Review: The Life of Chuck – Who gives a Chuck?

Directed by Mike Flanagan
Starring Tom Hiddleston, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Jacob Tremblay, Mia Sara, Mark Hamill

5.5/10

Who is Chuck? We keep hearing about him, we keep seeing the advertisements thanking him for “39 great years,” and his name’s in the title, so what’s the big fuss? Ultimately, not a whole lot. It’s fair to say that this film is ambitious and truly wants to wow us with its uniquely told story that touches upon big existential themes. It certainly has interesting ingredients, but they’ve been mixed together in a questionable way, to say the least.

Split into three acts, playing in reverse order (Act 3 first, then 2, then 1), we spend Act 3 in the company of Marty (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and the apocalypse that’s taking place. It starts with a massive nearby earthquake, then the internet goes down, then the TV broadcast signals, then the electricity, and so on. All the while, there’s this commentary about Chuck (Tom Hiddleston) and the apparently great 39 years he’s given, as he’s seen on his deathbed. It leaves audiences wondering, ‘Who is this Chuck?’

Act 2 puts a bit of focus on him in its brief segment, going back to a few years before his illness, while Act 3 covers the childhood of Chuck, as well as his teenage years (Jacob Tremblay). He experiences tragedy after tragedy, living with his optimistic aunt (Mia Sara) and alcoholic uncle (Mark Hammil).

Act 1 is an intriguing musing on the idea that when you die, the whole universe dies with you. It’s an amusing concept to see in a film, sure… but it would’ve worked better at the end of the film, after we got to know Chuck and his relation to Marty, rather than at the start, where it comes across as more awkward and confounding.

Act 2 is mercifully short. This fairly long and unimpressively shot dance sequence’s purpose is to make you smile, a heartwarming scene of lifeful spontaneity that prompts you to feel grateful for these moments… But honestly, it’ll probably just make you cringe. Its inclusion in the film seems to be covering the “follow your dreams” message, but it’s so shoehorned in and comes across as lazily mawkish.

Act 3 is probably the best, since it actually takes time to FINALLY flesh out this character, taking a look at his teenage dreams and existential fears. Even then, these parts feel derivative of The Fabelmans, which covered the joys, pains, loves, and adversity of Jewish schoolboys.

There’s the feeling that The Life of Chuck is meant to be a real inspiring movie about the joy yet fragility of life and how special that is, yada yada yada. It really does make an earnest attempt at tackling big existential quandaries in our lives, but really it ends up having an existential crisis itself.

DAVID MORGAN-BROWN