THE LIFE OF CHUCK Review: The Most Polarizing Film Of The Year

Opening

On paper, Mike Flanagan’s The Life of Chuck should not be the love/hate film it will become. While equal parts fantastical and achingly sentimental, your opinion on the film might be entirely dependent on where you are in your own life.

Expectations

Now, that is not to say that viewers who love this film are warm and open-hearted, while the haters of this movie are cynics. Oftentimes, films are made for a large audience, attempting to reach the broadest amount of the general population.

Other times, a film can be specifically niche, appealing to a very specific demographic. The Life of Chuck is somehow able to do both to the extreme. If this film works on you, I would expect enthusiastic praise. If it doesn’t work, I equally expect a vitriolic counter. That’s the cool thing…neither side is wrong.

In Flannigan’s defense, I don’t believe he was trying to directly appeal to the viewers who are effusive in their praise. I do, however, truly believe he was making the film he wanted to make, which is based on the Stephen King novella.

I also believe there is no cracking the group that will hate this film. In fact, if you are on board with the film in the first 10 minutes, you’ll probably be on board with the rest of the last 100. If you find yourself rolling your eyes early, begin to temper your expectations.

Tone

This is not a situation where I, the critic, attempt to sway you one way or the other. If you end up hating this film, I don’t expect anything I can say will change that. Conversely, any love for you have will not be swayed by what I think about it.

This is a black or white situation. I feel each individual is wired to specifically like or dislike this film. Maybe that will change as the years progress, but there is certainly a level of polarization I see permeating the audience of this film.

Frankly speaking, films like The Life of Chuck simply don’t get made anymore. That’s not to say “they don’t make them like they used to,” but modern films have a level of cynicism that this one is completely devoid of.

This film has Forrest Gump-levels of idealism and sentimentality that feel more in step with the films of the 80s and 90s. That’s where the polarization comes from. Either that feeling is going to work like gangbusters, or it’s going to fall completely flat.

Synopsis

Tom Hiddleston, despite being the focal point of the marketing as well as the titular character, is probably only in the film for thirty minutes. The plot works backwards as Chuck is dying of cancer in the first act (titled “Thanks, Chuck”) while the world around him also falls apart from an unspecified disaster.

Chuck only appears in a series of ads, while exes Marty (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Felicia (Karen Gillan) reconnect as the world is ending. This is the section of the film that is easily the most confusing and throws the viewer for a loop.

The second act (titled “Buskers Forever”) is where Hiddleston shows up in earnest, as Chuck visits Boston for a conference. While there, he sees a busking drummer named Taylor (Taylor Gordon), who encourages him to publicly dance and invites a young woman named Janice (Annalise Basso) to join him. This is the shortest and least consequential of the acts.

The final act (titled “I Contain Multitudes”) focuses on Chuck’s upbringing with his grandparents, Albie (Mark Hamill) and Sarah (Mia Sara), including his love for dance. There is also a subplot about a haunted/magical cupola at the top of his grandparents’ house, which foreshadows something sinister.

Direction/Cast

Flanagan is obviously attempting to invoke other King adaptations like Stand By Me and The Green Mile. While the straightforward narratives of those films are not found here, the general tone does match. And while Flannigan does do as good of a job as he can do, this isn’t necessarily the most cinematic of stories.

There are many deep themes the film chooses to dive into, but never focuses on one over the other. It’s a story mired in mystery and interconnectivity that gets bogged down in an overarching message. It’s all about the feeling.

The cast all do fine work, with Hiddleston’s dance number as a highlight. It takes over half the film to get to the third act, but it’s nice to see the welcome presence of Hamill and the return of Sara to our screens. Other character actors get single scenes to do some fine work, including Harvey Guillen, Matthew Lillard, David Dastmalchian, and Carl Lumbly.

Conclusion

There’s nothing I can say to change your opinion with regards to The Life of Chuck. You will love it or hate it with no in-between. I was a fan, but I also understand the other side. Go watch it and see which side you land on.

More from Cinema Scholars:

“KARATE KID: LEGENDS (2025) Review – Deja Fu

FROM THE WORLD OF JOHN WICK: BALLERINA Review – Killing Eve (Or John Wick: Chapter 3.5)

Keep up with Cinema Scholars on social media. Like us on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, and follow us on Twitter, Threads, and Instagram.