What is a “feel-good” movie? Is it just an uplifting story? Or something even more? That’s a tricky question that doesn’t have a distinct answer. Something that may be heartfelt to one person may be found schmaltzy and manipulative to another. Adding that idea to 2025 films makes the prospect of a “feel-good” movie all the more cynical. That thought process has made recent “feel-good” movies a difficult proposition in the cinematic landscape of 2025.
When those sorts of stories work like Its A Wonderful Life, the results can be incredibly moving. Director/Writer Mike Flanagan’s latest film, The Life of Chuck, aims to explore similar themes. Based on a Stephen King novella of the same name, the story follows a man named Charles “Chuck” Krantz (Tom Hiddleston). Told in three non-linear chapters, the film tells the story of Chuck’s life, varying from young to old. To say anymore would spoil the depths and vulnerabilities in this story. The results of which offer a truly resonant and stirring emotional experience.
The biggest strength of The Life of Chuck could also be considered a weakness by many. The film unabashedly wears its heart on its sleeve within its 110-minute running time. Told out of order that sentimentality could be lost on audiences. Losing its audience could be attributed to a surprising choice in the first act. The film immerses us in the world in an almost disorienting manner. Tonally similar to more of Flanagan’s horror efforts, it applies an ample mystery. If the film loses you at this point, one could easily understand why. With that said, every piece of The Life of Chuck serves a purpose.
Flanagan’s screenplay rewards an audience who’s willing to be patient. As the film’s points crystallize, an incredibly moving story begins to take shape. At its core, the story exists as something more than just a look at this ordinary man’s (our titular character Chuck’s) life. Instead, it’s a story that wants audiences to take the time and celebrate life’s little moments. Such a simple notion had the potential to deliver something saccharine. Thankfully, that is not the case with The Life of Chuck. Instead, the film aims to achieve the goal of making audiences feel good once the credits roll. As the story takes shape and finds its rhythm, the results prove rather bountiful.
As moving as the story is, the whole film would fall apart without its all-star ensemble. Before delving into those performances, it’s best to talk about Chuck himself. This does not just mean discussing Tom Hiddleston’s performance. Though instead, the three performances that make up the character. This includes Young Chucks (Cody Flanagan and Benjamin Pajak) and teenage Chuck (Jacob Tremblay). Each performance works in a surprising and compelling synchronicity with the others. Audiences buy these younger performances, morphing into Tom Hiddleston.
When the film evolves into the Hiddleston version, it creates something soul-stirring. It’s a subtle portrayal that’s underlain by overwhelming joy. Hiddleston makes Chuck immensely likable without ever explaining why he is that way. A particularly joyous dance number conveys this, leaving viewers with a smile on their faces. Knowing what this character has gone through, seeing him celebrate life delivers an infectious watch. Arguably his strongest performance yet, Hiddleston solidifies himself as one of the best actors working today. It’s a magical performance that left me transfixed from beginning to end, saying so much by saying so little.
Every supporting performance in The Life of Chuck carries emotional weight. Before diving into those performances, there is one that has to be highlighted. Mark Hamill as Chuck’s grandfather, Albie Krantz, is a standout. Having worked with Flanagan before, Hamill gets to show a newfound humanity here. While applying Albie with a gruff exterior, there’s a profound warmth to the character. Albie is a real person with real problems, but never feels like a caricature. Hamill applies a humanity and vulnerability that proves quite compelling. Similarly to Hiddleston, the performance is quite subtle. Yet simultaneously, he crafts something outside of his typical acting range. At the age of 73, it is guaranteed to leave audiences wanting to see more of this side of the performer.
While those performances are arguably the most resonant, the supporting performances should not be overlooked. The film features a diverse range of performers who have previously collaborated with Flanagan. Actors like Karen Gillian, Kate Siegel, Carl Lumbly, Samantha Sloyan, and Rahul Kohli have worked with Flanagan in the past. Those actors know his rhythms as a director, fitting seamlessly in this world. In contrast, newcomers like Chiwetel Ejiofor find those same rhythms sliding perfectly into the grander narrative. It’s a unique blend of performers that complements the film’s hopeful themes.
The Life of Chuck is not something one may expect from Mike Flanagan. His normal, horror ghost story sensibilities only appear in brief moments. Instead, this is a story that relies on conveying humanity and hope. The film is a welcome reminder of the joy in the world and the importance of taking time to appreciate the small things. It’s an exciting film stemming from the fact that these types of movies don’t get made anymore. While not revolutionary in its filmmaking, there’s a vulnerability and genuine heart on display here. For me, that passion helped make The Life of Chuck a magical experience. As soon as the credits rolled and as the film states, I was left saying, “Thanks Chuck!”
The Life of Chuck is now playing in theaters.
Learn more about the film, including how to get tickets, at the title’s official website.
You might also like…
‘Connemara’ Review: Alex Lutz’s Essential Film