Recensioni degli utenti

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.

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.

This is a beautiful film. The pacing was perfect, with likeable characters. It doesn't spoil itself or its message, but rather gives you three acts leaving you pondering how everything weaves together.

I have pondered in my life why certain moments are impactful and have helped form me into the individual I am today. It feels like utter randomness, but that's the point isn't it. What matters to me...what gives me substance...is what makes me the unique person I am. It's the good, the bad, the meager, all of it that comes together to form our universe and reality as we know it. So I'll leave you with this: Be kind to yourself and others. Hug your loved ones, forgive those you can forgive, and when your expiration date comes accept and trust that your life was exactly as it was meant to be.

I so very much enjoy Tom Hiddleston in films. Karen Gillan is also a treat to watch in selected films. The rest of the cast is worth more than an honorable mention alone, as many familiar faces grace the screen (especially toward the beginning of the film). Lastly, I tend to love this 'type' of movie. I can't give too much away without using a spoiler tag, but if you watch the interview(s) with the cast featured here on IMDB, you'll know what "type" I am referring to. I wonder if I can get away with 'apocalyptic', since that is a word straight from one of these interviews.

That said ... it was a bit of a letdown for me.

The beginning was slow, but it was good. It built an expectancy toward so much more and a feeling that it was going to get so much better. Sadly, that was never fully realized or delivered.

Beginning in the second act, the film definitely starts to bog down and suffers from side or follow-up scenes that are just way too long and a bit far-fetched. The narration, too, is used far too often to the point of it just about verging on annoying.

By the third act, when they begin to introduce what is supposed to be the point of the entire thing, it has already been too bogged down by too much of not enough - if that makes sense. While the child actor is adorable and does so well, here too the movie just drags.

Moreover, everything is so overly-EXPLAINED. It's kind of like Flanagan did not trust the audience to understand what was happening, so either the narrator or characters went to great lengths to explain every detail. Well, while some may disagree, I believe audiences are more intelligent than this film gives them (us) credit for.

Sorry Mike Flanagan fans, but this is the third time I have been let down by one of his offerings. :(

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.)

I haven't read the Stephen King novella the film is based on, but The Life of Chuck feels more like an emotional experiment than a fully fleshed-out story. It clearly wants to be deep, weaving time, memory, and mortality into a puzzle-like structure, but it often slips into sentimentality instead. The film leans heavily on melancholy and nostalgia, which might resonate more with viewers going through personal loss or depression. For me, though, it lacked real emotional depth beneath the poetic surface. That said, the performances are strong, and the concept is intriguing, even if it never quite delivers the impact it aims for.

I had the pleasure of attending Regal's Mystery Movie Monday and was absolutely delighted to preview The Life of Chuck. Directed by Mike Flanagan and adapted from Stephen King's novella, this film is a deeply moving exploration of life's fleeting moments and the quiet, powerful ways one person can leave a mark on the world.

Tom Hiddleston gives a captivating performance as Charles "Chuck" Krantz, portraying his life in reverse, from death back to childhood. Jacob Tremblay and Benjamin Pajak, who portray Chuck at younger ages, deliver equally sincere and affecting performances, each capturing the spirit and complexity of the character at various stages of his life. The film's unconventional structure may initially challenge viewers, but by the end, it offers a resonant, emotionally rich experience that lingers long after the credits roll.

The supporting cast brings warmth, depth, and surprise. Mia Sara, in a heartfelt return to the screen, shines as Chuck's mother. Matthew Lillard's brief appearance is both deeply touching and meomorable (my one complaint is that he did not return later in the movie), and Mark Hamill lends weight and tenderness in his role as Chuck's grandfather. Nick Offerman serves as the narrator, and his voice, calm, grounded, and thoughtful, beautifully anchors the film's reflective tone.

As a teacher, I was especially moved by the portrayal of educators. Characters like Miss Richards (Kate Siegel), Miss Rohrbacher (Samantha Sloyan), and the beautifully portrayed role by Chiwetel Ejiofor, all embody the kind of teachers we aspire to be, compassionate, inspiring, and transformative. Their presence in Chuck's life is a testament to the quiet heroism of educators.

And I have to say it, Rahul Kohli is a joy to watch in everything he does. His presence is always a highlight.

The Life of Chuck is more than just a film, it's a love letter to life, memory, connection, and the meaning we create in our short time here. Flanagan's masterful direction, paired with a stellar cast and emotionally intelligent storytelling, makes this one of the most beautiful and thought-provoking films of the year.

I wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone ready to be moved, and reminded of what truly matters.

Honestly, this concept could have been executed in a much simpler and more effective way. The film would have benefited from clearly explaining its true premise from the beginning, instead of using a reverse narrative structure that misleads the audience.

