooden and impersonal mask of a young, powerful professional. His face is chiselled enough to be good looking, but his sticky-out ears and slightly ratty face give an indication that he may once have been geeky enough to hang out with a guy like Buck. Cast-wise good support all round particularly Lupe Ontiveros as Beverly, recruited by Buck to help produce and direct his play "Hank and Frank". She brings a real down to earth honesty that really strengthens the play within the film sub-plot. Paul Weitz is also terrifically wooden, naturally or not, as the actor chosen by Buck to play Frank in his play. Beth Colt is also good in the slightly underwritten role of Chuck's wife, who becomes unsettled but also genuinely intrigued by Buck and his boyhood relationship with her future husband.

The reason I think Chuck and Buck works so well is that purely by spending time with Buck and seeing him obviously distressed by being spurned by Chuck there is some degree of sympathy created. Most people know, to some extent, what it's like to meet up with close friends from the past and the various feelings which arouse from that, particularly if they've changed radically as people. Feelings of nostalgia, maybe jealousy and envy, superiority or amazement that you ever liked them at all. OK, so the whole homosexual sub-plot does complicate the experience a little but it shouldn't put people off as it is not presented in a particularly explicit manner until one final scene. Some worthwhile issues are raised particularly regarding Chuck's character. Is he repressing his real desires in order to conform, is Buck just in search of love whoever it may be from? There are a few opportunities for the film to take a whole darker twist a la Happiness which I'm glad did not happen.

Now I'm no psychologist but I'm not too sure what to make of the conclusion of the film. Spoiler - After one last sexual experience together, Buck seems to start some sort of journey to maturity signified by him throwing away his collection of toys. Could this be a final closure, enabling both characters to move on? Buck is invited to Chuck's wedding and he looks at the newly-weds with genuine happiness for them, rather than the jealousy he previously felt towards Chuck's fiancée. The film appears to end on quite an optimistic note - a fresh start for both, emphasised by a reprise of one of the earlier songs, Gwendolyn Sanford's wonderful 'Freedom of the Heart' (I've got freedom of the heart / It's a brand new start.) But can it really be that simple? Just how much can people ever change?

I want to finally highlight a couple of technical aspects. First, the music is absolutely fantastic. The music co-ordinators, including ex-Beck and REM drummer Joey Waronker, have found some wonderful songs that are childish, joyful, melancholy and creepy all at once. They really help root the viewer in Buck's retarded view of life and are also creepily ironic as they often accompany Buck in scenes verging on criminal stalking. A clever use of the power of sound/music over an audience. The other point I wanted to mention was the digital cinematography. I was undecided about this. On the one hand I appreciate that it gives lower budget films a huge advantage in terms of eliminating film stock/developing costs. It can also be used just as expressively as film and does have a particular aesthetic quality. However I thought that the image quality was particularly muddy on this film even on DVD.

A brief aside: For people who like to really read between the lines of films, one critic's review I read ( I believe either David Edelstein or J. Hobermann) made a very interesting possible interpretation of the film regarding the relationship between the independent and studio film industries. As I've mentioned previously the casting is particularly relevant here, White- the acclaimed indie writer, Weitz - the young powerful studio player. I'll leave you to ponder those sort of meta-filmic interpretations at your own leisure!

8/10

If you don't have high expectations, you can be pleasantly surprised

[Pontifex-2 · 7/10 · 1 January 2001]

I vaguely, vaguely knew the premise before I popped in the tape and to my delight the "premise" that would have taken most mainstream films 90 minutes to build up to instead was made very clear to the main characters in the first 7 minutes. This was no "idiot plot", no, this was about some deeper themes, things that need some time to ruminate on.

I guess I'd have to call it a soulful film. Much was left unsaid, there was alot of space in which to think and percolate and just float through it all.

****SPOILER-STOP READING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET*** I'd agree that the very end ending was wrapped up a bit too neatly, but I have to take issue with some other reviewers who thought that Chuck's sleeping with Buck was out of character and unbelievable, it struck me a bit oddly at first as well, but one of the key components of Chuck & Buck's friendship is that Chuck has all the power, he's older, obviously Buck has something going on mentally too, so Chuck chose to have that best friendship with Buck in the first place, he chose to be sexual with Buck, Buck had little to do with it, other than acquiesce.

