By George Bate
Mike Flanagan has crafted a reputation as one of the industry’s most compelling horror storytellers in recent years. While his work on films has yielded mixed results, his Netflix television series have been a resounding success, largely by coupling pure terror with profound drama and character work. With his latest project, The Life of Chuck, Flanagan trades in the scares (for the most part) for an ambitious and emotionally resonant tale of love, life, and death that intrigues and compels up until a derailing resolution.
Based on a novella by Stephen King, The Life of Chuck is told in three acts, which unfold in reverse chronological order. The first of these acts throws audiences into a world on the brink of collapse – climate change has led to natural disasters and deaths all over the globe, access to the internet will evaporate any day now, and hospitals have trouble keeping up with the amount of sick people to care for. Amidst the chaos, something unusual stands out. Billboards, advertisements on the television and radio, and graffiti all around town thank an ordinary man named Charles Krantz (played by Tom Hiddleston) for 39 great years. As the film progresses, the details of Charles’ life are revealed and a life-affirming, beautiful story is told.
Terrifying in a manner discrepant from some of Flanagan’s scariest work, the introductory act of The Life of Chuck (which is, chronologically, the final act) makes for gripping and intriguing viewing. One would think there is little novelty to add to the longstanding genre of end of the world stories, and yet Flanagan, working from Stephen King’s source material, manages to depict a pre-apocalyptic scenario with disturbing groundedness and surreal calmness. Despite the film being far from a traditional horror flick, Flanagan’s penchant for terror shines nonetheless as the impending end of the world gets under your skin in ways even the greatest of horror films seldom do.
Much of the film, but especially this introductory act, features a mystery and sense of intrigue that invite thought-provoking contemplation and speculation. It is unclear why unusual billboards for Charles “Chuck” Krantz are appearing all over town as the world falls apart and, a testament to Flanagan’s writing, it is difficult to hypothesize why this is the case. As the film progresses, the sense of intrigue continues, especially as elements suggestive of the manipulation of time begin to crop up.
While intrigue continues to run through the film after the introductory act, the horror that comes from the unique depiction of the end of the world is replaced by genuine emotion and heart as it heads into its middle act. As the life of Chuck is gradually unveiled, Flanagan creates a film arguably more touching than anything he has created to date. Beautiful messaging about living life to the fullest, even if you’re near the end, strikes a strong emotional chord and makes The Life of Chuck an undeniably emotional viewing experience. At times, these emotions feel a bit forced, as if the sole intent is to have audiences shed tears, although the film largely overcomes this issue with just how feel-good and life-affirming its messaging is.
A number of strong performances contribute immensely to how emotionally affecting the film is. Despite being credited first and playing the adult version of the titular character, Tom Hiddleston plays a surprisingly minimal role in the film, although the plot revolves around his character. Instead, more of Chuck is seen through younger versions of the character, in particular one played by Benjamin Pajak. The Life of Chuck marks Pajak’s feature film debut and serves as a resounding vehicle for the young actor’s incredible talent. It is a testament to Pajak’s performance that, amongst an ensemble that features acting heavyweights like Chiwetel Ejiofor, Karen Gillan, and Carl Lumbly, the young actor stands out with the most memorable performance of the bunch.
Also memorable, despite his screentime being limited to a single scene, is Matthew Lillard. The actor known for his roles in Scream, Scooby Doo, and Five Nights at Freddy’s features in a sole scene of the film, in which he and Chiwetel Ejiofor’s character discuss the impending apocalypse. In this scene, Lillard delivers a masterful and authentic performance. As evidenced with his scene-stealing performance in Twin Peaks: The Return, Lillard possesses an uncanny ability to deliver lines so naturally that suspension of disbelief that one is an actor act is instantaneous.
Mark Hamill and Mia Sara also excel as Chuck’s grandparents. The duo feature prominently in the final act and exude warmth and kindness in ways few actors have ever achieved on screen. The script’s exploration of life and loss and score from The Newton Brothers contribute significantly to how emotional The Life of Chuck is but so do the performances of Hamill and Sara, which will resonate strongly with anyone who has ever had a loving parent or grandparent in their life.
Much to the disservice of the compelling and emotional film that proceeds it, The Life of Chuck grinds to a jarring halt with an abrupt and dissatisfying ending. The film concludes without overtly resolving its number of mysteries, but, rather than leaving much to audience interpretation and speculation, managing to make sense (for the most part) after a little thought afterward on behalf of the viewer. It occupies an unusual space in which the film is neither abstract in a more purposefully incomprehensible, Lynchian sense nor completely spelled out.
More egregious than the clarity of its ending is the fact that it renders the aforementioned compelling first act a silly gimmick. Once the final twist is delivered and the unresolved pieces of the plot are put together, there is a sense that the third act (which, again, is presented first) is best viewed as an isolated short film, unlike the two subsequent acts that hang together more closely, both narratively and thematically. At its conclusion, the film can’t escape from its somewhat pretentious aura, which is at perplexing odds with how touching and endearing it is.
VERDICT: 7/10
Horror veteran Mike Flanagan trades in overt scares for profound emotion and character work in the heartfelt, endearing, powerful, at times terrifying, and somewhat pretentious The Life of Chuck. Flanagan’s film based on a novella by Stephen King employs a compelling non-linear narrative structure that poses many interesting questions and fosters a sense of intrigue throughout. After an introductory act (which is, chronologically, the final act) that applies a novel take on the oft-repeated end of the world story, the film transforms into a deeply emotional tale of life and death with a beautiful message about making the most of life, even if you don’t have long left. With top-billed actor Tom Hiddleston playing a surprisingly minimal role, it is young actor Benjamin Pajak as a younger Chuck that shines amongst a strong ensemble, which also features memorable performances from Matthew Lillard, Mark Hamill, and Mia Sara. Disappointingly, Flanagan’s film falls to pieces with an abrupt and dissatisfying conclusion that is neither abstract nor overtly comprehensible enough. The ending also renders much of the compelling first act a silly gimmick and highlights a generally pretentious aura of the film, which is at perplexing odds with how touching and endearing it is. Much like life itself, The Life of Chuck has big ups and big downs, although its genuine heart and beautiful overarching message come out most powerfully and lastingly.