» » Chuck & Buck (2000)

Chuck & Buck (2000) Online

Chuck & Buck (2000) Online
Original Title :
Chuck u0026 Buck
Genre :
Movie / Comedy / Drama
Year :
Directror :
Miguel Arteta
Cast :
Mike White,Chris Weitz,Lupe Ontiveros
Writer :
Mike White
Budget :
Type :
Time :
1h 36min
Rating :

An oddly naive man-child stalks his childhood best friend and tries to reconnect with their past.

Chuck & Buck (2000) Online

Buck is a man-child who has lived his existence in a life of Romper Room, kindergarten collages, and lollipops. When his mother dies suddenly, Buck remembers his old childhood friend Chuck, with whom he feels a need to reconnect after having invited him to his mother's funeral. Buck treks out to Los Angeles where Chuck, an up-and-coming music record executive, is living his life. Buck ends up developing an obsession with Chuck and begins stalking him.
Cast overview, first billed only:
Mike White Mike White - Buck O'Brien
Chris Weitz Chris Weitz - Charlie 'Chuck' Sitter
Lupe Ontiveros Lupe Ontiveros - Beverly Franco
Beth Colt Beth Colt - Carlyn Carlson
Paul Weitz Paul Weitz - Sam
Maya Rudolph Maya Rudolph - Jamilla
Mary Wigmore Mary Wigmore - Diane
Paul Sand Paul Sand - Barry
Gino Buccola Gino Buccola - Tommy
Annette Murphy Annette Murphy - Tommy's Mom
Glory Simon Glory Simon - Witch
Douglas Kieffer Douglas Kieffer - Mark
Jonathan Brown Jonathan Brown - Jake
Ruthie Bram Ruthie Bram - Dorothy
Giovanni Gieco Giovanni Gieco - Scarecrow

When Chuck turns to the TV in his office and claims to have signed the band whose video is playing, the TV is showing They Might be Giants playing their song "Dr. Worm".

Appeared on Entertainment Weekly's list of The 50 Best Movies You've Never Seen in the Jul 16, 2012 issue.

Mike White's performance as Buck is Jeff Bridges's most favorite acting performance of the 2000s.

User reviews



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.


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?!


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


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.


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!



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.


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 *****


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.


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.


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.


"Chuck & Buck" is something a little different, and that's always a plus, but from the overly-giddy music to the brackish photography--with the camera always pulled in too close to the actors' faces--it's rather an obnoxious combination of sentiment and off-putting drama (it seems designed to be these things intentionally). Childhood friends are reunited years later at a funeral, but while Charlie is now a corporate businessman in Los Angeles, Buck is a lollipop-sucking, simple-minded child in a man's body (with homosexual leanings). The leading actors (Chris Weitz, a Christopher Reeve lookalike, as Charlie and Mike White in the more showy role of Buck) are both good, yet the structure of this story (man innocently stalking man) makes one uncomfortable. There are funny scenes and quirky details in Mike White's screenplay (such as the way strangers initially respond positively to Buck), but the overall effect is queasy. ** from ****


Buck? What are you doing here? Buck? Is that you? Buck? Buck, people change. Buck, I don't ever want to see you again. Don't call, don't come by my office, don't come by my house, you're sick. Chuck? Yes Buck. Chuck will you come back to my hotel for a night of love? OK Buck. Doodleedoodleedo... WHAT WAS THAT? This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. What an annoying, weird, stupid, piece of work.Buck is an incredibly annoying presence and we are forced to follow him through about fifty lollypops. What is even worse is the idea that the chilly Chuck would put up with this mutt's creepy invasion of his life and at the moment he clearly cannot take anymore he sleeps with the weirdo! Nice message - go ahead stalk someone, even if they tell you your sick and that they never want to see you again they really do and they really do want to sleep with you. BUCK, I NEVER WANT TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I MEAN IT.


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.


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.


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!


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.
Very Old Chap

Very Old Chap

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.

