“The Life of Chuck” Review – Life Explored Through Death

“The Life of Chuck” was written and directed by Mike Flanagan, based on a short story by Stephen King. It follows the eponymous life of everyman Chuck Krantz, whose death coincides with the end of the universe. The film is divided into three acts played in reverse chronological order (for instance, the first segment of the film is called “Act Three” and takes place at the end of the story when the universe collapses). Thus, we go from Chuck on his deathbed to Chuck as a child, the thesis of the film being how the whole universe is in one person’s mind.

Movies with such pronounced act structures often have one act outshine the others, making for a disjointed piece, and “The Life of Chuck” somewhat falls victim to this. The first segment is easily the best, a truly haunting piece of filmmaking that may be the best work of Flanagan’s career. It is 40 minutes of increasing dread, seen through the eyes of schoolteacher Marty Anderson (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and his ex-wife Felicia (Karen Gillan), who face the universe collapsing as billboards and light projections of the unknown Chuck Krantz appear everywhere, confounding them. Ejiofor is absolutely phenomenal in the film, giving a quietly solemn performance as he watches the world around him collapse. First the internet dies out. Then sinkholes swallow the ground. All the while suicide rates are skyrocketing and people jointly come to the only reasonable conclusion: the world is ending. And while it’s a horrifying watch — especially in one moment as Marty and Felicia watch planets erased from the night sky — there’s a great sense of humanity. Flanagan uses these 40 minutes to confront the audience with the worst possible outcome, yet spends the scenes focusing on a handful of characters adjusting to their fate by reuniting with loved ones and reminiscing on the beautiful moments they’ve been able to experience.

This warmth continues and grows throughout the rest of the film as we transition away from Marty and focus on the life of Chuck, played by Tom Hiddleston as an adult and a few actors as a child. What binds all three segments is a tasteful sentimentality that brings joy to the otherwise tragic and mellow life of a cancer-ridden man. This dichotomy between dour story beats and an optimistic tone complement each other far better than they should.

Dance is the core visual through-line representing Chuck’s whimsy, and thus the visual metaphor of the joys of life that the film promotes. The character falls in love with dance as a child and it remains in his soul until his final days. There’s an incredible dance number in the middle of the movie which, as told by the narrator (Nick Offerman), symbolized the meaning of life to Chuck. Another interesting mechanic of the film is how the core thesis that a universe is all in someone’s mind is slowly revealed through the use of reverse chronology. When we first see the mysterious projections of Chuck and how his death coincides with the end of the universe, it’s a mystery. Yet as we move back in time and learn Chuck’s spiritual experiences, we slowly understand what it all meant, eliciting a beautiful “ah-ha!” moment.

However, I must reiterate that “The Life of Chuck” takes a noticeable drop after the first segment. The rest of the film is always interesting but never as emotionally overwhelming. The narrative becomes deliberately unremarkable in favor of directorial and thematic whimsy, and while that worked to forward the themes and concept, Flanagan sacrifices narrative momentum. The film, though never boring, certainly meanders the more it goes along, and I left the theater more impressed by the scenes without Chuck than those with him. Ultimately, Chuck is not all that interesting of a character, so it becomes challenging to latch onto a story with a bland protagonist.

“The Life of Chuck” is an ambitious and mostly successful endeavor, one that envelops the audience in rich emotion and has a wonderful life-affirming nature that too few movies have these days. However, it suffers from disjointedness that often hinders the entertainment value.

B+