In the past ten years or so, Mike Flanagan has cemented himself as one of the leading figures in contemporary horror. Between excellent limited series such as The Haunting of Hill House and Midnight Mass, plus feature films such as Oculus and Doctor Sleep, Flanagan has always maintained a perfect balance of quality and quantity. Now, less than a year after Flanagan’s latest miniseries The Fall of the House of Usher comes a hard turn into a direction that I think Flanagan needed. While I love all of Flanagan’s work, they’re not exactly the type of things that I can recommend to my family at the dinner table. An adaptation of Stephen King’s novella of the same name, The Life of Chuck, stands out among Flanagan’s other work because it’s not only his first non-horror project, it’s also his most sentimental. 

When I first read King’s novella, I was awestruck by how tender and emotional the story is under the surface. Each act has its own emotional arc that culminates in a climax that’ll make your eyes water, and they all add up to King’s grandiose statement on the human condition. The concepts and ideas discussed between characters build up to something much greater, and the final revelation will stick with you for a long time. The Life of Chuck is about enjoying every moment of your life, and how you should live every day as if it were your last. Chuck is a film that exists in conversation with itself, between our innate smallness in the universe and our incredible importance to those we love. Everything around us affects who we are, and who we are affects everything around us, no matter how insignificant we may seem. It’s not so much as simply stopping to smell the roses, but acknowledging that roses don’t last forever.

It’s hard not to talk about Chuck without addressing the elephant in the room: the reverse chronology. Told from end to beginning, The Life of Chuck starts as a pitch-black comedy and ends as a coming-of-age story. It practically functions as a loosely connected triptych, the only connection being Chuck himself. When I spoke to Flanagan, he compared the film to Akira Kurosawa’s Ikiru, but it reminded me so much of Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life. Moreover, the movie's first act is pretty much just a condensed version of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia. I can go on for hours making comparisons, but that blend of concepts is what makes Chuck such a powerful film. The Life of Chuck knowingly subverts expectations by containing the supernatural elements that Flanagan is known for, only to turn them on their head by transitioning into something smaller and much more intimate.

Accompanying the familiar faces in Flanagan’s work (Rahul Kohli, Kate Siegel, Karen Gillan, Carl Lumbly, and Samantha Sloyan) are some new members of the Flanagan Family, such as Tom Hiddleston, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Matthew Lillard, and Nick Offerman. The first part revolves mostly around Chiwetel as Marty, a divorced middle-school English teacher who seems to be living in the last days on Earth. Everything is falling apart at the seams, and there’s no rationale in sight. Even worse, Marty can’t stop seeing ads for some guy named Charles “Chuck” Krantz around town. Now, there are two mysteries: why is everything falling apart, and who the hell is Chuck? King’s original concept is perfectly translated to the screen, while Flanagan fills in the blanks with some of his best writing yet.

The screenplay is easily the best part of Chuck, no questions asked. Weaponizing his trademark “Flanalogues,” Flanagan gives his actors so much room to shine, regardless of how big or small the role is. In the first act, the dynamic between Chiwetel Ejiofor and Karen Gillan creates a strong sense of emotional palpability within such a short period, David Dastmalchain delivers a hilariously deadpan monologue about the accessibility of porn during the apocalypse, and Matthew Lillard casually drops his greatest performance since the original Scream like it’s nothing. Kate Siegel is barely in the movie and Flanagan gives her such a powerful monologue that is the crux of the whole story. Even Nick Offerman, who only narrates Chuck, has some hilarious line deliveries. I can go on and on about every single actor in this movie, but it all boils down to how excellent Flanagan’s writing is. The performances in Chuck are all fantastic, but it all comes from the outstanding intersection of Stephen King’s original writing and Flanagan’s masterful dialogue.

Now, I can’t talk about The Life of Chuck without talking about Chuck himself. Since this story spans such a broad timeline, there are four different Chucks. Toddler Chuck is played by Cody Flanagan, Mike’s son, which I thought was a sweet touch. Preteen Chuck, played by Benjamin Pajak, easily has the best performance out of the ensemble. He’s probably the Chuck with the most screen time and uses it to incredible effect. Pajak carries most of Chuck’s emotional weight as a character, and you really start to become attached to the character throughout his portion of the film. He has a lot of great moments and scenes, and he’s an easy protagonist to root for. He’s also super funny, there’s one line in particular that made my crowd laugh their asses off. Teen Chuck, played by Jacob Tremblay (who was also in Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep adaptation) doesn’t get too much time to shine, but his part is wrapped up really well. Lastly is adult Chuck, played by Tom Hiddleston, who delivers a performance that’s one of the highlights of his career. He’s not in the movie as much as you’d think, but he uses his limited screen time to great effect. Hiddleston, joined by Taylor “The Pocket Queen” Gordon and Annalise Basso, share the best scene in the entire movie. I dare not spoil the surprise, but it’ll knock your socks off. Hiddleston also has a particularly powerful monologue, which wraps the film up on a beautiful note. You get so attached to Chuck, which is easy when the performances between the two main (tween and adult) Chucks are so effortlessly charming and charismatic.

Even if The Life of Chuck has a super weird premise, it’s surprisingly one of the most heartwarming films of the year. A far cry from Flanagan’s usual work, this is his first certified crowdpleaser. After the movie ended, everyone got up to give Flanagan and the rest of the cast a standing ovation. No movie from 2024 has made my heart feel as full as The Life of Chuck did, and I doubt another will. I on-and-off cried for the whole movie, and my friend sitting next to me cried too. Those last five minutes had me clutching my chest in hopes that Flanagan wouldn’t tug my heartstrings right out of my chest. Some viewers might find it a little sappy, but, for me, that sap couldn’t taste any sweeter.