Amazon.com

In some ways, HBO's Six Feet Under plays kid brother to stellar BMOC The Sopranos: it's spunkier, less refined, chancier, and a bit of a punk. Nevertheless, the show set in the Southern California mortuary Fisher and Sons deserves its place in the pantheon of great television series. Ruth (Frances Conroy) is the stern matriarch who has trouble expressing emotion and snaps at the slightest problem. Daughter Claire (Lauren Ambrose) is an underachiever who cultivates a moody, mysterious loner image in high school (she's indulging in illegal substances too). Brother David (Michael C. Hall) works in the family business, and is uptight beyond belief (he's indulging in a secret homosexual relationship too). Elder brother Nate (Peter Krause) is the black sheep, who, eschewing responsibility, fled to Seattle but got lured back. And Dad (Richard Jenkins) watches it all bemusedly. Did we mention Dad's dead? Oh, and that the Fisher family business is a funeral home? It might sound off-putting, but coming from the mind of Alan Ball, the man who strip-mined suburban life to find the mordant wit underneath in American Beauty, Six Feet Under is a trenchant, stylish spin on standard family dysfunction.

This HBO series initially aspired to fits of Twin Peaks-like whimsy, with each episode starting with a death more outlandish than the previous, but soon settled into a comfortable groove that harkened back to the most familiar of TV family dramas (in fact, it's almost a mirror image of '70s drama Family, down to the three sibling archetypes). Of course, its HBO roots allowed it ample leeway with sex, drug usage, profanity, and violence. While the writing strove to be a little too clever, the overall look and tone of the show remained solid and sometimes profound (sometimes absurd too, but usually with good reason). Krause and Hall, as initially warring brothers who come to a wary understanding, are solid anchors, but it's the women in the cast who do the most phenomenal work. Conroy infuses her almost stereotypical mom with an obstinate but ultimately accepting heart, and Ambrose's Claire is by far the show's most appealing character. And stealing scenes left and right is Rachel Griffith's Brenda, a mystery woman with an outlandish backstory who meets Nate on a plane, has sex with him at the airport, and infiltrates his life. Like Brenda herself, Six Feet Under is fascinating--and highly addictive.

Slowly, the major force in season 2 is the unassuming lead, Peter Krause. Part of the long line of good-looking actors who never get respect because they make it look too easy, Krause (Sports Night) finds the perfect blend of optimism with a wonderful, bittersweet anguish as Nate, the prodigal son.The initial season's happy ending is forgotten as relationships change, the business is still under fire from the evil conglomerate Kroehner, and a lively dream sequence is just around the corner. The eccentricities of the characters are shaped, and not always suddenly. Take daughter Claire (Lauren Ambrose), who sheds her bad boyfriend only to find more complex relationships on her road to discovering her own groove. One person in the mix is Ruth's beatnik sister (Patricia Clarkson, in an Emmy-winning role), a joyous embodiment of thriving--if aging--counter culture. Another new character is Nate's old girlfriend, the granola-loving Lisa (Lili Taylor). For fans who groove with the wild, serio-comedic world of the Fishers (and let's face it, many didn't), the second season goes down like a fine meal of fusion cuisine. The show shares an unfortunate family trait with its HBO big brother: although both were lavished with multiple Emmy nominations the first two seasons, both took home only token awards. But then there's always next year. ... Read more

Reviews (175)

A comedy that leaves you in suspense!
Jennifer Aniston is the bright sunshine girl who really acted well in this flick. It's neither typical date movie nor a romantic comedy. It's really funny and keeps you in suspense. This is Aniston's best work at the movies! It's a great cast ensemble and is award-worthy. It's a different comedy and has one of the week's highest screen average, 14k. It's an emotional feature where you'd see Aniston in a completely different role and a completely different attitude that you'd see her with in "Friends"! The movie's worth a watch!

The movie revolves around Justine (Aniston) who plays a surly worker at Retail Rodeo. She's stressed out and sick of her pot-smoking husband. Soon she meets a fellow worker at Retail Rodeo who is in a worse place than she's in. They soon fall in love but can't seem to keep it a secret. Now she has lots of decisions to make!

The movie wasn't released on a lot of theatres but is quite good and worth checking out!

----Ahmed Mashhood

The Not So Good Girl
The Good Girl had gotten some positive buzz as it made its theatrical run last year, so I was bit curious to see what it was all about, and if actress Jennifer Aniston could pull off a largely dramatic role..Let's just say I was surprised.

