Directed by Mike Flanagan — Screenplay by Mike Flanagan.
Over the course of the last ten years or so, one of the more interesting developments in horror filmmaking when it comes to adapting a previously released source material has been following Mike Flanagan go from original horror filmmaker on the rise to being particularly skilled at adapting notable works from Shirley Jackson, Edgar Allan Poe, and, chiefly, Stephen King. Although I am still of the opinion that his best work is his original horror series Midnight Mass, which itself was clearly inspired by King’s work, he is likely more known for his actual Stephen King adaptations. Gerald’s Game was a skillfully and confidently made psychological horror film, Doctor Sleep was a significant achievement in that it managed to honor both Kubrick’s The Shining and King’s original vision, and, recently, Flanagan’s adaptation of the Stephen King short story The Life of Chuck — notably not a traditional horror narrative — has served as another notable milestone for the writer-director. When it had its festival release at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2024, it earned its filmmaker the coveted People’s Choice Award, and when it had its theatrical release in 2025, it garnered passionate responses but failed to land any Oscar nominations, despite the aforementioned audience award often leading to such. When I finally saw it last weekend, I saw why the film has earned such a strong word-of-mouth.
Notably, the narrative of Mike Flanagan’s The Life of Chuck is told in reverse chronological order, starting with ‘Act Three’ and ending with ‘Act One.’ Though the opening act treats him like a mysterious figure, the film follows the life of Charles ‘Chuck’ Krantz (played by Tom Hiddleston, Jacob Tremblay, Benjamin Pajak, and Cody Flanagan) at different stages of his life. Among other things, we see him get hit with a wave of emotion and inspiration in his adulthood, and see him grow up and try to figure out what is actually going on in the cupola at the top of his grandparents’ home, where he lived as a child and young man. In the film, we also encounter Marty Anderson (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), a middle school teacher, who is experiencing living in a chaotic world with natural disasters and events that make humanity suspect the world may be ending.
I’d rather not reveal more in my initial description of the premise, as one of the great things about experiencing this film is trying to figure out what is going on here after you’re initially wrong-footed by the opening act, which, I must admit, was much different from what I had expected given the marketing for the film. The Life of Chuck is the closest thing we’ve gotten to a Mike Flanagan version of It’s a Wonderful Life. It is about the tragic inevitabilities of life, but also the magic of life’s little moments and the world we create for ourselves, whether we realize it or not. On the spectrum of Stephen King films, it feels more similar to The Green Mile than his straightforward horror narratives. It is a sentimental and warm film that is both deeply affecting and sad, as well as full of little joys. I found it to be a very pleasant watch, and I often found myself smiling at much of what was going on.
Flanagan’s film is nostalgic and kind, but also insightful. But despite its literary references and non-chronological approach, it is not necessarily particularly complex, though that is, I suspect, by design. This is a film that is easy to find something to love about. It is constructed in such a way that you can see yourself, or loved ones, or people you know in characters and experiences. There’s even a glimpse of a later scene inserted into the second act, where we see one of Chuck’s family members cooking food and moving to the music, and it just hits you like a ton of bricks, like the famous Ratatouille moment where just the right blend of ingredients moves a hardened food critic to reconnect with his younger self.
“In this moment, I am wonderful, and I have a right to be wonderful.” – A line of dialogue from ‘The Life of Chuck.’
There are a couple of things that aren’t as smooth as most of the film, ultimately, is. Though I presume the use of a narrator (voiced by Nick Offerman) is something that Flanagan has carried over from the source material, it didn’t always feel necessary to me, and it felt to me like a version of the film without a hand-holding narrator could’ve landed better. Also, although these scenes add to the mystery and intrigue of it all, I do think it is fair to say that a couple of scenes, particularly in the opening act, run a little bit long. Flanagan is known for loving a good monologue, and we do definitely get that, but there are maybe a couple of scenes that could’ve had their rougher edges smoothed by not being as long. But other than that, I was wowed by this film. Although this is definitely not a horror movie, I really enjoyed the way Flanagan infused the film with short and sharp feelings of uncertainty and mystery that sometimes resemble those found in a horror movie.
I mentioned how the film wrong-foots you by opening with act three, and this was something that I really enjoyed. Because of the answers we get later in the film, it is clear that this is the optimal way of carrying out the story. Plus, I think that may actually make it a fascinating film to rewatch. Another aspect that I really enjoyed was the focus on the cosmic calendar and the ‘great clock of the universe.’ The film’s worldbuilding is directly connected to these references, as well as a certain line from a certain Walt Whitman poem. You, ultimately, do get the answers you need to figure out the film, and I don’t think the film hits you over the head with why the opening act is like it is, even if it isn’t particularly complex. If the opening act is about mystery, endings, and appreciating what ultimately matters, then the second act is about embracing the magic of everyday life and making the most of it. It is such a joyous act with a sort of musical element that makes it one of the most memorable sequences of 2025. And, finally, the final act manages to blend the first two-thirds in a really satisfying way.
When it comes to the thespians spread throughout the film, long-time fans of Flanagan will not be surprised to know that the film features plenty of recognizable faces from other Flanagan works (e.g., Rahul Kohli, Carl Lumbly, Kate Siegel, Samantha Sloyan, and Mark Hamill, etc.). Flanagan finds great moments for all of his frequent collaborators, or acting troupe, to shine. Though the film is uniformly well-acted, arguably the strongest impressions come from Tom Hiddleston, Matthew Lillard, and newcomer Benjamin Pajak, the latter of whom it is such a joy to watch learn to dance and navigate school stresses. Lillard’s performance is such a nice surprise, as he, in a single scene, manages to turn in some of the most challenging and affecting performance work that I’ve ever seen him do. Hiddleston is perfectly cast as the adult Chuck. He’s electric in the energetic second act, and he holds your attention gently in the palm of his hand, as the film changes speed and leans into ‘carpe diem’ moments of life-affirming joy.
Mike Flanagan’s The Life of Chuck is such a satisfyingly well-realized and beautiful crowd-pleaser of a film. It is deeply affecting when it needs to be, but it is, on the other hand, also utterly infectious in its musicality and joy. It has the same kind of life-affirming and carpe diem feel or quality that films like It’s a Wonderful Life and Dead Poets Society do, and it doesn’t shy away from the tragic inevitabilities of life, as that element of existence is integral to the story itself. It is insightful and mysterious without ever getting lost in its more surreal or lofty ideas, which are communicated smartly and comprehensibly throughout the film. For some, it may be too saccharine, but this exact concoction of softheartedness and mystery really worked for me.
8.7 out of 10
– Review written by Jeffrey Rex Bertelsen.
I'm Jeffrey Rex 