The Life of Chuck (dir. Mike Flanagan)
By: Adam Freed
Life, as it turns out, is not a permanent condition. For Charles Krantz, an average man raised under extraordinary circumstances, this statement couldn’t strike any closer to the truth. Whether one lives 200 years or only 20, what one chooses to do with their life is said to make all of the difference. The Life of Chuck, director Mike Flanagan’s adaptation of Stephen King‘s novella of the same title, is a genre-bending non-linear reflection on the importance of a life lived in pursuit of one’s passions. There is an inherent trust between Flanagan and King, forged through their frequent partnerships that include Gerald’s Game (2017) and Doctor Sleep (2019), both faithful adaptations of King’s written work. While it is clear that Stephen King trusts Flanagan, their relationship is a glaring reminder that comfort seldom provides fertile ground for growth.
Similar to a life well lived, The Life of Chuck offers several moments of convincing humor, unadulterated joy, and a surfeit balance of heartbreak. What is likely to get the most attention from the film is the non-sequential three act structure in which it is told. Flanagan’s film offers an opening act that is quite successful in establishing a tone of intrigue, as far more questions are being posed than answers are unveiled. The film’s opening thirty minutes are without question the strongest it has to offer as it weaves sci-fi fantasy with the outstanding performances of Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years a Slave) and Karen Gillan (Thor: Love and Thunder). Ejiofor plays Marty Anderson, a well meaning teacher attempting to make sense of a world lambasted by catastrophe that is crumbling around him. Marty’s ex-wife Felicia (Gillan) is a triage nurse, relegated to processing a half dozen suicides a day, a result of rapidly diminishing global living conditions. The former married couple bond in the wake of impending doom, offering audiences a genuine reflection of what it means to set aside triviality in favor of meaningful companionship in the face of heartache.
Despite his visage adorning much of the film’s marketing materials, audiences are forced to wait for the appearance of Tom Hiddleston (Avengers: Endgame, Kong: Skull Island) as the titular Chuck. Just who the man is, is shrouded in mystery, offering a perplexity that marks the very best that The Life of Chuck has to offer. Beyond searching for the answer to this enigma, audiences are left with a fragmentary, and underwhelming experience, especially in the shadow of the promise of what Mike Flanagan’s film might have been. Chuck is a story about the cumulative nature of life’s passing moments, a fact that relegates many interesting characters into fleeting single serving doses. Where there isn’t an underwhelming performance to be found within the film, there are several that feel shamefully brief considering their momentary magnetism. Single-scene appearances by Matthew Lillard (Scream) and David Dastmalchian (Midnight with the Devil, The Dark Knight) flavor act one with much needed humor and sophistication, which makes their absence understandable, but noticeable for the remainder of the film.
There are very few instances in which narration is value added for a film, and The Life of Chuck is almost completely beholden to voiceover that rings as hollow exposition, rather than in service to its story. As far as narrative voice is concerned, one can do far worse than employing the recognizable intonations of Nick Offerman (The Office, Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning), but despite Offerman’s best intentions one cannot escape the feeling that there is a more successful version of The Life of Chuck in which the trope is avoided entirely. While there are far more moments of joy than disappointment to be found in The Life of Chuck, it is impossible to escape the feeling that a film so clearly intended on grandiosity, is only fractionally as successful as it hopes to be.
Target Score 6.5/10 - Mike Flanigan‘s adaptation of Stephen King’s novella tiptoes on the edge of pretentiousness while confoundingly insisting on providing audiences with all of the answers. The result is a film that is a near-miss despite boasting an intriguing concept and universally outstanding performances.