The Life of Chuck

Life of Chuck is a symphony dedicated to the quite awesomeness of living that hits a discordant note in its structure. Still, many people will forgive its missteps and find it a worthwhile watch.

Life of Chuck is an exploration of what gives our relatively short lives meaning, while constantly reminding us of the cosmic timeline, going as far as explaining Carl Sagan's concept of the calendar of the universe twice. The movie frames humanity vs the universe: we're a blip in time's flow, "a mote of dust caught in a sunbeam." The movie ultimately expresses the dignity of a life lived well, pointing us toward kindness, but also hammers home the fact that the weight of a life's end can often be nigh unbearable. By exploring its topics through characters' passions, including drumming, dancing, mathematics, teaching, (and perhaps complaining), it encourages us to seize the day, to wrest from every moment every molecule of joy.

At the same time, it makes awkward structural decisions and what might be called a shift in genre that will be a deal breaker for some in its attempt to poetically convey what are at bottom cliched feel-good concepts.

The movie starts at its end and works backward in three acts, each announced by a title card and some old-fashioned voiceover. The first act is a disaster movie, the pre-apocalypse. However, while the world literally winds down, a mysterious man named Chuck's 39-year retirement is fanfared in commercials, billboards and everywhere that hasn't yet fallen into a sinkhole or been consumed by fire. The following two acts tell us who this Chuck dude is. The intertwined stories require actual participation from the viewer to piece together, though the puzzle is about as easy as such narrative Rubik's cubes come.

Unfortunately, the first act contains fantastical elements and a love story that the next two acts lack. The narrator is charming at times and jarring at others. These elements come and go and may leave some feeling unsteady as hearing an off-beat drum performance. Once the film is considered in its entirety, the acts weave together a la Memento, but the genre-shift works better in the original Stephen King short story than this film based on it.

The acting in this movie sells the premise well. The Solipsistic scenario in the beginning recalls the off-kilter Nick Cage film Dream Scenario, which most people have probably forgotten about already. Acting makes or breaks such a film, and this one outperforms its heavily bearded predecessor. You can feel the anxiety boiling beneath the veneer of calm from every character. Later, when we learn about Chuck, the same subtlety sells a life that while not loud, has depth to it. And Mark Hamil is always a hoot to see, even if he's not playing a Jedi or voicing an insane clown. We would have benefited from more Tom Hiddleston, who performs a back-breaking dance number for several minutes, though the other child performances land just this side of good, managing to encompass tones of grief, young infatuation, early poetic wonder and the infantile magic of the Moon Walk.

There is nothing overtly good nor bad about the cinematography. There are a few excellent shots that celebrate the majesty of the universe and the final shot in the movie is a loud trumpet blare reinforcing the movie's message.

Picture the film as a series of vignettes, which tenuously unify, and you will not be bothered by the structure. I would recommend watching other celebration-of-life movies over this such as Nine Days, The Hundred Foot Journey or Perfect Days, which all rely on more straightforward storytelling.

You will come away pondering the state of society and perhaps your own life. Given such a finite span to become our true selves, what path should we choose?

When you think of the pairing of Stephen King and filmmaker Mike Flanagan, your immediate thought is likely horror. The American author is famous for novels like It, The Shining, and Misery, while the American filmmaker has delivered some of the most acclaimed horror in the last decade with Oculus (2013), The Haunting of Hill House (2018), and Doctor Sleep (2019). Yet their latest collaboration ventures far from the horror genre, instead embracing a more philosophical and contemplative tone.

The Life of Chuck (2024) is adapted from a short story in King's collection If It Bleeds. Told in three acts and in reverse chronological order, the story begins at the end: we follow a high school teacher (Chiwetel Ejiofor) in a dystopian near-future that feels uncomfortably present-rolling blackouts, raging wildfires, and mounting conflict between Pakistan and India. When the face of a seeming nobody, Charles Krantz (Tom Hiddleston), begins appearing on billboards and ads with a cryptic message-"Thank you, Chuck, for 39 great years"-no one can explain why, especially amid an apparent apocalypse. We then move backward in time to meet Chuck as an adult: an unassuming accountant. Eventually, we arrive at his childhood, where he is raised by his math-loving, alcoholic grandfather (Mark Hamill) and his dance-loving grandmother (Mia Sara).

The Life of Chuck is difficult to summarize-or even introduce. That ambiguity likely contributed to its initial struggle to secure distribution, despite winning the top prize at the prestigious Toronto International Film Festival. The film begins as a gripping dystopian drama but gradually transforms into a slice-of-life meditation on an ordinary man's existence. It ultimately feels more akin to a Noah Baumbach or Richard Linklater film than to the usual work of Flanagan or King, evoking the emotional resonance of King's Stand by Me and The Green Mile.

This isn't a cradle-to-grave biopic but rather a presentation of three key moments in Chuck's life, tied together by Nick Offerman's warm narration that channels King's lyrical prose. Both King and Flanagan have a gift for crafting vivid characters in mere seconds, perhaps best illustrated in a mall dance sequence where three people we've only just met share a moment so emotionally resonant that it nearly brings you to tears. Yet the emotional core of the film lies in Chuck's youth, which gives us the fullest picture of his life and connects the dots established in the earlier acts. In many ways, the film mirrors how we get to know people in real life: starting with a surface impression, discovering small clues to their passions, and then uncovering the deeper history that shaped them. This reverse narrative structure is rare in cinema, used most famously by Christopher Nolan in Memento (2000) to depict the experience of short-term memory loss.

