Just like there’s no accounting for taste, there’s no accounting for what individuals will find uplifting. An adaptation of a Stephen King short story, writer-director Mike Flanagan’s The Life of Chuck contains multitudes, as its oft-repeated mantra suggests. For as feel-good as it ultimately is, there is a dark streak running through it which is inextricable from its ultimate moral, and that’s what makes the film interesting as a whole.
If my introduction reads as vague, that’s by design. Chuck is a film which is very easy to spoil, given its construction. In terms of linear progression, it essentially moves backwards, but even that doesn’t really say how the film reveals what it’s really about. We begin with ex-spouses reconnecting as the world literally falls apart around them. Teacher Marty (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and nurse Felicia (Karen Gillan) talk on the phone for the first time in years after their area experiences earthquakes, sinkholes, loss of electrical power, and even partial loss of the stars in the sky. Their conversations are a nice mix of tender and existential, perfectly setting up the tone of the entire film. Then, just as they physically reconnect, the film moves from its “third act” (as the opening Ejiofor/Gillan section is labeled) to its “second,” which involves Charles “Chuck” Krantz (Tom Hiddleston), the mysterious man who constantly appears in billboards and commercials in the “third” act.
Fans of La La Land will delight in Chuck’s latter two-thirds, as they feature two of the best contemporary dance sequences in narrative cinema in at least the past decade. These sections chronicle Chuck’s learning to embrace life in the face of incredible and consistent hardship. How these sections connect with the Ejiofor/Gillan prologue is revealed piecemeal through editing and Nick Offerman’s narration. Regardless of the setup, each of these three parts is exceptionally well-made in and of themselves. Where the movie doesn’t quite land with the thunder it’s reaching for is where its construction sweeps away a lot of potential specificity. We see every earth-shattering event in Chuck’s life, but his inner life is related to us as though it’s just a small part of a Hallmark card. It’s a consistent ethos throughout the film, and not a poorly-executed one in any way, but there is an emotional level the film never quite grasps because of its relative cuteness.
The film’s unique structure impedes any one performance from standing out among its ensemble, save for young Benjamin Pajak as the youngest featured version of Chuck. He just has an unforgettable spark and a clear screen presence which are undeniable. He essentially puts a bow on all of this, which becomes a more and more admirable task as the film explores more and more backstory, including that of Chuck’s grandparents Sarah (Mia Sara) and Albie (Mark Hamill). To see young Chuck blossom and learn about young adulthood through his own and his grandparents’ eyes is truly beautiful, even if the film ultimately feels like slightly less than the sum of all these considerable parts.
Regardless of my slight qualms about the film as a whole, Chuck seems destined to become the most widely-beloved feel-good film of the year, and for good reason. There is a stunning amount of uncynical warmth and good feeling emanating from the screen as you’re watching it, and it’s a blessing to have something like that in theaters right now. I think it’d be difficult for even the most seasoned grump to resist the charms of Chuck. | George Napper
