When all is said and done, it is going to be fascinating to see where Mike Flanagan’s career leads. He has already made quite a name for himself, both through his prolific body of work that has allowed him to find a home in both cinema and television, and his very peculiar approach to different subjects. He’s often considered one of the more consistent horror auteurs working today, and looking at some of his work, it’s not difficult to see precisely why he has developed such a reputation. He’s additionally forged quite a strong relationship with Stephen King, helming a number of adaptations of his novels, and seemingly having a profound fascination with the iconic author’s writing. His most recent offering is also his third consecutive King adaptation, in the form of The Life of Chuck, based on the short story contained in the anthology If It Bleeds, and which (as the title suggests) follows the life of a seemingly ordinary man, moving backwards from the end of his life to his earliest years, showing the journey that he took to becoming aware of some of the secrets of the universe, something that has plagued many a scientist and philosopher alike, and which he seems to understand far better than his supposedly smarter peers. The first departure from the horror genre for the esteemed director, this film is certainly very ambitious, but with such enormous gumption comes a strange inability to create something as meaningful as it believes itself to be, with the overall experience being questionable at the best of times. The flaws embedded in The Life of Chuck vastly outweigh the brief flashes of brilliance, and makes us wonder whether Flanagan is someone who is capable of still making memorable, complex films once the sheen of terror has been removed, since nearly everything about this film – from the writing to the actual execution – feels like a misfire, failing to capture the spirit of King’s short story, itself quite flawed and mostly an experiment more than anything else, and ultimately coming to be nothing more than a bold attempt at exploring themes far more complex than Flanagan or any of his cohorts seemed willing or even capable of handling without descending into bland, unmemorable thematic territory.

Many have remarked that they are entirely unaware of what The Life of Chuck is about before entering the film, with the loglines and synopses being quite vague and lacking specificity. This is not some smart, covert attempt at marketing, where the viewer is forced to go in without prior knowledge, but rather a design flaw of the story as a whole. The themes that govern this film are truly so tenuous and obscure, we walk away after spending two hours immersed in the lives of these characters, and simply do not know what the purpose of the story was. In the case of the original text, we can understand its ideas – it was King experimenting with both form and content, writing a story that is essentially a biographical account of an ordinary man, told in reverse. It’s a wonderful piece of literary experimentation, which also serves as a clue towards the reasons Flanagan’s film is more of a failure. In the transition between page and screen, many stories tend to undergo a lot of changes – the movement from the written to the visual is not as easy or simple a process as we may think, and this is something that the director seems to struggle to realise. It’s not his first attempt at adaptation – as mentioned, he’s very familiar with King’s work, almost profoundly so, as evident by his wonderful films Gerald’s Game and Doctor Sleep, two of the better retellings of the author’s stories. Yet, he seems to have trouble finding the right approach with The Life of Chuck, which is inconsequential at the best of times, primarily due to the complete and utter lack of thematic consistency – a series of musings on life, the universe and existence as a whole loses a lot of lustre when he are plucked out of the written realm and instead forced to see the most bland, lifeless recreations of some vivid scenes, and where we don’t only fail to get any clear answers, but ultimately never quite understand what the film was aiming to say. It does stake its claim to some deeper meaning in its final moments, but it is so shallow and dull, it serves very little purpose and ultimately ends up being nothing more than a misguided attempt at existential curiosity and philosophical provocation, neither of which is particularly effective here.