Anytime you have that much power it's going to feel very safe to experiment or do anything else you like with that person, that is one of the draws of a relationship like that. So here is Chuck, who has turned out to be a real a*****e as an adult (maybe he was as a kid too), and he's living the rat-maze life, pursuing power and money and beauty and collecting them along the way, but he also obviously has sexual desires that he can't express in the cultural world he's living in and so he takes the opportunity given to him with Buck, after all, I don't think he really feels that threatened by Buck, we as a viewer don't know Buck that well and with the haunting music and the set-ups by the writer and director I think he comes off a whole lot more scary and creepy at times than he really is.

Another very interesting reaction is by Chuck's fiancee, when Buck tells him what happened in their childhood sexually she just blows by it, "everyone experiments as kids, that natural", that response shocked me more than Chuck sleeping with Buck, but again if you look at her character and the world they are living in, both Chuck and his fiancee just want to sweep this under the rug and move on with their script-perfect lives...and that is just what they do.

I almost wonder if Buck kind of figures that out in the end. Marriage cake is sweet indeed.

And people say how realistic this movie is... why?

[JakersWild · 2/10 · 28 July 2001]

This movie was neither worthy of loving or loathing, it just kinda 'was'. I found it more interesting trying to understand its writer than the characters. Had rented it on DVD, and after watching hoped that the commentary track with the star/author would illuminate. Not even. I couldn't begin to suggest if someone else will like this movie, since clearly everyone has their own reaction and some love it. While watching it wasn't boring, I can't say I liked it, despite being comfortable with off-the-wall material. But if you happen to have serious issues with homosexuality, you will probably NOT want to see this movie, even though it isn't about being gay in the ordinary sense. I never understand people who'll go to a movie like Threesome and then groan at two men kissing. Grow up already.

All the C&B men we see in any depth are disfunctional. Chuck and his bride-to-be barely communicate apparently, since she never knows anything until almost the end of the movie. Chuck is barely able to communicate period come to think of it, he's a man of actions not words... so I guess he really is straight. Buck is what the other reviewers say: creepy, pitiful, pathetic, etc., but I fail to understand how one would get stuck at 11 years old going through the US school system. If you go to middle and highschool, you WILL come out different than you went in. Too much happens, especially when combined with the hormone cocktail that is puberty. Did Buck just sit in the house until he was 22 when his mom got sick? There was little effort to explain all that either. I know guys who are stuck at 18, Hell *I* may be a guy who is stuck at 18, but 11? Just don't buy that.

*** PROBABLE SPOILERS BEYOND HERE ***

Its seems much more interesting things could have been done with this story. One of the cool things about Indies is that they can go out on a limb and aren't subject to test audiences, a requirement for happy endings, etc. And remember Fatal Attraction? Now there was a stalker! Buck a stalker? Eh. Kept waiting for him to do something extreme, but he never did really, unless the firecracker thing with little Tommy wasn't an accident. They could have had an interesting story arc if Sam had at first allowed Buck some latitude then got cold feet later, but they didn't do that. Or if Sam had been willing, but only for a one way 'relationship'. The actors playing Sam and Chuck are brothers in real life by the way.

And the ending is as rotten as could be. Did Chuck only let Buck do the one thing, or did they complete the lil 'Chuck and Buck, S--- and ----' rhyme all the way around? Did Chuck do it because he really thought it would end it all, or because he was many martinis deep and horny? Considering the kiss, one would think he really wanted to, since even when a lot of guys 'experiment' with other dudes, kissing is rarely on the menu.

In a deleted scene on the DVD, Chuck throws Buck out of his office, after their deal, so the deal couldn't have worked very well. If Sam didn't want Buck's advances, and knew he was sick (the stunted mental state, not any reference to being gay), why would he want him next door? What was the source of Buck's sudden emotional transition in the last minutes? Finding a new guy to obsess about just one door down? Finally getting that one (adult) sexual experience with someone he had powerful feelings for? At least I can relate to wanting an intimate connection just once when having a powerful crush on someone, but don't think that getting it physically would suddenly make it all better... probably the opposite. Or was his final awaking being threatened with bodily harm (again, the deleted scene)?