Most viewers expect an apocalyptic story, especially with the opening scenes showing billboards thanking Chuck as the world collapses. But in the end, it's just a quiet story about one man's social life. That shift creates unnecessary confusion.

It's clear the film is trying to stand out through originality-likely to gain visibility and critical attention. But in my opinion, that comes at the cost of narrative coherence. The result: two hours spent on a concept that could have been touching if it had been structured more directly.

"Would answers make a good thing better?"

The Life of Chuck is bold and full of ideas about life, death, and what our place in the universe really means. It opens in act three, when the world is collapsing; earthquakes, floods, eruptions, the land itself vanishing. In the middle of all this destruction, signs keep appearing that say: "Charles Krantz. 39 Great Years. Thanks Chuck." His face is everywhere, but no one knows who he is. Not even us.

By the time we finally meet Chuck, in act two, it becomes clear that the story isn't about cosmic destruction or mysteries that need solving. It's about the small moments that shape a life and how, in their own way, they're just as vast as the universe, "I cointain multitudes". The dancing scene here is unforgettable, probably the most impactful part of the film. The music, the movement, the joy in something so simple, it's the kind of scene that reminds you why you go to the movies.

Act one takes us back further, to Chuck's childhood, to the grief and hardship that shaped him, and how dance became a way to carry all that pain. My favorite scene is when Chiwetel Ejiofor (as Marty), on the phone with his estranged wife, shares a Carl Sagan story about how little we really know about anything.

Flanagan isn't interested in spelling everything out. Some things like life, death, love and grief are richer in mystery than in explanation. Chuck's story reminds us that even lives that seem small carry meaning and wonder.

I feel like this movie had all the parts to make it a beautiful experience, but it failed to put them together properly. The initial mystery in act 1 is quite intriguing and makes you wonder, what this kind-looking man Chuck, that keeps popping up in advertisements all over the world has to do with the planets looming demise. But acts 2 and 3 (or 2 and 1, as the movie decides to engage in "reverse" storytelling) fail to convey a coherent story or motive. It is all losely held together by the premise of "being your true self" and "you are all the things that you experience and all the memories that you make" but the way these themes are shown are on the one hand to vague to truly get you invested, but on the other hand also riddled in clichees. The grandpa giving a discouraging speech to the kid about how it is more important to stick to tangible things like math, than to creative aspirations. The teacher giving a 5 minute talk to his ex-wife about "how we are only a blip second in the eternity that is the universe". The kid finally overcoming his fears of expressing himself at the most clichee high-school graduation dance scene of all time. It has the topics that are supposed to make you cry and feel hopeful at the same time, but they feel like you have seen them before a million times in better stories. And the most intriguing part of the plot, the most profound experience that the main character must have had had throughout his entire life is only revealed to us in the final scene. It would have been great to see, how this would have shaped his actions going forward, but in the timeline of the movie, we only get one scene of him afterwards. And while it includes an impressive dance choreography, it is not enough to fully capture the character´s whole underlying motivation. And the overall explanation of the initial mystery also kind of falls flat.

I left the cinema feeling nothing.

Even though it's a book adaptation, it's a film that really makes you appreciate film. It's thought provoking and requires you to put the plot together for yourself. There's so many small details from clocks, to people in the background. There are some mystical elements about it, but at the end of the day it's pretty simple, Chucks life wasn't extreme or grand, but the universe he goes on to create, the one that lives inside of him is immense, and powerful. The message of how astounding one life can be, just go out and live, because your time will eventually come, and you'll have wished you followed your true passions. 10/10, I definitely recommend. Especially to real film watchers.

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.

I went into this with no idea about what this film was about, other than it was supposedly life-affirming and feel-good.

The structure of the movie wasn't something I expected, but understand the intentions. The movie starts with the 3rd act, which is completely detached from the bulk of the movie. I don't want to add spoilers, so won't go into too much detail but to me, this 3rd act sets up a completely different movie to the one that plays out. Again, I understand the intentions, but I was ready for a completely different type of movie by the end of the 3rd act.

Acts 1 & 2 are great and more in-fitting with what I presume are the intentions of the story, but even here, I wouldn't say "life-affirming" or "feel-good" are the emotions I left with. In the end I left with melancholy and sadness, both at the story of Chuck, but also what this movie could have been.

Production, acting and cinematography are all excellent, so no complaints there. It's just that 3rd act at the beginning that threw me. As I said above, I was ready for a totally different type of movie, which I think would have been far more interesting to explore i.e. - end of the world and, rather more interestingly, not setting up a complete hellscape/dystopia, but instead seeing individual and society's reactions as they try to cling on to normality and watching things evolve as things progressively decline.