Justine (Aniston) is unhappy with her life. She has a thankless husband, (John C. Reilly) and a boring job at the Retail Rodeo, at the cosmetics counter. She desperately wants a change. Enter co-worker Holden Worther (Jake Gyllenhaal), an introspective younger man, who finds himself attracted to Justine. Eventually, they fall in love, and start having an affair with each other. Holden asks her to run away with her, after he decides to steal a large sum of cash, from the store's safe. Directed by Miguel Arteta, the film boasts good performances from the cast, particularly from Aniston, who tries very hard to make you forget the Rachel character she plays on Friends. As for Jake Gyllenhaal, his work is good too, but he seems to employ the same "loner" motif that he used for Donnie Darko for this role as well. Even though the acting in the movie was solid, to be sure, none of it really "wowed" me that much. Having said that, I think that the film's biggest flaw lies in the script. Written by Mike White, the story is very predictible, and the characters are, (for the most part) as well. I could see the film's biggest twists from a mile away. Considering all the aforementioned buzz, I guess I thought it might be a better film.

The DVD includes just a handfull of exrtas. The first of 2 commentary tracks with Arteta and White is pretty good The two men present the making of the film in an informative way. For her part though, Aniston's participation on the second track seemed very limited, which is a letdown, given that she plays the main character in the film. In fact, her comments are less about what it was like to play Justine, and more about her fellow actors instead-I was hoping that she would talk about the whole experience. There are 9 deleted scenes that were wisely left on the cutting room floor. As for the "don't blink or you'll miss it" alternate ending, it's so so brief, you may have to play it twice to "get it". Finally viewers get a 2 and half minute blooper reel (what?? No theatrical trailer??) that isn't all that funny. The DVD allows you to watch the film in either the widescreen or full screen. A disappointment all the way around.

intriguing start descends into formulaic
This movie starts out with an intriguing situation. Jennifer Aniston plays a depressed Retail Rodeo employee with a pig of a husband. She plays the role convincingly, making viewers feel the world of a small-town Texas woman.

When she meets a new employee, a disturbed but more intellectual young man, she thinks she's found an escape from her daily drudgery.

From this point on, events spiral downhill and the movie becomes disappointingly predictable. The element of surprise is lost and viewers are taken on a formulaic ride where predictable consequences come from foreseen actions.

It's not a bad movie to watch on those nights when you want something light, just don't expect surprises.

A Really Disturbing Film
I have read all the other reviews for this movie and I am truly very surprised with how many people enjoyed it. I tried, really, to like this movie, but it is one movie that I truly despise. The story line in itself is unoriginal and also stupid. A woman is having a really bad life, so she starts trying to fix it, no big deal, maybe even intersting. But then her way of "fixing" it is to be in an affair with a strange pyscotic younger man. Not exactly what I think would qualify as fixing. This movie did not hold my attention and to this day I am sorry for the time that I will never get back that was spent watching that movie.
On the plus side, the acting from Jennifer Aniston and Jake Gyllenhaal is very well done. That is the only plus side for the entire movie. Do yourself a favor and watch something you won't regret later, "Office Space" or "The Day After Tomorrow" if you're stuck on the actors, perhaps. Both of those movies are signicantly better.

Un-Rachel Jennifer: Dark, Unpredictable Comedy about Despair
Can Jennifer Aniston do anyting better than "Rachel" after the successful TV drama that went on very long (or too long)? "The Good Girl" is the answer. Yes, she can, and in a surprising way.

Justine (Aniston) is working at a mini-mart in Nowhereville, Texas, completely dissatisfied with the humdrum life with her pot-smoking husband (John C. Reiley), who just doesn't care anything about his life. Her work is boring, always in a drab uniform which makes eveything in her life quite hopeless.

But one day, she notices that a young boy working in the same shop is interested in her. She is attracted to this boy (Jake Gyllenhaal, "Donnie Darko") who has, however, a slightly troublesome tendency. He calls himself "Holden" because, yes, he identified himself with that anti-hero of "Catcher in the Rye," and like Holden, this boy perhaps thinks too much.

Now, Justine thinks: "Could this strange boy is the last and only help offered to her?" Can she escape from the dull reality of life? And if escape, how and where? It's the same case as Madame Bovary, whose name is briefly referred to in the film.

"The Good Girl," written by Mike White (who wrote alarmingly unique "Chuck and Buck"), follows the life of Justine with a wry humor. Written with skewed perspectives, the film is never predictable, giving us a few surprising moments and one very serious decision Justine has to make. It is effectively supported by original characters played by Tim Blake Nelson, Zooey Deschanel, Deborah Rush, and Mike White himself as church-going guard.