The Life of Chuck is a mosaic of small moments, interactions, and observations that cumulatively reveal the life of a man who may, at first glance, seem insignificant. But King's story and Flanagan's adaptation elevate the ordinary, framing the narrative with Walt Whitman's poem Song of Myself, especially the line: "I contain multitudes." This quote becomes key to understanding the supernatural undercurrents and thematic glue that binds the film's three acts.

Some viewers may wish for more obvious connections between the segments or a more traditional narrative arc. Each act is a gem in its own right, but the transitions can feel abrupt or disconnected. Still, adding filler or more conventional storytelling would only dilute the film's essence. The sparse structure is deliberate-and powerful. Padding it with exposition or additional characters would risk undermining the film's emotional clarity and philosophical weight. Flanagan's refusal to spoon-feed the audience is a courageous choice and one of the reasons I admire him as a filmmaker, both on television and in cinema. Like Terrence Malick's later work-though far less pretentious-The Life of Chuck asks the viewer to meet it halfway.

Visually, Flanagan continues to impress with a clean, distinctive cinematic language that enhances rather than distracts. His editing and pacing feel like listening to a master orator-confident, fluid, and perfectly timed. He's also one of the most consistent directors of actors working today, drawing superb performances from both stars and newcomers alike. While Hiddleston and Ejiofor are predictably excellent, it's the younger cast-especially Benjamin Pajak as young Chuck-who shine. Even those with only a line or two make an impression, thanks in part to strong casting and Flanagan's knack for coaxing depth from every performance.

In the end, The Life of Chuck is as difficult to classify as it is to explain. Its vignettes and meditations on what makes a life meaningful steer clear of sentimentality to deliver a heartfelt and enriching experience. With bold direction, a unique structure if slightly disjointed, and a profound source text, The Life of Chuck may not follow the rules-but that's precisely why it shouldn't be missed.

There is a concept here about the truth: we live, and then we die, and because I know it's a movie based on a story by Stevn King it has me asking the question: which am I more afrriad of?

I know the ambiguous trailer did not seem like anything you would expect from a Steven King movie, but what I got is exactly why this dude is The Master of Horror.

Maybe I am reading too much into a film, possibly influenced far greater by Mike Flanagan's filmmaking, yet the emotion I felt for this movie was deep.

That's the brilliance of this movie, I felt something at the end, and it made me think, and it was beautiful for that.

It's everything I expected from a movie/

The Life of Chuck (2025) is the first non-horror movie made by modern day horror legend Mike Flanagan and it is easily one of his best movies in his filmography.

Positives for The Life of Chuck (2025): This movie had such a heartwarming and good nature to the story that I loved from start to finish. You have a great ensemble cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Jacob Tremblay, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Karen Gillan, Mark Hamill, Annalise Basso, Mia Sara, Matthew Lillard, Carl Lumbly, Samantha Sloyan, Harvey Guillen, Kate Siegel, Nick Offerman, Q'orianka Kilcher, David Dastmalchian, Rahul Kohli, Heather Langenkamp, Michael Trucco, Molly C. Quinn, Antonio Raul Corbo, Trinity Bliss, Violet McGraw, Hamish Linklater and Lauren LaVera and they are all awesome. It also helps that every character in this movie is likable and even the ones who have flaws that are still likable people. The movie has a fantastic pace to the story that had me engaged and I wanted to know what was going to happen in the different timelines of Chuck Krantz's life. The movie is basically everyone having a conversation with other people and while that could be boring, Mike Flanagan does an excellent job at making them engaging for the audience. There are moments in the movie that had me smiling and I was on the verge of tears. And finally, the movie has a fantastic job at delivering its messages in a way that feel sincere to its audience.

Overall, The Life of Chucky (2025) was a wonderful experience from start to finish and it is one of my favorite movies of 2025.

Summed up, Mike Flanagan made a deep, multilayered yet beautiful film about the value of life. It's really hard to explain but Flanagan does not waste a single shot. There is a narration throughout the movie, yet right from 'Act Three,' everything seen and experienced unfolds perfectly in 'Act One.' Ejiofor & Gillan are fantastic in Act Three but if The Life of Chuck is to be nominated for anything, it has to be the sound. From the cosmic elements in 'Act Three' to the dancing scenes in 'Acts Two & One,' Flanagan did an exceptional job incorporating the sound throughout.

Of course, everyone was focusing on Hiddleston and his character, but Tom even mentioned it was really a team effort in Act Two and Annalise Basso, Hiddleston's dance partner in Act Two, and Taylor Gordon (who is in the credits as The Pocket Queen), the busker, all three combined with their choreographers Mandy Moore & Stephanie Powell really make the dance scene sing. Taylor Gordon is a talent in herself in her brief, but excellent role.

What surprised me was how Act One was with young Chuck and no one talks about how excellent the kids were. Their performances were just as brilliant as the adults, if not more so when young Chuck receives a very haunting monologue from his grandfather (an unbelievable Mark Hamill) about certain choices in life. Act One really helps put the puzzle together that was Act Three, where the cosmic elements can be off-putting, but it all serves a purpose. Stephen King is right when he says The Life of Chuck is one of the good ones. The spirit and energy is felt from beginning to end, and with all on board performances giving their best, Flanagan is further establishing himself as one of contemporary's greater directors.

One thing I will say is The Life of Chuck is dedicated In Memory to Scott Wampler. And there are a few cameos in The Life of Chuck but Scott's inclusion just tugged me right at the heart. Great film.