On the whole, I enjoyed this film, but I didn't "love" it, nor would I sing its praises too much if quizzed about it.

I went to see this movie during a bored Monday at work. I found the synopsis and trailer/preview for this movie to be a little underwhelming, but the high RT score for this movie drew me a little bit. In the end, I wasn't too impressed, but I managed to stay interested in the movie until the end: I didn't walk out. So the movie wasn't all bad

The movie's acting is good; the overall vibe is sentimental and nostaglic. I can appreciate the messaging about "Live your life to the fullest." The movie is split in three parts, going in reverse chronological order. Yet even with that unorthodox storytelling method, the movie skillfully manages to avoid feeling disjointed, muddy, or hard to follow. And most of all - the dance scene in Act Two is so charming and wonderful that it legitimately brought a smile on my face.

That said - I have some issues. The first problem is that the movie gets too sappy, sentimental, and just downright corny. The parts relating to Walt Whitman's line "I contain multitudes" (including the final scene) are forced and very cringe. The movie has an unbearable score. It's as if the movie is constantly straining to tell the viewer, "Hey, I'm a tearjerker."

I did find myself more interested in Acts Three and Two (i.e. The opening and middle acts in the movie). I got a little bored at times during Act One. The version of Chuck played by Tom Hiddleston (i.e. Loki from the Avengers) is the most charming version of Chuck, but he doesn't get the most screen-time or dialogue. His childhood selves, played by different actors, get more attention

Lastly - the movie's fundamental message is about living life to the fullest, but the movie could've conveyed the same exact message with a lot less fluff. A bunch of the dialogue/monologues in this movie are unnecessarily drawn out; some scenes are utterly pointless. The filmakers basically come off like college students who inserted a ton of unneeded words, quotations, and details just to meet the required word-count in a final essay.

6.0/10.

Mike Flanagan's "The Life of Chuck" (2024) is an ambitious and unconventional adaptation that explores the entirety of an ordinary man's life, told in reverse chronological order. While the non-linear structure can be initially disorienting, it ultimately serves to deepen the emotional impact and reveal the interconnectedness of seemingly small moments. The film, a departure from Flanagan's usual horror fare, leans heavily into themes of life, death, and the human experience, often with a melancholic yet ultimately optimistic tone.

The ensemble cast, including strong performances from Tom Hiddleston, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Mark Hamill, brings a quiet dignity to their roles. While some may find the philosophical musings a bit heavy-handed or the pacing occasionally slow, "The Life of Chuck" is a thought-provoking and often moving cinematic experience that encourages reflection on the beauty found in everyday existence.

Is it worth watching? Yes, for its unique storytelling and emotional depth, especially if you appreciate contemplative dramas.

It's a rare Stephen King adaptation that I approach with zero knowledge of the source material. Yet The Life of Chuck - a novella from the collection If It Bleeds - is one of those exceptions. With Gerald's Game and Doctor Sleep, Mike Flanagan has already proved he understands King well enough to deliver adaptations that, while not flawless, generally outclass most others by instinctively spotlighting what truly matters.

The Life of Chuck feels like a level-up, yet it isn't rooted in King's familiar playground of horror, the supernatural, or even thriller territory. Instead, this is King in his reflective, introspective, existential mode - where the fantastical slips in only to stretch the imagination a little further.

It's extremely hard to describe what the film is without spoiling the surprise - a surprise I hope hits you as fully as it did me. What you can know: this three-part narrative runs in reverse, each section speaking to the others, each one justifying the existence and weight of the two surrounding it.

The first segment feels achingly contemporary.

The second is both superfluous and essential, featherlight and deeply profound - the pivot around which the rest of the story spins.

The final act is more traditional but also the most moving: one of those intimate portraits of a time and place King conjures better than almost anyone, rich in tiny details where every viewer will recognise a little of their own life.

What is this concentric, nesting-doll story trying to say? You won't hear it from me - The Life of Chuck is a puzzle that, once completed, can reflect wildly different images depending on who you are. A serene piece of storytelling with plenty to express, but absolutely no compulsion to spell anything out - nor explain why it's expressing it.

These themes will speak differently to a child, an adult, a parent - depending entirely on the life lived before entering the theatre. A simple film, modestly told despite its exuberant centrepiece, almost family-friendly... yet thematically rich, generous in ideas, and stingy in easy interpretations - placing it firmly outside the Hollywood standard.

Approach it not as a narrative to dissect but as a fable - or even a poem - that doesn't give a damn about strict logic, and The Life of Chuck becomes the kind of major cinematic experience I wish we were offered far more often.

