'The Life of Chuck': A Sentimental, Joy-Inducing Meditation on Life

PHOTO: Neon

Stephen King and Mike Flanagan are both names that one might commonly associate with horror, as it is the defining genre that both typically work in. King is a man who needs no introduction, as he is one of the world’s most prolific authors for decades now. Flanagan may not be as well-known but he has steadily become an acclaimed figure in horror, garnering fans through feature films like Oculus and Hush and TV shows like The Haunting of Hill House and Midnight Mass. Flanagan has even adapted King’s work on a few occasions now, having written and directed the film versions of the novels Gerald’s Game and Doctor Sleep. Both films were well-received, and Flanagan has since become attached to other King adaptations. This brings us to Flanagan’s first film since 2019, The Life of Chuck, which is based on the novella of the same name. One would assume that this would be a horror film considering that Mike Flanagan is once again adapting Stephen King, but that is simply not so. 

King may be synonymous with horror, but there are a handful of works from different genres within his oeuvre. For example, he has written sci-fi novels like Under the Dome and The Tommyknockers, and fantasy epics like The Stand and his series The Dark Tower. But it is his novellas where his work feels more rooted in reality. Take The Body and Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, both of which were adapted to film as Stand by Me and The Shawshank Redemption respectively. Both of these tales center on life amidst rough situations, whether they be a bad home life or being incarcerated. King’s usual darkness is present in these novellas, but there is a bit of levity that doesn’t always appear in his other work. The film versions capitalize on this, and have a more sentimental tone than their source material. This is certainly the case with The Life of Chuck, which is easily one of King’s more optimistic tales and leans into sci-fi territory at times. It’s certainly an interesting choice for Flanagan to adapt given that it is horror-free, but he is more than up for the task, allowing his softer side to come front and center and giving us one of the most life-affirming films of the past several years in the process. It is an interesting exercise for Flanagan, and shows that he has the ability to excel in other genres and solidifies him as one of the best adaptors of King’s work. 

Told in reverse chronological order, school teacher Marty Anderson (Chiwetel Ejiofor) begins to see the world around him falling apart. Natural disasters are occurring in major cities, people begin to lose internet and phone service, and everyone is fearing that the end is coming. One day, Marty notices a billboard featuring a man named Charles Krantz (Tom Hiddleston) with the message “Charles Krantz: 39 Great Years! Thanks Chuck!” At first, this seems like a random billboard, but more and more ads featuring Chuck begin to appear. We then pull back and see moments from his life, from a small, yet significant moment he had while on a business trip to his childhood. Through this, we see the joy and heartache that Chuck experiences throughout his life, and explore the immensity of existence through the multitudes contained within all of us.

To say that this film wears its heart on its sleeve is somehow an understatement, as it is very sentimental and extremely on the nose in its messaging. At first, I was a bit resistant to this, but as the film went on it completely won me over. This is a film about how the tiniest details of our lives shape us and have significance, and it portrays this so beautifully. The people we meet, the moments we share, the discoveries we make, these are all part of our stories and are important in their own ways. We may feel that certain things don’t matter or that we ourselves don’t matter, but this film argues that we are all a universe unto ourselves and are wondrous beings. Some people might be put off by how directly it sends this message, but I think it matches the tenderness of the film and helps make it such a moving experience. 

The whole essence of the film can be boiled down to its second act, which details a moment in Chuck’s life where he has a moment of spontaneity. I don’t want to spoil what this moment is exactly, but those who have read King’s novella will know what I’m talking about. The scene is reminiscent of those small moments we have in life where it’s as if some cosmic force takes us over. Maybe it’s something from the past or maybe it’s something beyond our understanding, or maybe it’s just because. Either way, the scene shows how these moments add color and joy to our lives and can stay with us over time. The scene is the absolute core of the whole film, and gains even more significance as we go through the rest of the film, thus making it even more powerful. 

I couldn’t help but think of the 2003 film Big Fish while watching this, as they touch on similar themes. Both are about the wonder and beauty of life, and accepting one’s place in the world. Not only that, but both are seen as somewhat of a departure for their directors. For Big Fish, it represented a shift from Tim Burton’s more gothic style to something brighter and hopeful, while The Life of Chuck sees Flanagan stepping out of his comfort zone and making something more earnest and dramatic. Both films contain elements that exist outside of reality, with Big Fish leaning towards fantasy and The Life of Chuck leaning towards sci-fi, and use these to make their larger points about life. With Chuck, we see how important and complex a person’s life is, and how every little thing about them adds up to something as expansive as it is incredible. 

