The Life of Chuck

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.

Adapting Stephen King to the screen is a tricky proposition and has rarely been successful. With the exception of Carrie (the original Brian DePalma is a horror classic) and possibly Kubrick s The Shining (which gets better with age and when looked at through an auteur's lens) the only successful adaptations IMHO have been his short stories and novellas (The Body/Stand By Me and Shawshank come immediately to mind). Life of Chuck falls into the latter category. In addition to being well written and acted, the telling of the story in reverse is generally difficult, and in this outing is surprisingly effective. And it's fun finding the Easter Eggs in the third part of the movie that explains much of the action in the first part.

I really liked this, though I fear it will be divisive. Nonlinear (or counter linear?) storytelling is not everyone's cup of tea. My husband hated it until I told him it's a Mike Flanagan movie (we're fans) and it then made sense. As mentioned, well acted. Well written. Well directed. Prettily photographed. The end of the first portion is a surprise (I will not give it away) that ties all three parts together.

IMO it's a worthwhile two hours spent in the dark with a room full of strangers.

It honestly boggles my mind how I kept reading about how this movie was bombing at the box office, when it clearly was very poorly marketed. It was two weeks after its "wide" release before it finally showed up to our local art house/second run movie theater. The chain multiplexes gave it a complete miss.

Mike Flanagan is a very talented screenwriter and director and this was possibly Stephen King's most sentimental work. And there's two INCREDIBLE dance scenes. The result is completely human, uplifting film.

There is some anxiety inducing story in the start of the film, but it is not a horror film by any measure. King is also very good with general fiction too, after all.

This movie will stick with you for awhile. Hours after my viewing, I was still thinking about it (and tearing up.)

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/

I went into The Life of Chuck knowing nothing about it other than it being a Stephen King novella.

I assumed the movie was going to be horror, and I was so wrong, in the best way. Mike Flanagan was a director I was unfamiliar with as well - so my expectations were really empty.

That being said - The Life of Chuck took the beats of what makes a great horror film - fleshed out and relatable characters with a unique and mysterious situation to put them in.

I want to leave my critique relatively vague as I believe the hook of the film works best going in without knowing much.

I left the film feeling a mix of joy and melancholy and appreciated the artistry that brought me there.

I do recommend.