Quantcast
  Thursday - July 10th, 2025
×

What can we help you find?

Open Menu

Thanks, Chuck

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Stephen King is one of the greatest writers in American history.* It’s not just that he’s incredibly prolific, with more that two hundred short stories, sixty-five novels, five nonfiction books, a few screenplays, a musical, and comics. While King built up his reputation as a horror writer, he’s also written a good deal of crime fiction, mysteries, romances, dramas, epics, and the wildly unclassifiable Dark Tower series. That gained him serious financial security, and I’ll grant you that there are plenty of hacky writers who are swimming in cashola. 

Let me also be clear that, while King’s work is often very good, it isn’t always. He literally wrote “The Tommyknockers” during his cocaine addiction, and it shows. But when he’s cooking, not many writers can equal him. I maintain that “Salem’s Lot” is one of the best vampire novels ever written, that “The Stand” is a masterpiece, and that “On Writing” is a necessary book to learn about the craft of writing itself.** If there’s an American Charles Dickens, that can only be King.

The movies based on his books have been something of a mixed bag. We all know this. We also know that one of the few filmmakers to engage with King’s work on its own terms and successfully translate it from page to screen is Mike Flanagan. His films Gerald’s Game and Doctor Sleep shouldn’t have worked, and yet, they do. Now, Flanagan has adapted one of King’s short stories, and expanded upon it. When The Life of Chuck doesn’t work, it frustrates. When it does? It’s transcendent.

We begin at Act III, the end of all things. The majority of California has broken off into the sea. Natural disasters pummel the planet. Slowly and inexorably, the internet shuts down. Everything shuts down. What are people to do? For teacher Marty Anderson (Chiwitel Ejiofor), his plan is to reconnect with his ex-wife Felicia Gordon (Karen Gillan). He might as well, considering that fewer and fewer students at Marty’s school bother to show up. The same goes for the hospital that Felicia works at, where the last doctor just…left. They live in an age of signs and portents. One of the strangest signs is the recurring billboard. Maybe you’ve seen it. The one with the smiling bespectacled man on it that reads, “Charles Krantz – 39 great years! Thanks, Chuck!”

From there, we move to Act II and to Chuck Krantz (Tom Hiddleston) himself. He’s an accountant, he’s in Boston for a conference, and he’s enjoying a walk on Boylston Street. The headaches occasionally bother him, but for now, they’re nothing more than a bother. His day improves when he hears Taylor (Taylor Gordon), an exceptionally talented street drummer. Something in the beat gets hold of Chuck. He gives into it. He dances. Among the crowd of onlookers is Janice (Annalise Basso), who’s just been dumped by text. Yet she’s swept up, by the drumming, the rhythm, and by Chuck himself. They dance.

From there, we move further back to Act I and the childhood of Chuck. As a young boy (Benjamin Pajak), his parents and unborn sister are killed in a car accident. Chuck lives with his grandmother Sarah (Mia Sara) and grandfather Albie (Mark Hamill). From Sarah, the eleven-year-old Chuck (Benjamin Pajak) learns to dance, to throw himself into the movements and embrace it all. From Albie, Chuck learns about math. He learns about its endless applications, power, and pitiless honesty. He also learns about the locked door leading to the house’s cupola, and Albie’s exhortation to never open it. Once Chuck reaches his teen years (Jacob Tremblay), he’ll learn what’s behind it and how that knowledge informs his life.

Mike Flanagan has made a reputation of a) intentionally choosing King’s more difficult works to adapt*** and b) adapting them while staying faithful to King’s voice. That’s truly a balancing act, and Flanagan achieves it yet again. However, his adaptation of The Life of Chuck is flawed, and that’s due to the fact that King’s short story is structurally flawed. We’ll get into the structural issues momentarily, and happily, Flanagan’s direction is strong as usual. The strongest moments are in Act III, and Flanagan does masterful work showing us the slow motion collapse of the world. He creates a feeling of encroaching dread partnered with the little moments of stubborn humanity. I should also mention the excellent five and a half minute dance sequence that’s the centerpiece of Act II. Is it as mind blowing as the musical number in Sinners? Of course not, nothing is, but it’s a joyous sequence that starts a little cringey, escalates to great fun, becomes yet a little more cringey, then explodes in a what-the-hell-let’s-do-this-thing showstopper. The dance number alone is worth the price of admission.