Its dark humor is not for everybody's taste, and the undercurrent statement on life is often disturbing. But Jennifer Aniston's acting as Justine is strong (though you may still see something of Rachel in her.) The film, in its own quiet way, will make you grin, and then think ... think particularly about life as it is, not as it should be. ... Read more

Description

From Mike White, the writer of "Dead Man on Campus" and producer of TV's "Freaks and Geeks," comes a tale of comically twisted obsession.Chuck and Buck are childhood best friends whose lives have taken very different paths. While Chuck moved away and now has a real life, Buck stayed behind and developed a dangerous fixation--on Chuck's life. The result is a wickedly hilarious story of two guys about to learn that growing up is the strangest trip of all. ... Read more

Reviews (57)

Forrest Gump meets Fatal Attraction
Certain members of the pseudo-intellectual crowd, the type who attend film festivals to be "challenged" by a film instead of merely "entertained," will flock like lemmings to see or rent this film.   I know this type well, because I am currently dating one, and he persuaded me to view this film with him.   What a waste of two hours of my time!

Before I receive hate mail for being "mainstream," let me make it plain that I have enjoyed many films which are off the beaten path: Maurice, My Beautiful Launderette, Beethoven's Nephew, or the recent (WONDERFUL) Big Eden, the list goes on and on.   Unfortunately, the main characters of this tiresome little opus have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and neither does the script.  

Buck, the main character, is an emotionally retarded man in his late 20s, who has never moved past an early adolescent sexual experience with his best friend, Chuck, who HAS grown up and is preparing to get married.  After Buck's mother dies (the first scene in the movie, a charming way to start a film, don't you think?) Chuck attends the funeral, where Buck makes a pass at his old friend in the restroom.  When Chuck rejects Buck's advance, he remains undeterred, and moves to Los Angeles to, in effect stalk Chuck.

While Mike White tries to portray Buck as fragile and lovable, he merely comes across as creepy and irritating.  Frankly, I wound up having more sympathy for Chuck and his fiance, and kept wondering why they didn't go to the police for a restraining order.  That's what any real person would have done.  In another instance of unreality, Buck befriends a young boy who injures his hand with a firecracker. But would any responsible (or even semi-responsible) parent let a character like Buck get within a hundred feet of her son? The utter lack of verisimilitude in these characters' behavior makes it impossible for any semi-critical person to suspend his/her disbelief. The movie rambles through several subplots until Buck winds up blackmailing Chuck into one, final, sexual encounter. The saving grace of this scene is that the viewer knows that the film must be finally nearing an end.

There are those who call this type of film deep and relevant. Frankly, I can find more depth and relevance in an episode of Star Trek.  

Punches a nerve
When Buck, an immature 27-year-old, is reunited with his best friend, Chuck, a successful music industry executive, his resulting infatuation threatens to ruin Chuck's previously stable existence. CHUCK & BUCK successfully blends comedy, drama, and stalker films and is made all the more immediate by Miguel Arteta's decision to shoot on digital video. This, coupled with the striking performances by the two leads--both nonprofessional actors (Mike White and Chris Weitz are successful screenwriters)--results in a highly original film that can't easily be categorized.

"Chuck and Buck" is a disturbing but fascinating film. I have been in both Chuck's shoes (I had a guy in my math class who would not leave me alone, to the point of following me around constantly, asking me out, and calling me) and in Buck's (I was in love with my best friend for two years and went through hell because of it), and let me tell you, neither side is pretty. That's why "Chuck and Buck" is so powerful. It is an extremely real depiction of a stalker and his stalkee. Sure, it's hard to take at times, but the writing, directing, and especially acting, are brilliant.

An expert at finding the humanity in seemingly irredeemable characters, director Miguel Arteta (The Good Girl) touches more than a few raw nerves, and he taps into the characters' memories through dreamlike footage of young boys and the use of an insidiously catchy kiddie-pop ditty. "Chuck & Buck" is the sort of film that burrows under the skin by refusing to establish the expected cinematic distance between the audience and the bizarre man-child at its center. It may freak us out, but it's never a freak show. Good times!

This Is The Movie That The Cable Guy Should Have Been.
This is one of those movies that makes you laugh and squirm at the same time. Mike White's script and his impressive performance are the driving force behind the film. If you like smart dark comedy, I recommend this movie highly.

You could use a reality check
Shut up. Try getting stalked for 4 years by a Buck-like person and you'll see what I mean idiot.

A welcome refresher
Woah...sounds like the last reviewer could use some therapy of his own.

Yes, a dark movie...yes, a disturbing movie...but it keeps your attention, challenges you, and most importantly its' complexity is an experience...that's why a movie should be about.

And for what it's worth, Buck's desperation and anti-social behaviors are pitiful...how can someone not feel bad for the guy on some level? ... Read more