Movie Review: THE LIFE OF CHUCK

Stephen King is a writer of horror, we all know that. Novels (and films) like THE SHINING, IT and CUJO has scared the beejeebers out of us.

But there is also a facet of King’s writing that is lesser known, one where he looks at the human condition and in the right movie-making hands can turn out a quality, humanistic motion picture, albeit ones that (for the most part) will have some sort of super-natural aspects to it - films like THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE GREEN MILE and STAND BY ME come to mind.

Mike Flanagan’s adaption of a trio of King’s short stories - THE LIFE OF CHUCK - falls into this group and it works…mostly…without devolving into cloying sentimentality.

THE LIFE OF CHUCK follows…the life of Charles Krantz (played as an adult by Tom Hiddleston), but this being a somewhat faithful adaptation of the short stories that they are based on, this story is not told in any kind of chronological order, so the viewer must put the pieces together themselves at the end. And..that’s the real trick to these types of films. If the pieces end up fitting together well, then you have a satisfying storytelling experience. But, if they don’t, then the ending ends up being a little hollow and the audience is left feeling like they were the victims of a magician’s trick.

Fortunately for this film, it sticks the landing closer to satisfying than not, but it is like a gymnast’s dismount that wobbles just enough to knock a point or 2 off the final score, but can still be a satisfying way to spend some time.

Credit for all of this goes to Writer/Director Flanagan (the Stephen King adaptation DOCTOR SLEEP) he populates this tale with performers that are pleasant enough to spend some time with (like a warm sweater on a cold day) but doesn’t really push any of them to do anything too daring or emotional. He pretty faithfully adapts these 3 King stories with all their faults - characters not as fleshed out as they could/should be and an ending that doesn’t quite satisfy - but it is satisfying enough.

Hiddleston (Loki in a variety of MCU projects) is agreeable as the titular character of Chuck, but he is not in this film as much as you might think as the first 1/3 of the film only makes mention of him and the last 1/3 of the film is really about his childhood, but he is a welcome addition to the film when he does anchor the middle part of it.

Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 YEARS A SLAVE) and Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films) anchor the first 1/3 of the film and they do so professionally and pleasantly (enough) that you don’t really mind the plot holes in the story.

Youngster Benjamin Pajak (PLAYDATE) anchors the last 1/3 of the film as a middle school aged Chuck and he holds his own against Mark Hamill (yes, Luke Skywalker) as his Grandfather with a secret. This part of the story is the taste that is going to stay on your tongue at the end, so they lay it on a bit thicker than the other two parts, but Flanagan knows when he is pushing the envelope and wisely pulls back from making things too saccharin.

Matthew Lillard (Shaggy in the SCOOBY-DOO films of the early 2000’s)., Carl Lumbly (the recent CAPTAIN AMERICA film), Annalise Basso (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) and Samantha Sloyan (GREY’S ANATOMY) all provide pleasant company to spend part of this film with.

Oh…and Mia Sara (FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF) shows up in the last 1/3 and the nostalgic feeling of “where has she been, I”ve missed her” permeates every scene that she is in.

A quiet, nice, friendly and pleasant enough way to spend a few hours - which is quite a welcome relief to what one normally gets in film these days.

Letter Grade: B+

7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the BankofMarquis