- Director: Mike Flanagan
- Screenplay: Mike Flanagan
- Cast: Tom Hiddleston, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Karen Gillan, Mia Sara, Carl Lumbly, Benjamin Pajak, Jacob Tremblay, Mark Hamill
- Cinematography: Eben Bolter
- Editing: Mike Flanagan
- Score: The Newton Brothers
- Genre: Fantasy drama
- Runtime: 111 minutes
If I told you this was a Stephen King cinematic adaptation, you’d think it would be classed in the horror genre, right? Wrong answer: it’s one of King’s forays into fantasy. ‘The Life of Chuck‘ is a short story contained in his 2020 collection ‘If It Bleeds‘ (another such tale, ‘Mr. Harrigan’s Phone‘ has already been adapted).
It’s the end of the world as we know it. Nobody feels fine though. Chunks of America are lost to earthquakes and sinkholes, the internet goes down and there’s reports of flooding from around the globe. Even the stars start to vanish from the night sky. There is a constant throughout this apocalyptic scenario: billboards that proclaim: “Charles Krantz: 39 Great Years! Thanks, Chuck!”.
If you keep watching, (almost) all will be revealed. This is Act Three – we’re seeing Chuck’s life unfold backwards. Starting the narrative with the demise of everything signifies we’ve experienced the climax early. The remainder meanders along. Stretching 128 pages into a feature-length film means a fair bit of what is seen on screens could be chucked away, including an extended dance number featuring the adult Chuck (Tom Hiddleston).
This is Mike Flanagan’s third adaptation of a Stephen King plot, following ‘Gerald’s Game‘ and ‘Doctor Sleep‘. He’s clearly a fan but couldn’t he choose a story to interpret that wasn’t so ponderous?
Nonetheless, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Mark Hamill provide strong performances and the young actor playing 11-year-old Chuck, Benjamin Pajak, has serious dance moves. Dare I say this, but perhaps Mr. King should stick to doing what he does best: scaring the wits out of us?
My rating: 5 / 10
SilverScreen 
Interesting take! I actually appreciate that King stepped outside his horror comfort zone with The Life of Chuck. While the story—and now the film—definitely leans into the philosophical and surreal, I think there’s something powerful about exploring mortality and memory through a fantasy lens. That said, I get the criticism. The pacing can feel uneven, and not everyone will be on board with the backward narrative or the more theatrical elements like the dance sequence.
Still, I thought Flanagan’s direction gave the emotional core room to breathe, and the cast really helped sell the quieter moments. I don’t mind King branching out—he’s always had a knack for the uncanny in everyday life, not just monsters in the closet. But I agree: fans expecting a horror ride might feel misled here. Curious to see how general audiences respond once it hits wider release.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very well said!
LikeLiked by 1 person