To watch this movie unfold almost paragraph by paragraph made my heart soar. Its rare to see a Stephen King tale come to life on screen with such dedication to the actual story. Beautifully shot with extraordinary attention to detail. Dear constant reader, this movie is for you.

It sucked me in from the beginning, and laid me out with the rest. I'm writing this review to say, at one random moment months ago I made an off hand unserious remark about Mark Hamill's acting skills... and should he ever read this, I would like to wholeheartedly rescind that remark, for he delivered a fatal blow to myself and anyone else who would say he was bad at acting. The rest of you were great too...

I'm honestly baffled by the reviews. The movie was slow and made little sense. It struck me as odd and disjointed, and I found it pretty dull overall. The dance scenes were entertaining, but the rest didn’t hold my attention.

Innovative with exciting premise and implications. But when you make a horribly rookie science mistake near the beginning...the world is turning every 23 hours...so the astronomer and protagonist both say "the earth is slowing down". Stupid. It's speeding up obviously. And the stars start to go out with an audible bang-- from millions of light years away. I know the protagonist isn't a scientist, so that I guess gave the story away. Still gets a 3 though. Worth it just to see Hiddleston and Ejiofor act!

“I contain multitudes”… In the final seconds of my life, what would I remember? The faces, the voices, the moments, the hearts that meant the most, the ones who helped shape me into who I am. And selfishly, I imagine the world collapsing, as if to somehow justify my own ending. Thank you, Chuck, for 39 wonderful years. A brilliant short story by Stephen King — and an unforgettable film .

What a nice, quiet and slow little movie surprise.

Maybe not flawless but magical nonetheless. Thank you Chuck Krantz for 39 great years!

This heartfelt little film is a true gem, offering a gentle reminder to live boldly beneath the stars while encouraging kindness and love toward others. Its message is both uplifting and comforting—perfect for anyone seeking inspiration and warmth.

Stephen King must be proud. It's hard to put his words on a movie, anyone who likes his books know about that. What Flanagan achieves is really what must be in the creative mind of Mr King. And this is why he is one of the most prolific writers alive, and have a lot of Constant Readers. Because, even if most critics doesn't see, there is poetry on King's books. Not always, for sure, but when it has, man, that some solid beautiful imagery who follows you everywhere, and stick with you, sometimes for life. Like a Constant Reader myself, that was a experience I wasn't prepared to have. And damn, thank God I had it!

I'm usually not a fan of non-linear "artistic" movies. Nor do I like movies with a lot of narration. I liked this one a lot though. Flanagan has a real flair for dialogue, definitely worth watching for that alone.

This is certain to divide opinion: touching and deep, or sappy and simpleminded? Either way, the film's extreme adherence to its source material (a Stephen King short story) produces results that can't avoid contrivance... Worth a watch (or two if you fall under its spell).

THE LIFE OF CHUCK is more akin to THE GREEN MILE and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION than King's more gruesome stories, with this excellent adaption clinging onto every word as I did watching this film. This life-affirming tribute to the simple goodness of humanity was just what I needed.

I don't even know why anyone else attempts to adapt Stephen King when we have Mike Flanagan. It's just a joy, with the added benefit of spotting his returning actors (Karen Gillan, Rahul Kohli, Samantha Sloyan, Mark Hamill, and of course, Kate Siegel) like old friends.

Thanks Chuck. What a powerful story, just as good as the short story.

Awful. Semi sentimental shite with average acting and a weak script. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will have sussed the ending within the first half hour. Avoid.

I just don't understand movies like this. What do they prove? What do they teach? It's pure fantasy and thus, a waste of two hours.

I contain multitudes.

WAS WIR KENNEN SIND NUR 10 SEKUNDEN Die größte Katastrophe allerzeiten geschieht, das Internet verschwindet, Kalifornien versinkt im Meer und in Deutschland bricht ein Vulkan aus. Menschen bringen sich um oder warten auf das unausweichliche, doch an jeder Straßenecke taucht plötzlich eine Reklame für Chuck auf wo für seine tollen 39 Jahre gedankt wird, jedoch kennt ihn niemand. The Life of Chuck geht ca. 110 Minuten und ist ab 12 Jahren freigegeben. Wir haben hier eine Sci-Fi Dramödie die auf einer Kurzgeschichte von Stephan King beruht, mit Tom Hiddelston in der Hauptrolle. In drei Akten wird uns das Leben von Chuck erzählt, allerdings rückwärts so das wir das Ende zu erst erfahren. Dieser feine Kniff lässt einen zunächst Ratlos zu sehen wie die Welt untergeht, doch im Laufe der Handlung versteht man immer mehr worum es geht, nämlich um das einzige was im Leben sicher ist. Ich mochte die Handlung, die Figuren, sogar die Tänze und ich bin wahrlich kein Freund von sowas aber du meine Fresse können Dirty Dancing und Deadpool hier einpacken. Tom Hiddelston legt eine Sohle aufs Paket, als Erwachsener und Kind, das dank einer tollen Schlagzeugerin echt fetzt. Die Dialoge können sich zwar etwas ziehen, doch wenn man gewillt ist zu zuhören sind die Zwischentöne über die Welt, das Leben und sogar die Mathematik wundervoll. Das Finale zeigt uns den ersten Akt und die Erklärung wieso alles vor die Hunde geht, Melancholie und Lebensfreude zugleich. Am Ende bleibt ein Werk das viel auf Emotionen, Dialoge und Kitsch setzt. Für mich funktioniert die Mischung überraschend gut, dürfte aber bei weitem nicht jeden gefallen. Im Kino gab es eine Mischung aus Gähnen und Tränen, bei mir war es ein Grübeln über mich selbst. Von mir bekommt der Film 8,5/10 Punkten. Wenn die Welt untergeht was passiert eher, Scheidung oder Hochzeit? Die Antwort darauf ist ziemlich logisch.

What an odd movie - didn’t use Tom Hiddleston enough.

A bit more of a tease for Flanagan's "Dark Tower", but I enjoyed the film in spite of some predictability and a lack of emotional resonance in the first act. The predictability comes from the notion early on that the world we are introduced to in Act One is not a real world but some kind of parallel universe. The story wants to keep it from you but it's pretty obvious. The film came alive for me in the second act in which we meet Chuck and watch him decide to abandon his humdrum life for an afternoon of living joyfully. The dancing sequence was truly marvelous and elevated the film and it's story quite a bit. The third act was also strong with a charming turn from the young actor who plays Chuck as a kid and an inspiring coming-of-age tale. Overall, the film left me in my feels with self-reflection remembering my own life's journey and imagining my own parallel universe inhabited by people whose lives I've touched. What starts as an off-putting first act leads quickly to impactful and lovely second and third acts. Not my favorite Stephen King and not my favorite Mike Flanagan but worthy additions to their canons and certainly exciting to anticipate how Flanagan brings Roland Deschain's story to the screen.