When it comes to Stephen King adaptations, even in 2025, the stereotype emerges that 9 out of 10 films and TV series based on his works turn out to be quite mediocre. And this despite the presence of at least Carrie, Misery and Gerald's Game, if you want an example of something more recent. The latter was directed by Mike Flanagan, a director who seems to have perfectly understood the deep essence of King's works and has recently been most actively taking on their adaptations. And in the film "The Life of Chuck", he perfectly revealed the writer from a side that is for some reason often ignored. This is a nostalgic, sentimental, extremely heartfelt and at the same time unspeakably tragic story that is able to awaken emotions and thoughts within you that you did not even suspect.
| Name | The Life of Chuck |
| Genre | fantasy, drama, comedy |
| Director | Mike Flanagan |
| Cast | Tom Hiddleston, Jacob Tremblay, Mark Hamill, David Dastmalchian, Matthew Lillard and others |
| Studios | Intrepid Pictures, Neon |
| Timing | 1 hour 51 minutes |
| Year | 2025 |
| Link | IMDb |
Chuck Krantz (Tom Hiddleston) is an ordinary, almost unremarkable man, of whom there are millions in the world. But his death will mean the end of the entire universe. At least, such rumors arose when the planet began to actively suffer from cataclysms. Life seemed to slow down in anticipation of the finale. But who is Chuck Krantz and why is he so important? This is what the film will tell in the format of three acts with the most important events for Chuck, which the audience will see in reverse order.
King is always associated with horror, but most of his works actually have a sentimental core. The writer likes to depict life in "one-story America" in a direct and metaphorical form and often focuses on the state of Maine, where he was born. It is a simple way of life, far from the intrigues and noise of megacities, but that is why the most ordinary events acquire a special magic in small towns of America. At least, that is how King saw them. And Flanagan perfectly transferred this feeling of euphoria from simple life to the big screen.
The Life of Chuck is not horror at all, although there are some genuinely creepy moments in the film. The genre of the film is difficult to define in one word, because the standard definition of "drama" does not even come close to describing the emotional depth and variety of feelings that will sweep through your heart while watching.
If you want an analogy, I have one: The Life of Chuck is about returning home after years of absence, because various things have been too distracting. However, the reason for returning is the death of someone close to you. Grief, joy, and immense nostalgia mix and begin to generate thoughts and images that you would otherwise never have been able to reach.
I want to talk about the plot of The Life of Chuck, its nuances and meanings without unnecessary pathos of film criticism. And at the same time, I don't want to reveal any details at all. Because in this story, even a trifle as small as the tapping of kitchen utensils can play a significant role - and find a response in the life of the main character over the years.
Of course, for this to happen, you first have to immerse yourself in the film. But unfortunately, I'm sure that not everyone will be able to do this. There are two main reasons for this, and both are related to the nuances of directing.
First, the story sometimes leans too much towards a "literary" style, forgetting about the language of cinema and visual storytelling. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but the film definitely had the potential to achieve much greater things.
And the second is quite sharp jumps from one atmosphere to another, even within one act. And although this approach is justified by the essence of the plot, it can be difficult for potential viewers to understand what exactly they are supposed to feel while watching individual scenes. It's a strange contrast, but The Life of Chuck is a film that is both multi-layered and inherently simple.
Yet these minor quibbles are lost in the emotional depth of the film, and the lion's share of that magic is down to the acting. Tom Hiddleston as Chuck Kranz - along with the younger actors who play different versions of the main character - gives one of the best performances of his career. They brilliantly capture the protagonist's transformation through different periods of life: from an insecure young man to a man who "can accommodate multiples" and is ready to live life to the fullest, no matter what.
The acting in the film doesn't try to take all the attention of the audience, as, for example, Robert Downey Jr. does in his films. But this quiet and melancholic communication with us enhances the overall impact of the film. And this applies to absolutely all the actors, even if their roles are limited to one small scene. Flanagan has assembled an ideal cast, and each one has a worthy place on the plot.
One of the film's geniuses lies in its reverse-chronological structure. Starting at the end, when the world "mourns" Chuck's inevitable death, Flanagan instantly creates a sense of the cosmic significance of this event. We don't know who this man is, but we understand that he is an entire universe. And the subsequent journey into his past becomes not just a biography, but an archaeological excavation of the soul.
We don't ask ourselves "what happens next?", even "how did we get to this?" recedes into the shadows. The main question turns out to be "and what else happened?". We accept the rules of an unconventional plot twist in order to become more deeply involved in the life of an ordinary person. This way of storytelling turns history into a philosophical parable about memory, legacy, and how our actions, even the smallest, echo in time and space.
Flanagan is at his best as a director here. His signature style – long, fluid camera movements, a focus on the characters’ faces that convey emotion without words, and the use of repetitive visual motifs – perfectly suits the film’s meditative tone. He creates a kind of “haunted house,” but one inhabited not by spirits but by memories. The power of the latter is so great that the echoes of the little things from the hero’s childhood will be visible until the end – and the audience, who saw this ending at the beginning of the film, will not immediately understand the true meaning of many of the details.
The central idea of the film, which it conveys with incredible tenderness, is that every life is a universe, and the death of a person is a tragedy of incomparable proportions. Chuck Kranz is not a superhero, not an outstanding personality, not even some remarkable character who would be ideal for another novel about everyday life, but an almost unremarkable person. But his life is filled with love, loss, small victories and quiet tragedies.
His death is not the end of the whole world, but of his particular world, but in the context of the film there is no difference between these concepts at all. And Flanagan makes us feel this loss on a metaphysical level. The Life of Chuck is a powerful humanistic message that lifts the film above the genre framework and turns it into a universal story about the value of every day lived.
The Life of Chuck is not just one of the best adaptations of Stephen King. It is a rare film in its beauty, wisdom and emotional power. It is a film that does not try to entertain or scare, but invites a quiet, thoughtful conversation about what is most important. Because who will say words of gratitude to you specifically at the end of your life's journey? And how much of the infinite universe will die with you?
These are questions to which, surprisingly, there are quite specific answers. But you will never know them. But you can at least fantasize about them - and watching The Life of Chuck will be a good starting point for reflection.