Flanagan’s direction is quite strong, as each section of the film builds on the last and recontextualizes certain details beautifully. There is a straightforwardness to his direction and storytelling that at first felt a bit much for me, but once I got on the film’s wavelength, I found myself more appreciative of it. The film is not concerned with being clever or beating around the bush, but instead is very upfront and gets to its points quickly. Once we get into the film’s second act, it becomes apparent what Flanagan (and by extension King) is trying to accomplish, but what happens from that point on only enhances the overall message of the film and adds layers to it. Flanagan allows the story to unfold in a way that feels like we are right there with its characters, experiencing their lives along with them. There are moments of happiness, moments of sadness, moments of frustration, and more deeply human moments. Everything is strongly felt in this film, which at times feels a bit much, but serves the film well more often than not. I also appreciated the film’s two dance sequences, which are well-shot and choreographed and are some of the most joy-inducing moments of the whole film. I must admit that I have a few blindspots when it comes to Mike Flanagan, but this has to be among his best writing and direction, as he adapts the King novella faithfully while also putting his own touches on it and highlighting its humanity. 

The film may be written off by some as “sappy” due to its tone and emotionality. Again, it wears its heart on its sleeve but it largely works in my opinion. There are maybe a couple of moments where it felt a little too much to me, but it didn’t ruin the overall film for me either. The film’s score also feels a bit overbearing at times, but it is still quite beautiful in spite of this. I can concede that the film is very sentimental, but I honestly liked this about it. It feels necessary to the story being told and I would much rather the film be overflowing with emotion and more obvious with its messaging than to be muted and more naturalistic. For some, it will be too much, but I can see its hopefulness clicking with many viewers like it did for me. 

I was surprised that this film is a bit more of an ensemble film, but it makes sense considering that the film is at least partially about the connections we make and how they stick with us. Every actor gets a chance to stand out and connect with the viewer much like they connect with Chuck. Chiwetel Ejiofor owns the entire first section of the film and kind of acts as an audience surrogate for all of the weirdness going on. We feel his bewilderment at the billboards and ads of Chuck as well as the other strange occurrences going on in the world around him. He also has a great monologue during this section that is a touch cheesy, but gets a bit more weight later in the film. Mark Hamill gives perhaps the biggest performance in the whole film as Chuck’s grandpa, but it is also one of the best performances in the whole film. It gives him a slightly larger than life quality that makes him a bit authoritative, helping us see the character through Chuck’s eyes. Carl Lumbly’s performance really stuck with me, which is impressive considering that he only shows up in two scenes. He plays an elderly mortician that Marty (and later, Chuck) encounters. He brings the gravitas that the film needs at both points that he shows up, and has a great presence that draws you in. It is easily one of the best two scene performances I’ve seen in a while, and affected me more than I was expecting. I also enjoyed Nick Offerman’s narration, even if it seemed a little extraneous at times. He does give a big assist to certain moments involving Chuck and sets up some much-needed exposition though, and Offerman’s voice does provide a feeling of comfort that the film utilizes well. 

The character of Chuck is played by four actors over the course of the film, those being Tom Hiddleston, Benjamin Pajak, Jacob Tremblay, and Cody Flanagan. All of these actors do a great job, and their performances combine very well to create the tapestry of who Chuck is. Flanagan only plays him for a couple of brief moments when we see Chuck as a 7 year old, but the other three get more substantial screen time. Tremblay is a bit muted, but it is quite effective in the context of the film. If nothing else, he absolutely nails the film’s final moment, which sends the audience out on a high note. Pajak is a young actor who has already been on Broadway, and makes his film debut here. He is fantastic as 10 year old Chuck, and feels like a genuine kid trying to find himself. The moments of joy we see from him as he discovers his love of dance are infectious, largely due to how much fun it looks like Pajak is having and how talented he is. Pajak is also great when it comes to some of Chuck’s more internal moments, as we feel exactly what he is feeling all throughout the film. Hiddleston is in less of the film than I was expecting, but regardless, I really liked his performance. He especially shines in the film’s second section, where we get such a mix of emotions from him that feels so authentic. Happiness seems to be the prevailing emotion in this section, but there is a sadness and wistfulness that Hiddleston has that makes the performance more poignant and gives a fascinating layer to Chuck. 

The Life of Chuck is absolutely wonderful and moved me far more than I was expecting to. I went in mostly blind, and I’d recommend this because I don’t think it would have had the same impact if I had read the novella first. Its sentimentality might be too much for some viewers, but I really connected to it. Much like Walt Whitman once wrote, we all contain multitudes, and this film portrays this concept so beautifully. This film makes you feel so much during its run time, and ends up being one of the most optimistic and inspiring movies I’ve seen in a long time. It is the feel-good movie of the year, which is not what I would have guessed going into it considering that it is an adaptation of a Stephen King novella written and directed by Mike Flanagan. But somehow, someway, the film wormed its way into my heart and affected me on a deep level. This is a strong adaptation and arguably Flanagan’s best work to date, and it is a lovely exploration of the universes that exist in each and every one of us.

Rating: 4.5/5