AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
6,6/10
6,1 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaAn oddly naive man-child stalks his childhood best friend and tries to reconnect with their past.An oddly naive man-child stalks his childhood best friend and tries to reconnect with their past.An oddly naive man-child stalks his childhood best friend and tries to reconnect with their past.
- Direção
- Roteirista
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 6 vitórias e 12 indicações no total
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?!
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesIn a 2010 interview with the New York Times, Jeff Bridges said that Mike White's performance as Buck in this movie was the best acting performance of the 2000s.
- Erros de gravaçãoThe secretary says Chuck's office is on the sixth floor, but when Buck goes up to meet him he is on the third floor (look at the elevator doors when Buck changes his mind and leaves).
- Citações
Buck O'Brien: We could play that game, where I stick my dick in your mouth, and you stick your dick in mine... Chuck & Buck, Suck & Fuck!
- Trilhas sonorasFreedom of the Heart
Written by Gwendolyn Sanford
Performed by Gwendolyn Sanford, Smokey Hormel and Joey Waronker
Produced by Joey Waronker
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Chuck & Buck?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Chuck & Buck
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 250.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 1.055.671
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 72.831
- 16 de jul. de 2000
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 1.182.065
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente