Directed By Mike Flanagan

Starring – Tom Hiddleston, Jacob Tremblay, Chiwetel Ejiofor

The Plot – A life-affirming, genre-bending story about three chapters in the life of an ordinary man named Charles Krantz (Hiddleston, Tremblay, Benjamin Pajak).

Rated R for adult language

THE LIFE OF CHUCK – Official Trailer – In Select Theaters 6.6, Everywhere 6.13

POSITIVES

At an unfortunate time in our world where fear dictates the path of course, and divide dominates humanity, along comes a movie like “The Life of Chuck” to reaffirm the beauty and wonderment that is the rarity to live and experience, all the while cementing Flanagan as one of the most entertainingly versatile directors of our time, as his transition from horror to drama feels effortlessly seamless. As to where a movie pertaining to so many pivotal deep-seeded messages would normally come across as saccharine or at the very least melancholic, Mike conjures this endearing appeasement with so much significance and genuineness in the air of his confident commanding, that immediately compels us to the air of the many mysteries surrounding the characters within this story that drives its narrative, all the while eliciting one of the very best and most meaningful Stephen King adaptations that I have seen since my favorite movie, “The Shawshank Redemption”. There’s so much difficulty that comes with adapting a story that is divided into three sections, especially considering it starts with the end and works backwards, particularly in the possibility of it coming across as disjointed or confrontational to its interpretation, but the dialogue has such a fascinating way of alluring audiences into not only addressing the difficult observations and questions about our world that as a society have made us lose sight of what’s ultimately important, but beyond that the many charming ways that it discusses the theologies of the world’s formation and ongoing responses, and while the dialogue occasionally talks directly to the audience, such as Nick Offerman’s dryly cool personality brought along for the movie’s overhead narration, it still leaves enough air of interpretation to uncover thematic underlining to the accessibility of the audience, and I was drawn into every conversation and character, especially considering how each of them play such a vital importance to the world articulated in the film. On that aspect, I detail the movie’s single most fascinating element, being the intricacies within these three arcs that are executed brilliantly with the kind of set decoration and character placement that immediately convey something bigger and bolder is at play than this being just another conventional narrative. It’s one of those gimmicks within a film where your mind can definitely play tricks on you with the imagery the further that you dive deeper into the heftier material of the screenplay, and considering there’s so much going on in the details that appraise value every single shot of the movie’s presentation, it solidifies future rewatches towards meticulously placed particles in hints and clues that I may have missed during my initial engagement, allowing me to view the film from an entirely unique perspective once I know how all of the pieces fit cleverly together. The devil in the details doesn’t just pertain to production designs or character likeness, however, as the movie’s presentational aspect ratio deviating between a 2.39:1 during its third act, and 1.85:1 during its other two acts, also attains a deeper meaning with the events pertaining to our titular protagonist, and while most audiences probably won’t notice such a subtle shift in the dimensions of the movie’s textures, it’s a gratifying addition that cleverly lays out the dimensions of what’s at play here, in turn serving as the artistic impulse that was the key that capably unlocked for me just what was going on in such a strangely surreal yet familiarly grounded world. Cap this off with thoroughly transparent overriding editing schemes that casually shift between the similarities and commentaries of its three divided acts, and you have a psychological stinger with no shortage of consciousness to the depths of its depiction, enacting a connective tissue that feels all the more apparent the frequently we see the many objects and memories of Chuck’s life coming back to him, establishing a whirlwind of nostalgia to the character that blurs the line of past and present accordingly. In terms of the atmosphere, you should definitely expect that Flanagan taps into the psychologically ominous impulses that fuel so many of his frights in horror cinema and streaming shows, especially during the world-ending catastrophe of the movie’s opening act, but once the film feels comfortable in its own dramatic skin, with an uplifting second act, Mike is able to revel in the air of sentimentality that makes this one of the more charmingly enlightening experiences that I can recently remember. This is where the film could really fall apart without masterful steering, with so many of King’s dramatic efforts lacking humanity or perseverance in its messaging, but Flanagan values the beauty in humanity in ways that feel utopic without being fully fantastical in its ambition of creating a better life, and the result is this charmingly sweet sincerity that exudes such a noble gentility to the experience, and one that will hopefully inspire urgency in the blessing of everyday for people to be the best versions of themselves, a wish that feels needed now more than ever. Lastly, like most Flanagan projects, this film is stacked with a talentedly extensive ensemble that stitch together so much warmth and cadence to their respective portrayals, but selflessly without anyone that dominantly stands out above the rest. That’s not to say that there isn’t a lead here, as Hiddleston definitely takes a majority of the screentime with the radiant charisma and infectious swagger that he’s made a career out of, it’s just that everyone here is given ample time to shine as the story weaves in and out of its various timelines and perspectives, offering endless opportunity even towards roles that would be thankless in other movies. Such an example pertains to Carl Lumbly, who as a character pertaining to Chuck’s past commands the attention in the words that he utilizes with humbling vulnerability, or Mia Sara’s warmth and nourishment as Chuck’s grandmother. Each of these characters would be deduced to a line or two in a weaker movie, but here serve as pivotal people that further give Chuck’s life meaning, and with the aforementioned casting being pure perfection, without a single weakness among them, we’re treated to scene-stealing turns behind every corner, with even a few surprises for horror icons that I responsibly won’t spoil in this review.

NEGATIVES

Complaining about such an inspiring and uplifting experience is certainly no fun, but there were some hinderances that got in the way of my overall engagement, keeping this film from noticeable distance to the perfect score that it had a legitimate chance to reach for. The first is in the balance of runtime between the three tiers of this structure, with the third act, ultimately the youngest section of Chuck’s life, receiving a bulk of the focus, and while it has the responsibility of tying the three stories together with its big reveal, I didn’t always feel like the story moved as fluently and constantly entertaining as the movie’s first two acts, especially once the origins of one of Chuck’s afterschool activities are revealed, and the storytelling outside of it seemingly halts in its progression for a good ten to fifteen minute period. Honestly, there’s nothing that I would edit or remove all together from the finished product, but I wish the arc flowed with the kind of urgency that is ultimately transpiring in the outlined depths of this movie’s structure, as some noticeable momentum is left uncapitalized in the triumphant execution of tying so many years to this one distinct section, leaving the pacing somewhat strained during the moments when it can be felt the loudest. Beyond this, the movie’s dialogue doesn’t transfer as seamlessly from its literary origins, with emotionally wooden or on-the-nose obvious intentions that practically spell everything out for its adoring audience, leaving very little interpretable that can be mustered on our own attaining knowledge. While I loved most of the conversations contained in the script, particularly those thought-provoking outlines that articulate a vast world-building for so much falling apart within the movie’s setting, sometimes the internalized responses come across as feeling a bit unnatural and even leading towards the intention, resulting not only to a lack of subtlety that compromises a couple of scenes integrity during the opening act, but also far too much reliance on the novel’s original dialogue, taking a bit of the originality from Flanagan’s adapted screenplay, which here has very few changes.

OVERALL
“The Life of Chuck” is above all else a touchingly inspiring life-affirming drama that reminds us of life’s precious and rare value at a time when this divisive world needs it most. With the ambition to answer life’s deepest philosophical and existential questions through the depths of a daring dreamer, Mike Flanagan concocts his single most ambitious execution to date, while transcending genres, and though the film ultimately brings along the fear and paranoia of his roots in horror, the “monsters” in this Stephen King adaptation are those that persist throughout a lifetime of memories, inspiring us to grasp the urgency of everyday, before it’s too late.

My Grade: 9.4 or A