Life of Chuck

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.

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.)

"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 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. :(