Considering the extent to which he’s brought out some of the most fascinating work in the actors with whom he has elected to work, it’s quite surprising that Life of Chuck contains some relatively bland, lifeless performances. Flanagan tends to cast his films exceptionally well, and despite the star-studded ensemble, no one is particularly impressive. The film is sold as a vehicle for Tom Hiddleston, a profoundly gifted actors who has often proven himself to be capable of doing just about anything – but with a total screentime that adds up to roughly a quarter of the film, he’s underused, made even worse by the fact that the majority of the film finds the titular character portrayed by Benjamin Pajak, who is not strong enough of an actor to carry the film almost entirely on his own. He’s not untalented, but he’s a novice, and his inexperience is highlighted by the lacklustre writing. The dialogue in this film is so awkward and stilted, not even gifted actors like Hiddleston, Karen Gillan, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Mark Hamill are capable of delivering good work, despite their best efforts. There are some bright spots, such as Mia Sara making a triumphant return to the screen after not being cast in major roles for quite some time – and its not surprising that she gives the best performance in the film, considering the majority of her work is more physical (the scene in which she and Pajak dance to “Dance Hall Days” by Wang Chung being genuinely the only truly exceptional moment in this film), relying less on the weak dialogue and more on her ability to emote, something that the rest of the cast does attempt, but are unfortunately forced to have their efforts diminished by one of the year’s weakest screenplays. A good cast does not immediately make a film immune from criticism, and Flanagan is responsible for making some of the most critically acclaimed actors working today come across as amateurs, which is bizarre and grounds for a lot of concern, considering the potential of this film.

We can understand why Flanagan was attracted to this material – he’s seemingly been interested in venturing outside the horror genre for some time, and you would expect working with a text written by someone with whom he has a good relationship would be a good way to transition into a different genre. However, there was still a lot of work to be done, since the film is filled to the brim with lacklustre ideas, none of which are particularly effective, and directed by someone who was somehow too inexperienced in this particular style of filmmaking, despite his lengthy and celebrated career. Making the leap from unsettling, foreboding psychological horror to what is essentially a full-fledged existential melodrama is a peculiar career decision, and not one that we can appreciate, considering the final product. The director trades terror for sentimentality, a truly bizarre switch that makes us question whether he has the firm command of his craft that we think he does. The material is strong enough to make a good film, but depends on the person at the helm to be effective – in the hands of a director more experienced with this kind of storytelling, Life of Chuck could have been masterful. We rarely yearn for someone like Robert Zemeckis to be selected as the first choice, but he would have brought such heart and sincerity to challenging material, as well as infusing it with the right balance of humour and melancholy, something that Flanagan consistently struggles to capture in any meaningful way. The emotions are the problem here – we are outright told what to feel (and Nick Offerman’s heavy-handed narration does not help at all, especially when it isn’t clear what the purpose of having someone known for their deadpan, droll sense of humour read some of the most bland writing of the past decade), and nothing emerges organically, leading us to wonder why this film was even made in the first place. For those with an aversion to overt sentimentality and situations where emotions are shoehorned into absolutely every frame, The Life of Chuck should be avoided at all costs.

The Life of Chuck is nothing more than an overwrought, surface-level introduction to existential philosophy that is as subtle as it is deep, which is to say, not at all. For whatever inexplicable reason, Flanagan was drawn to this material, and rather than elevating what was a flawed but promising story, he chooses to go in the most obvious of directions, crafting a film that is quite shallow and dull, and never seems to be willing to strive for the greatness that it could have achieved with slightly more work and a closer focus on the details. For a film about searching for meaning in everyday life, focusing on the inconsequential minutiae and the beauty that comes when acknowledging our place in the universe, The Life of Chuck is surprisingly bland and meaningless – it tells us what to think and feel, rather than giving us the chance to forge our interpretation. The moments of intentional ambiguity, where we are left to ponder the central questions, come across as lazy and insincere, and the entire film feels like a halfhearted attempt to contribute to the ongoing philosophical debate around existence and the role our perception plays in guiding us through life. It’s by far the most questionable project that Flanagan has been involved in, and the complete lack of consistency, unwillingness to develop on its ideas and lack of coherency (as well as using its fantastic cast quite poorly), are all reasons to see The Life of Chuck as nothing more than an example of ambition without passion – taking a bold leap means nothing when you are not willing to put in the work to follow through on the audacious ideas. Flanagan has already announced that he is working on another horror project (an adaptation of King’s Carrie), and very rarely has a return to a particular genre been not only anticipated, but eagerly required. I will always respect someone who takes a risk, but also give credit to those who acknowledge that the adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is sometimes very true.