Even for somewhat disturbed people, all this does not make sense. If there is a message here, it is too jumbled to be useful. If I'm going to watch realistic disfunctional people with real problems, I'd much rather watch Six Feet Under on HBO. There's more depth in one episode than in this. Of course I might continue to watch a show with a rarely shaven, often shirtless Peter Krause even if it didn't have depth.

Chuck & Buck... Damn the luck. Mostly yuck. Did Chuck really suck? Why was Buck so struck? I'll never know, and come to think of it, I don't give a f---! If you haven't seen it and still want to, I wish you luck.

Entertaining look at the stages of life

[rwint · 17 February 2002]

Highly enjoyable, terrific look at the sometimes difficult transition between childhood and adulthood. Basically deals with the relationship between Chuck and Buck. 'Best' friends in childhood, but who have now taken completely different paths. Chuck is a successful record executive with a beautiful girlfriend. Buck is still immature and longing for the 'good old days'. Buck tracks Chuck down and tries to turn things back to the way they were, which leads to many problems.

Keenly looks at many universal human experiences from catering to that 'inner child', avoiding change, holding on to memories of simpler times, and even facing the fact that people can change and drift apart. It does all this while still conveying it's message (that accepting change is your best medicine) without ever being too preachy or too cute.

Fairs better than other films of similar type (FLOUNDERING, FREE ENTERPRISE) simply because the characters and situations are more consistent. This allows the viewer to better identify with their own similar experiences.

White as Buck is dynamite. Not only does he convincingly play a 11 year old, but he actually LOOKS like one despite being a adult.

Has a good non-flashy finale that,in it's own low key way, really hits home. A winner. Look quickly for Paul Sand as one of the playhouse directors

Pretty good, but what's the big deal?

[MrBook · 7/10 · 16 February 2001]

Entertainment Weekly named this and Dancer in the Dark (still haven't seen it) the "Number 1 movies of 2000". The movie was somewhat fascinating, had a very real feel to it, and had a bit of grittiness to it, but I don't see what's so great. When a movie is filmed with a video camera, you'd think someone would concentrate more on cleaner looking shots & angles, but I wasn't too impressed with the look of the movie. I guess they wanted to concentrate more on characterization, which like I said, was pretty real. Mike White's delivery as Buck was great, and I did feel very sorry for him at certain points in the movie. Anyways, the movie seemed like it was hinting at some big secret between Chuck & Buck. Like it was something more than what you think. But there really wasn't anything else, and the movie just sort of ended. Not a bad movie, pretty watchable, but nothing too special.

A Solid Piece of Filmmaking

[bosochima · 6/10 · 26 July 2000]

Overall, this was a good film that was very well acted and directed. Especially enjoyable was Lupe Oniveros as the theater manager who befriends Buck (she is given some of the best lines). I did not rate this film higher because I did not feel the climax of the plot was consistent with what went on before. I don't want to give away plot points, so I'll just say that there is a shift in a certain character's actions that did not quite add up for me without the whole film turning into a subversive attempt at pro-gay politics. I also did not feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for the main character as many critics of this film did. He seemed more deranged and pathetic than anything else. Still, it's a good movie in the independent tradition, and I would recommend it to anyone looking for an interesting story to watch.

Don't miss this movie!!!

[-lemmycaution- · 10/10 · 31 May 2000]

I was lucky to be at the first screening of the movie at Sundance, and it completely blew me away!!! Mike White is amazing, and it seems that he wrote the movie too! It's funny and sad and moving at the same time, and it really hit home. Incredibly well directed. When it was over, I felt like seeing the movie over again.

I loved it, and can't wait for it to come out so my friends can see it too. This is definitely one that people will be talking about!

Eerie and funny

[JesNollie · 7/10 · 24 June 2001]

What an odd little film. Buck is pitiful, annoying, amusing and somewhat frightening all at the same time. I can't remember laughing and cringing so much in the same movie! I liked it. :)

Enjoyable (But It's By No Means A Comedy)

[vip-danii · 8/10 · 15 January 2017]

First of all, given the fact that it is labelled as "comedy", I was expecting something along the lines of "There's Something About Mary", but nothing could be further from the truth. It's not a comedy at all. "Drama" and "tragedy" would have been a more accurate label.

