One of the best filmmakers today is Mike Flanagan. The industry professionals I’ve spoken to about him also have a great deal of respect for the man. And for good reason, as he always honors the source material, treats his cast and crew well, and has a very great passion for making films. So, when this movie got announced as part of the TIFF ‘24 lineup, I was shocked and knew this would be one of the most memorable films in the history of the fest. I felt that I was voting to win the People’s Choice Award and that I was voting for The Life of Chuck all along.
The Life of Chuck is one more Richard Bachman (Stephen King) adaptation and Flanagan’s first non-horror film. The results are unbelievable. Chuck is a brilliant and beautiful story, but it is told in a most unorthodox manner.
It demonstrates how one is able to make the most out of life and how one ought to be grateful for all the individuals they encounter and the places they visit. As of the time when this review was being written, it still, for some reason, has not got a distributor. That better change soon.
In my opinion, it is only Mike Flanagan, Gary Dauberman, and Frank Darabont as the three filmmakers still alive who comprehend Stephen King, his works and his persona. In his third adaptation from the legendary author, he chose a non-horror story, which is the first of its kind for both his King stories as well as his career. The effects are remarkable, it can be seen in his writing, direction and editing. He has a unique ability of weaving in the exposition in such a manner that the viewer’s attention is captured completely. Of course, not a lot of viewership would appreciate that aspect of his work however, the end result is emotionally and psychologically rewarding. Chuck probably best illustrates this picking device and me and my mate were subjected to a great deal of this very trauma when watching the film. Of vital importance to this raw sensation is Flanagan’s description of the sequence of the events in the film: he decides to narrate it in the reverse order starting from act 3. It is how good his scripts were, as they bring together all the aesthetic arcs without any possible slack in the narrative. The Academy should be proud of it being one of the Best Adapted Screenplay with the chances of winning the Oscar being the highest.
Good pacing, direction and editing ensure that the film never feels long-winded and one may ask why this story could not be adapted as beautifully by anyone else other than Mike Flanagan.
Originated from a 2020 Stephen King novella, If It Bleeds and the book contains a short story called The Life of Chuck. The story begins in act three and moves towards act one in the end, bringing the legislation process in reverse. It’s almost as if Flanagan made the movie in chronological order, edited it, then cut it into thirds and placed the thirds in a variety of locations. Oddly enough, this narrative structure, which many would consider strange, actually enhances what Chuck is. It makes sure that one’s understanding increases with every act he decodes. Not everyone will appreciate it of course, but for me, there’s no other way to tell this story. Flanagan is a constant innovator, always trying something new, and always succeeding.
Jack and Rose might be the most famous duo Flanagan has ever worked with. Some of the names of Flanagan’s casts are Eli Braden, Kate Siegel, Cailey Fleming, Samantha Sloyan, and Cheryl Lee, among many others. Once you get Tom Hiddleston so many great performers join the team like Mark Hamill too. But it’s actually Mark Hamill who is bizarrely the brightest star of this entire cast. Definitely Must say here due to my love for both Star Wars and Batman along with Hamill’s role as my childhood hero, his character as Chuck’s grandfather is present in the film’s second half and focuses on a significant number of emotional dialogues, all of which are accompanied by Hamill’s phenomenal acting skills. If so, this movie will be popular in the awards season and there are most chances for an Oscar nomination for this movie.
On a conceptual level, Chuck does not make any difference to Flanagan in any way. It deals with aspects of loss and trauma which has been dealt with in the Haunting duology which included Hill House and Bly Manor. The tears which will help the audience appreciate the work will not be assisted by having his regular collaborators, the Newton Brothers, compose music perfectly appropriate for the movie. The moment we look through the life of Chuck, we understand what he had to fight as a person and he still possesses strong unwavering hope. Because this ties into a critical moment, a scene where Kate Siegel’s character inquires about Chuck’s head. She explains how the brains of humans work when they meet other human beings, when they look at other people, how this influences their outlook on reality and ultimately installs a small version of this world inside most of us. This line has some emotional depth that I am unable to articulate and it really struck me that Flanagan was able to trigger such responses from me without the use of any horror elements in the film. It is a risk of getting out of his comfort zone and it is something that I respect and do hope to see more of in his work.
When it comes to The Life of Chuck, it is nothing other than a superb work of art, and draws such comparisons as with the reel adaptations of other Stephen Kings novels.
Mike Flanagan offers gripping and sentimental horror that tugs at your heart and makes you feel cozy in a different viewpoint of the world. It certainly earned the People’s Choice Award and definitely deserves the attention of every viewer when it releases.
For more movies visit like The Life of Chuck on 123Movies.