Sermak Light

Sermak Light

I don't know what to make of it. A few scenes made me squirm more uncomfortably than any film since Happiness, although any reaction a film gives me deserves some kind of kudos (as opposed to those movies that one stares at emotionlessly and are completely forgotten by the time the tape finishes rewinding). I saw this in a packed house at the Angelika (NYC), and most of the audience seemed to have the same type of odd reaction - many good laughs, but not a "pleasant" experience.

As for Buck, I do not see him as a homosexual - rather as someone with a very unhealthy fixation on another man. You do not see him even checking out other men - only Chuck and Chuck's lookalike (the really awful actor/star of his stage play).

And the director's choice of shooting on video is not something I'd like to see again. Although the film will probably look fine on TV, it looked blurred and washed out projected onto a large screen.

Oh well, I am glad I saw it, and will continue to support independent filmmaking; it sure beats going to a mainstream 'plex and being forced to decide between The Klumps, Space Cowboys, Coyote Ugly, and all the other dreck Hollywood throws at us constantly...


This is one of the most boring, dull, and worthless movies I've ever seen. 96 minutes felt like 96 hours. I have never been so annoyed with characters of a film, nor have I ever prayed for a character to be killed off before I saw this movie. It is a poor attempt at trying to be obscure, and it fails. It is a waste of time and money.


This movie is one of the worst I have ever seen. It looks a bit like Pi but acts like Dumb & Dumber. Buck has some serious problems and the message of the movie seems to be a b***job from his best friend from childhood will solve his tendencies to stalk and obsess over people. Buck nearly self-destructs; suddenly, he's fixed. Give me a break.


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.


The subplot about the low budget theatre would have made a great comedy.

There were some very funny moments especially with the theatre manager and the actor who wanted Buck for a neighbor.

Unfortunately the main story line was not especially funny or frightening.

Chuck's wife seemed nice but boring; and Chuck and Buck were just boring.

And the movie was so unpleasant to look at that it was difficult to endure.


The idea of a simple guy stalking his childhood best pal could be put to good use in any of several genres: psychological thriller, broad comedy in the Farrelly-style, light melodrama dissecting the concept of friendship - the potential is great.

Given what Mike White and Miguel Arteta did with The Good Girl, I expected this earlier collaboration to defy easy categorisation. What they've come up with is a deliberately hazy and discomfiting study of a man obsessed; something I'm sure Todd Solondz would appreciate.

But as with so many indie films, the neutral viewer is poorly served by Chuck & Buck. If you don't get it, tough luck. The intention may have been to induce a spot of navel-gazing and send us away to mull over how we've progressed (or not) with age. Yet how it it possible to create empathy when we learn nothing about the characters' backgrounds? Perhaps I'm missing the point, but it left me cold.


From reading the jacket of this movie you would think that this would be some kind of 'coming of age' movie. Instead we get treated to a very boring and redundant story that doesn't go anywhere after the first 15 minutes of the movie. The movie contains homo erotic tension between the two characters who used to be boyhood friends when they were 11. Now that they are in their late 20's they meet again when Mike White's character loses his mother. They reconnect and Buck (Mike White) makes it obvious that he wants to get some homo lovin' but Charlie is now engaged and doesn't share the same feelings. Buck ends up moving to LA to be close to Charlie and begins to stalk him and his fiancee and begins working on a play that mirrors his feelings for Chuck. Charlie and his fiancee come to the play and our horrified and want to have nothing to do with Buck anymore. BLah Blah Blah. Anyway the end kicker, in order to get Buck out of his life Charlie decides to sleep with him. Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense doesn't it? Anyway, after that night of passion Buck decides to get a life and grow up. Chuck gets married, and you realize what an awful movie you just witnessed.


Ok, I just saw this flick and it really made me sick... at times, anyway...

Overall, it wasn't bad. Good direction, decent acting and effective cinematography helped shape the strange but seemingly realistic plot. Unfortunatly, I found parts of the story not only disturbing, but offensive. One scene in particular could have been replaced with something not quite so obvious... I finished the film but I really wanted to shut it off after seeing that. Whatever you do don't watch this movie if you have strong moral objections to homosexuality, especially when it involes 11 year-old boys. The movie is thought-provoking and even kinda sweet at times.