Quite a sad story, indeed. Excellent pacing and very competent acting by the leading characters; particularly the Buck character - a 27 year old man-child who's unable to move on with his life after his childhood friend, whom he reunites with at the start of the movie, rejects his sexual advances.

This movie reminded me of "One Hour Photo", "The Gift", and (most of all) "Enduring Love", as all of these movies feature a likable "stalker", who has no malicious intentions towards the target and you actually sympathize with him.

A unique, well-made, thought-provoking movie that does a great job at avoiding clichés. Recommended.

Well done, but not good

[cofemug · 6/10 · 28 July 2000]

I didn't like this movie. However, I dont feel justified in giving it a bad rating because it was well-done. First, I did not care for the DV effect. (digital video). Of course, it almost fit the topic, I would rather have had super-8, or some other grainy film stock, or just pure VHS. Second, the soundtrack got on my nerves, but it was supposed to, thus making it a good use of sound. Third, i ended up feeling more sorry for Chuck rather than Buck. I did not feel any empathy for Buck, and felt that it was not Chuck's fault that Buck was so disturbed. The movie also had a homophobic feel to it. It is almost like nobody except for Buck is gay, and the gays in the movie are all in a state of frozen mentality. Gays can also turn heterosexuals to homosexuals. Or, it was mocking it, but it was not exaggerated enough for that. Chuck's climactic decision did not strike me a true, and had no backing for it. So, I guess that I will give the movie a six because while the acting and everything (except for the climax) was well done, I can't say that I liked it.

6/10

A good film with a putrid message at heart

[red_emma · 5/10 · 31 July 2000]

This film is very well-directed, well-acted, and well-written. It just has one major flaw, and please don't read this if you don't want a spoiler: it portrays a stalker -- a sad-sack stalker we pity, but a stalker nonetheless -- as someone who will go away if his demands are met. This is not true in the real world, and didn't ring true on-screen. I cringe to say this, but it's a bad message to send.

amazing

[daniel-464 · 10/10 · 20 June 2004]

An absolutely wonderful film, intriguing and revealing.

Mike White is fantastic as the obsessed and yet wholly endearing Chuck. The film is beautifully shot, with great backlit childhood scenes, compete with sun flare of innocent years.

A completely involving look at one man-boy's longing for a safe place in the world, and his hope of rekindling the innocent sexual experiences of his youth. Revealing, gritty, unafraid, kind.

I'm not sure what this other guy is talking about,. He must be terribly confused, or completely ill-at-ease with his own sexuality. It is true that this film is revealing and doesn't gloss over emotion and longing. Er,.... that's a GOOD thing!

good movie, BAD climax

[_neXXes_ · 7/10 · 29 July 2000]

I was expecting a nice, innocent little indie movie about a depressed 27yr old that wants to make his life return to the only time in his life he's ever been happy. Well, the movie was that for the most part, but then came the "climax", that went too far!!! If they left that out, the movie would have been better. But overall, the movie was well written, and a good story, and the ending turned out well. I don't know why people are upset about a bad camera, I didn't pay attention, and why would you go to an indie movie if something like that bothers you?

Not a renter or wait for cable. Avoid this entirely.

[the1bullet · 1/10 · 8 January 2001]

I get the feeling that movie critics and self-proclaimed cultural elite equate a small budget and unease with artistic merit. This movie was an exercise in how uncomfortable the audience could be made to feel.

I'll grant it a couple of positive points to give myself a little credibility here. There was some very good acting. The dialogue was believable. I'll spare going into detail, as you can read about that in a favorable review.

Now on to specific rants. This movie seemed like it lasted a week. Normally, I like a nice long movie I can sink my teeth into, but this one wouldn't end. Whenever I thought I could make it because it was almost over, it stubbornly evaded resolution. It felt like I was watching two bad movies. The plot hinted at a significant revalation that fizzled into nothing. The actual climax was unbelievable and inconsistent for the characters.

Everyone else on this site (and in critic-land) seems to be giving this movie a favorable review. Please bear in mind that out of several people I know who saw this movie, only one would disagree that this movie is in the running for worst of the year.

Beware.