The Life of Chuck (2025)

“The Life of Chuck” stars Tom Hiddleston, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Karen Gillan, Jacob Tremblay, and Mark Hamill.  It was released on June 6, 2025, and it chronicles the life of an ordinary man.
​
The film was written and directed by Mike Flanagan, known for directing horror films such as “Oculus,” “Hush,” “Gerald’s Game,” and “Doctor Sleep.”  It is based on the 2020 novella by Stephen King from his collection If It Bleeds.  Life is truly a gift that we can cherish, whether it's simple or complicated.  It doesn’t matter if you’re an ordinary person living your daily life or a gifted prodigy achieving extraordinary things. What truly matters is how much you value it.  This sums up the latest drama, which explores the aspects of life, both the ups and downs, but from a perspective that’s as fantastical as it's real.  To my surprise, this comes courtesy of two icons known for their works in horror, including Stephen King, who demonstrates that he can also inspire people through his works across different genres, not just frighten them.  This is an intriguing change of pace, as Mike Flanagan ventures into a different genre rather than horror in his latest directorial outing. But does this unique outlook on life prove to be a welcoming one?  Let’s find out.

The story is told in three chapters, chronicling the life of a man named Charles “Chuck” Krantz (Hiddleston).  Each chapter unveils a different phase of Chuck’s coming-of-age journey, including his childhood in a small community raised by his paternal grandparents and his adulthood.  Despite the challenges of growing up without his birth parents, Chuck finds solace and joy in dancing, often losing himself in the rhythm and movement that seem to express what words cannot.  As he’s determined to carve out a place for himself, Chuck would discover, through his friends and mentors, a deeper understanding of his passion as well as life itself.

As someone who has primarily experienced adaptations of Stephen King’s horror novels, I found “Life of Chuck” a different beast to cover, as it allowed me to broaden my understanding of the iconic author across various genres.  In fact, his sci-fi drama novella hadn’t been on my radar until I learned about its film adaptation.  It goes to show that my perspective on Stephen King is limited to his horror works.  Of course, that’s not the only reason for my interest in this drama, as it also featured horror filmmaker Mike Flanagan venturing into drama territory by swapping his signature atmospheric dread for a straightforward and laidback exploration of life.  Based on my impressions of the “Ouija” sequel and “Doctor Sleep”, I was confident that his vision would translate effectively into King’s novella.  Given its positive reception at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival, where it garnered the People’s Choice Award, it appears like this transition has been working splendidly in Flanagan’s favor.  From a business standpoint, this suggests that the director is capable of being more than just a one-genre filmmaker.  However, what matters is whether it can meet my own expectations.  After seeing it early, thanks to the mystery movie screening, I can say that it has.

“The Life of Chuck” presents a beautifully crafted and heartfelt examination of the human experience within the universe and the passions that contribute to our sense of wholeness. The narrative is as nuanced and elegant as a dance routine, employing a contemplative approach to explore its layered themes.  The thing to know about this film is that it’s presented in reverse chronological order, mirroring the structure of King’s short story.  It begins with the third act, resembling an "end of days" science fiction drama that’s somehow connected to Chuck’s death.  It then showcases Chuck’s life in reverse order, from him dancing with a young girl to his childhood days living with his grandparents.  With this structure, the film puts more emphasis on the mystery surrounding this particular man and why he’s worth remembering.  The final two acts help complete the narrative by exploring Chuck's life and the individuals he interacted with, primarily the schoolteacher Marty Anderson (Ejiofor).  This was a clever and respectful approach that honors King’s intentional structure in his short story as well as offering a subtly intriguing mystery that’s engaging and even contemplative. 