Flanagan wrote the screenplay, and he’s someone committed to honoring King’s vision. That’s great, and without transforming into a Hallmark movie, the script digs into the preciousness of life and the unpredictability of death. The film is advertised as science fiction, and I’d push back on that a bit. While it certainly feels apocalyptic at times, the metaphor that matters is the one about the multitudes of all life found within one life. That’s the good news. The bad news is, the short story’s structure is screwy, therefore, the screenplay’s structure is screwy, too. A slight majority of the script is spent in Act I, then Act III, then Act II. Understand that I have no problem with the story being told non-chronologically. My problem is that we spend an awful lot of time in Chuck’s childhood, and a good amount of time at the end. We spend very little time with middle aged Chuck, and that decision causes the film to feel lopsided. It also means that the three acts don’t flow together as smoothly as they could. I would have liked to have seen more of how his childhood experiences and lessons shaped him into the man he became. A good decision of Flanagan’s is to bring in Nick Offerman as a narrator. The combination of Offerman’s rich voice and (I think?) verbatim King prose makes the film feel more literary, more authentically Kingesque.

The cast does solid work with one glaring exception, though it’s not his fault. For my money, the best performances come from Chiwitel Ejiofor and Karen Gillen as Marty and Felicia. They sell the existential terror they’re facing, along with a determination to wring a few more moments of love and meaning before the clock stops. I liked Mark Hamill’s almost hammy turn as Albie, and he crushes his math monologue designed to pump up his grandson and destroy his dreams. I learned that Mia Sara had retired from acting, with the caveat that she’d return for Flanagan. Her Sarah is a burst of energy, and while I’d love to see Sara do more work, I’m content if this is her final appearance. 

On the other hand is the dude on the poster, Tom Hiddleston as Chuck. To be clear, Hiddleston is a whip smart and electric performer. His performance is a wily tap dance between real pathos and serious joie de vivre. The problem with that is Hiddleston should be in the film more. He should be a presence looming over the proceedings. To a degree that happens in Act III with the mysterious ads. When Act I kicked in, it felt as if the film forgot Hiddleston, and his absence makes the film suffer.

With an odd structure, strange pacing, and a leading man who’s often hidden, The Life of Chuck certainly has its flaws. Those valleys frustrated me at times, but my frustration fell away during the film’s numerous peaks. The film understands a truth that’s far more relevant. When the stars wink out, one by one, the only thing that makes sense is to dance.

 

*That might not mean much considering this interesting study I found. Among other things, it says that while the average American reads twelve books per year, the typical American reads four books per year. That…is not great.

**I should also mention that his novel “Revival” has one of the most satisfyingly disturbing endings I’ve ever read.

***Gerald’s Game is a thriller involving a woman handcuffed to a bed next to the dead body of her husband and Doctor Sleep is a sequel to The Shining that effectively bridges the gap between King’s novel and Kubrick’s film adaptation. The point is, Flanagan doesn’t make it easy on himself.



Tim Brennan Movie Critic

Tim has been alarmingly enthusiastic about movies ever since childhood. He grew up in Boulder and, foolishly, left Colorado to study Communications in Washington State. Making matters worse, he moved to Connecticut after meeting his too-good-for-him wife. Drawn by the Rockies and a mild climate, he triumphantly returned and settled down back in Boulder County. He's written numerous screenplays, loves hiking, and embarrassed himself in front of Samuel L. Jackson. True story.

 

Boulder Colorado Air Quality

A Day on Boulder Creek

Community Partners