I never read Stephen King's story but I am guessing that if I did, and then saw this film, I'd be pretty disappointed. Literature allows you to form fantastic images before your mind's eye, film adaptations risk becoming mundane derivates and I think that's probably what happened here.

The acting was not bad, a little pedestrian though. Some of the visual ideas were alright but they did not add to the story or even felt that related to it, so I can't give credit for that. The sound design may have been technically fine, but again felt unrelated.

There are some philosophical ideas being pandered that may resonate if you never thought too deeply about your existence but they are actually pretty shallow. There is tons of loose ends and completely absurd plot holes, which may be excused as magic realism but I've seen that done much, much better in other films.

Meh out of 10 I'm afraid.

Although considered horror royalty, Stephen King has never been pigeonholed to the genre. From 'Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption' and 'The Body,' to 'The Running Man' (the latter released under the pseudonym Richard Bachman), King has consistently shown a knack for stepping beyond the supernatural to explore the deeply human. In those stories, filmmakers have found some of the richest material to bring to the screen.

Unfortunately, Mike Flanagan's 'The Life of Chuck', based on the novella of the same name, is not another standout entry in the King adaptation canon. A drama with science-fiction and fantasy elements told in reverse chronological order, it details three chapters in the life of a seemingly ordinary man named Charles Krantz, from his youth to his death.

Billed as heart-warming, it's so saccharinely schmaltzy it'll leave you reaching for the antacid. Flanagan's third King adaptation, and easily his worst, the narrative is profoundly unengaging and banal. Although the first chapter shows some promise, it all comes to nothing. The subsequent acts are as underwhelming as a half-inflated balloon. Tonally scattershot, the film is so full of cliches and devoid of life it's genuinely puzzling how it has garnered so much praise.

Just what is the point of 'The Life of Chuck'? What's its purpose? Some reviewers have claimed it speaks volumes about the human condition. It doesn't. Others tout it as a feel-good miracle that might restore faith in humanity. It won't. It's dull, clunky and poorly scripted. Flanagan's dialogue is of the expository variety, when it isn't cliched nonsense.

Additionally, proceedings are saddled with intrusive narration, spelling out the easily inferred themes and emotions, thereby undercutting any chance of subtlety. Further, Flanagan's characterisation is slim to non-existent. Why should we care about Chuck or want to hear about his life? He has all the personality and charm of a snail without a shell.

Throughout his paltry excuse for a narrative, Flanagan seems to be striving for meditations on mortality, memory and the fleeting nature of life. Yet these themes never land, buried beneath heavy-handed exposition, shallow characterisation and sentimental overkill. The film aims to reflect life's truths, but instead feels empty and contrived.

Visually, it is more of an accomplished affair, even if it has that Netflixy sheen, making everything on screen look overly polished and sterile. Director of photography Eben Bolter does manage to evoke some interesting imagery, however, especially in the first chapter. Yet, while his cinematography, the production design and lighting are all competent, they can't compensate for the story's emptiness or lack of emotional engagement.

Unfortunately, the film struggles to find a consistent flow. The first chapter moves at a deliberate, measured pace that works, but the remaining two drag, even though the second is actually quite short. The Newton Brothers' score is unremarkable, failing to enhance any of the emotional beats, while the dance sequences- featured heavily in the second and third chapters- though admittedly well-performed- feel interminably gratuitous.

Tom Hiddleston, first billed and featuring prominently in the marketing, stars as Chuck, though isn't in the film for long. In fact, he's only really in the second chapter. Although he dances well, he fails to create a character of interest in the face of Flanagan's scant characterisation. Anyone could have been as effective in the role with a little bit of dance practice, one fears.

By contrast, Chiwetel Ejiofor does far superior work as a weary teacher, while Karen Gillan brings nuance as his nurse ex-wife, both managing to elevate their thinly written roles. Matthew Lillard and David Dastmalchian also drop in for a scene apiece, damn near stealing the show. Mia Sara and Mark Hamill, meanwhile, shine in the third chapter, as Chuck's grandparents. In addition, Nick Offerman provides the narration, and while his delivery is perfectly serviceable, it ultimately highlights just how unnecessary the device is in the first place.

In short, Mike Flanagan's 'The Life of Chuck' is a misfire of the highest order- dreary, saccharine and devoid of the vitality that makes Stephen King's better non-horror tales endure. Despite flashes of competent craft and a handful of strong supporting turns, it collapses under the weight of its own sentimentality. What might have been a poignant meditation on life instead feels like an overlong eulogy for a man viewers never had a reason to care about. In the end, the only real question left is: who gives a Chuck?

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/

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.