This was mainly due to Mike Flanagan’s screenplay, which, while simple, is rich with profound thematic layers.  It delves into the values of life, the moments it encompasses, and the universe around us, all without becoming overly complicated and detracting from its inherent charm.  The only issue regarding the script was that it may have had a few plot elements that were left unanswered, particularly regarding the events of “act three”.  I’m guessing that this was intentional to highlight the movie’s distinctively simple nature, particularly in its subtle sci-fi aesthetics.  No joke.  When comparing that act to the first two acts, it’s as if I was watching a completely different movie.  However, despite its contrasting vibe, Act Three still contained the emotional core of valuing what you have until…well, the end of days.  Of course, that includes the passion one possesses, such as Chuck being blessed with a love of dancing.  The film may not have all the answers to the questions it raises narratively, but truth be told, it’s a way of resembling life itself.  It doesn’t give you all the answers to its biggest questions.  However, the best way to understand them is to live it to the fullest.

As mentioned earlier, “The Life of Chuck” is a different type of film Mike Flanagan is tackling, as he’s mainly known for his works in the horror genre.  However, I still felt confident that his vision would translate well into the source material’s dramatic vibes.  Unsurprisingly, he met my expectations with his keen directorial eye.  In addition to his signature vision regarding the mysterious atmosphere, mainly in Act Three, Flanagan adopted a slow-burn technique that remains engaging without feeling tedious or overly drawn out.  He ensured that nearly every moment sparkled like a star in the night sky, whether it was for the characters or the gorgeous wide-angle shots provided by Eben Bolter’s exceptional cinematography.

Regarding the latter, the meticulous attention to detail in each scene was immersive for the story’s rich tapestry.  The interplay of light and shadow enhances the enchanting ambiance, making each scene feel like a carefully painted masterpiece.  I was also surprised to see that Flanagan has a pretty charismatic side in his system despite his horror movies being full of doom and gloom.  This is highlighted in Act Two, where Chuck dances with a young lady in the town square.  This sequence radiates the tone’s positivity and charm through its lively dance choreography, yet it also brings a tear to my eye due to what may occur after that act’s conclusion.  Mike Flanagan may have been recognized as an emerging force in horror filmmaking due to his impressive filmography, but this movie proved he’s capable of delivering the same results across various genres, all thanks to his skilled direction.

The movie also features a massive cast of recognizable actors offering both major and supporting roles.  Seriously, you can watch this film without knowing anything about it, and you’ll immediately recognize most of the people through their faces and voices.  Much like the direction and screenplay, the actors shine brightly through their engrossing performances, with some who could garner recognition during awards season when all is said and done.  Tom Hiddleston branches out once more from the Marvel Cinematic Universe to portray the film’s titular character, a man with a passion for dancing.  While his screen time is limited, Hiddleston made the most of it to deliver a consistently charming and layered performance that’s worthy of my smiles and tears.  Even though I love Hiddleston as Loki in the Marvel Universe, his performance as Chuck made me eager to see more of his talents outside the superhero world.  Jacob Tremblay was outstanding as the teenage version of Chuck during Act One, further showcasing his acting talents with the proper script in tow.  Chiwetel Ejiofor and Karen Gillan were also excellent in their roles as Marty Anderson and Felicia Gordon, respectively, and Mark Hamill delivered some tenderhearted moments as Chuck’s grandfather, Albie.  Whether he’s in “Star Wars” or any other project, Hamill knows how to impress with his charisma, drama or otherwise.

Overall, “The Life of Chuck” presents a beautifully layered journey that’s as valuable in its storytelling and cinematic craft as life itself.  The movie does have a few elements that may have been left unanswered, and its subtlety may not pull all of my heartstrings as intended.  However, these minor issues were easily overshadowed by its near-perfect balance of simplicity and thematic resonance.  It offers a thought-provoking and profoundly sincere reflection of life’s values and the passions that we cherish.  Its impressive ensemble cast was fantastic in their roles, and the cinematography brilliantly captures its simple yet stunning sceneries, particularly the nighttime sequences.  More importantly, it highlights Mike Flanagan’s ability to tackle genres beyond horror, thanks to his skillful direction and innovative, nonlinear screenplay.  In essence, it reminds us that even amid life's uncertainties, embracing life is always a worthwhile endeavor.  If you want a film that touches your heart, makes you smile, and reminds you how precious life is, I’m happy to say that “The Life of Chuck” is that type of movie worth valuing.

A-