Uncle Buck doesn’t represent a career high for any of the major players involved, with John Hughes have any number of more iconic films behind him, and more enjoyable family comedies ahead of him, and John Candy enjoying the space the movie affords him, but somewhat restricted by the material. That said, the film represents an enjoyable little comedy with a strong cast, a good central performance and marks an interesting transition point for Hughes, who had cut his teeth on teenage comedy dramas before transitioning to write more mainstream comedic fare.
This is not a drill...
I think that a lot of people familiar with Hughes will remember him for his work in the eighties with movies like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off or The Breakfast Club (or even Pretty in Pink or 16 Candles). For those unfamiliar with Hughes as a director, perhaps the names that will stand out on his filmography will be the nineties films he wrote, like Home Alone or Home Alone 2 or Miracle on 34th Street. There’s a lot to like there, but one can sense a fairly large divide between those two sections of his film-making career. In many ways, Uncle Buck feels like something a mid-point in a transition.
It’s a sign that Hughes was moving away (or possibly even outgrowing) his teenage protagonists and their youthful rebellion, settling into a broader appeal with movies based around children or families. The protagonist of this tale, the eponymous Uncle Buck, feels a bit like a Ferris Bueller who grew up – and was abandoned by his luck along the way. Buck muses on this himself, suggesting that his free and independent lifestyle used to be the envy of his friends when he was younger, but that nobody really compliments him on it anymore. Even his girlfriend remarks that Buck is a boy who never bothered to grow up into a man.
Babysitting his nieces and nephews? Piece a' cake!
There’s a lot to like about Buck. He might drive a crap car, he might not be the most responsible person in the world, but he cares. He retains some of the anti-authority opinions that made Hughes’ teenage characters so compelling, and there’s something romantic in his defense of day-dreamers to a tired and weary school official. He might be a bit of a screw-up, but he has a lot more energy and enthusiasm than those around him, and he’ll do his very best to make sure things work out. If he can’t work the washing machine, he’ll use the oven (or the microwave) to dry your washing. And he throws a pretty awesome birthday party for young kids, if only because he’s young at heart.
John Candy’s career was relatively short, so he never got the opportunity to appear in as many lead roles as we may wish. That number gets quite a bit smaller if you discount the especially weak films. So, I wonder if that makes us treasure the decent films on his resume all the more. Regardless, Candy makesthe film. It’s his vehicle and the comedian has enough charm to pull the movie along. He’s not a magician, his involvement can’t make the flaws in the script or the finished movie disappear, but he does lend the movie some appeal. In particular, Candy bounces well off his young co-stars, including Macaulay Culkin.
There's a lot on the line...
That said, the movie does have more than a few problems, and a few of these add up to keep the film shy of greatness. The most obvious is the fact that Hughes’ teenage lead lacks a lot of the personality that the writer would so casually imbue into his other teenage characters. Perhaps it’s the performance of Jean Louisa Kelly, but it might also be the script. There’s basically no reason to care for Tia, the stuck-up and obnoxious teenager that Buck has to wrestle against. She just seems like the type of spoilt and obnoxious teenager that we regularly see in lazy films, instead of a complex and developed individual with her own reasons and motivations. It’s hard to care about Tia, so it’s hard to care about Buck caring about Tia.
In fairness, the whole subplot involving Tia and her boyfriend feels just a little bit out of place in the film, which feels like a funky family film before treating us to a scene that uses the threat of rape to generate dramatic tension, as Tia’s boyfriend seems ready to force himself on the reluctant girl (while Buck races to the rescue). The use of sexual assault in a film like this (whether it ultimately happens or not) feels more than a little awkward and certainly uncomfortable. Perhaps it might seem more at home if the movie had developed Tia as a character, instead of featuring Buck cooking giant pancakes.
No kidding...
There’s a less severe problem with how the film presents Buck himself. The character never comes across as less than a charming and lovable lug when we see him, despite the fact that the movie hints repeatedly at various character shortcomings. We’re told that he gambles on fixed horses and can’t be trusted, but he actually seems like a nice sort of guy – while we can understand that his family might not be too keen to leave him in charge of children for a prolonged period of time, it feels a little unfair that they’ve so forcefully cut him out of their lives. The film might be better if it allowed us to doubt that Buck was up to the task, instead of letting us know straight out of the gate that Buck is a far better character than his relatives suspect.
Still, it’s a fun little movie, and it does have more than a few laughs in it. Candy, in particular, seems to relish the spotlight, and it’s a joy to see him in action. Uncle Buck sits between the two phases of Hughes’ career, it’s just a shame it’s not the best of both worlds.
Filed under: Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: arts, Breakfast Club, ferris buellers day off, films, Jean Louisa Kelly, John Candy, John Hughes, Macaulay Culkin, Movies, non-review review, review, Uncle Buck |
the m0vie blog 
This film was a staple of my childhood. I agree with you on Buck’s presentation – I always just assumed Bob and Cindy(?) were a bit on the stuck-up side, which is suitably evidenced in the film.
And yet, any display of the more serious problems, or even some heavier ramifications, that come with his lifestyle in the early stages of the film would have given Buck’s character greater depth. As it is, “Uncle Buck” is still very funny and I was always remember it fondly.
Yep, I enjoyed it, but I think that there was very little character arc for Buck. It was the character’s immaturity and unconventional outlook that really allowed him to be as effective a babysitter – which is strange, because the movie’s ending suggests that he needs to change. I don’t think that, even just after arriving, Buck was so selfish he’d abandon the kids to make that bet, so there’s no character growth. Which is grand, except the movie half heartedly tries to convince us that he should change – and I can see why he might need to (his relationship with his significant other, not showing up for work), but there’s very little real evidence in the film itself.
Still, it’s a solid, enjoyable, and occasionally hilarious film.
Life is easier when you can edit your typos.