How Mike Flanagan’s The Life of Chuck Outshines the Book

heads up: This article reveals details from the 2025 film “The Life of Chuck” by Mike Flanagan, a movie adaptation of Stephen King’s 2020 novella with the same title found in the collection “If It Bleeds”. The cast for this film includes Tom Hiddleston as main character Chuck Krantz, an unassuming accountant whose life and demise significantly impact those around him. The impressive ensemble of actors also features Chiwetel Ejiofor, Karen Gillan, Mia Sara, Carl Lumbly, Nick Offerman, Matthew Lillard, Jacob Tremblay, and Mark Hamill.

The filmmaker has established a pattern of adapting literary pieces for screen, notably deviating significantly from the original sources in his Netflix series “The Haunting of Hill House” and “The Haunting of Bly Manor,” which were based on Shirley Jackson’s 1959 novel and Henry James’ 1898 novella “The Turn of the Screw,” respectively. However, Flanagan has also adapted films from Stephen King books in the past, using differing techniques. For instance, “Gerald’s Game” (2017) was quite faithful to the book, but “Doctor Sleep” (2019), a sequel to “The Shining,” combined a relatively faithful adaptation with aspects from Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 “Shining” adaptation that weren’t present in the novel.

The Life Of Chuck Is An Extremely Faithful Adaptation

Many Elements Of The Novella Are Brought To Life

The 2025 Mike Flanagan film has demonstrated a highly accurate portrayal of the novella. With its 110-minute duration, there is sufficient time to delve deeply into the story, given that it was previously published in about 60 pages. As a result, all significant aspects of the narrative are featured in the movie, such as the three acts arranged in reverse chronological order, the intricate depiction of the impending universal collapse in Act 3, the precise unfolding of Chuck’s fateful dance in Act 2, and most of the insights into Chuck’s childhood in Act 1.

Beyond this, there are numerous exchanges and spoken passages that have been borrowed fairly closely from the original content. For instance, a significant portion of Marty’s (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Felicia’s (Karen Gillan) phone conversation in Act 3, as well as much of Nick Offerman’s narration, and many of the philosophical discussions between Miss Richards (Kate Siegel) and young Chuck (Benjamin Pajak), such as her explanation about the Walt Whitman line “I contain multitudes” in Act 1, are remarkably similar to their source material.

The Life Of Chuck Movie Adds One Eerie Element In Act 3

Felicia’s Hospital Is A More Important Location

In “The Life of Chuck,” although the overall narrative remains consistent, certain tweaks have been incorporated to delve deeper into its themes. The most significant modification occurs in Act 3, where a chilling scene unfolds at the hospital where Felicia works. In this scene, all the heart monitors attached to empty beds mysteriously start beeping synchronously, suggesting a rhythm. This unsettling moment foreshadows the revelation that Chuck Krantz’s life energy in Act 3 is crucial for the fate of the universe, as he approaches his final breaths.

A key reason for the inclusion of this scene is that it gives more attention to Felicia’s viewpoint. In the original story, Act 3 is primarily narrated by her ex-husband Marty, leaving Felicia’s experiences somewhat remote. By shifting the perspective in the movie, we get to know more about Felicia and even introduce a new character, Bri, who is one of Felicia’s coworkers.

The Life Of Chuck Movie Has More Monologues

They Flesh Out The World Around Chuck

In the movie adaptation of “The Life of Chuck,” I noticed an interesting enhancement: several characters were given personal monologues that aren’t found in the original novel. Although these additional scenes don’t alter the story’s conclusion, they enrich the world surrounding Chuck. For instance, Grandpa Albie (Mark Hamill) shares a profound monologue about math, shedding light on why Chuck chooses accounting as his career path, and the estate lawyer (Carl Lumbly) delivers a poignant monologue about the weather, deepening our understanding of Albie’s eventual fate. These extra touches help flesh out the characters and their motivations, offering a more immersive experience for viewers.

This decision aligns with the innovative choices Mike Flanagan has made across various works previously. Notably, he’s devised numerous methods for actors to deliver captivating performances in their roles, as seen in his groundbreaking Netflix series “The Haunting of Hill House”. For example, monologues played a significant role in his subsequent horror series “Midnight Mass”, which debuted on Netflix three years after “Hill House”. Monologues have, in fact, become a distinctive feature for Flanagan, enabling him to leave an impression with “The Life of Chuck” while maintaining its original essence.

Albie Gets An Expanded Role In The Life Of Chuck Movie

Mark Hamill Gets Meaty Moments To Play

As a film enthusiast, I noticed that the character of Albie underwent some significant yet subtle alterations in the movie. Apart from incorporating a heartfelt monologue about mathematics and a heated instance where he pushes Chuck for his safety, only to unintentionally injure him and feel remorseful afterward, the film also introduced an intriguing scene where Albie stumbles upon a glimpse of his own future demise’s specter. This revelation provides him with a newfound understanding of his approaching end. While it’s possible that these changes were inspired by the major casting choice of Mark Hamill in the role, they certainly lend more complexity to Chuck’s bond with his grandfather.

One Major Element Of Chuck’s Book Backstory Is Removed

The Meaning Of “Little Sister” Is Changed

In the movie, there’s an essential aspect of Chuck’s past that isn’t explicitly shown, but it significantly impacts his relationship with Janice (Annalise Basso). During high school, he used to dance with his bandmate’s younger sister, which is why he affectionately refers to her as “little sister” when inviting her to dance in Act 2. In the movie, this connection has been reinterpreted, suggesting that Chuck mimics his grandmother (Mia Sara) by calling Janice “little brother” while asking her to dance. This change transforms their dancing moment into a symbolic passing of the torch rather than a reminiscence of his youth.

Which Version Of The Life Of Chuck Is Better?

They Are Ultimately Very Similar

In essence, since both the book and film share the same narrative sequence and content, they each offer value to their respective audiences. However, if one is generally deemed superior, it’s likely that the film takes this position due to its ability to forge stronger links between the stories, thereby underscoring the novella’s themes of how a single person’s life can have far-reaching effects. To illustrate, the movie repeatedly incorporates scenes from the musical “Cover Girl,” which is not featured in the book, and thus maintains the motif of the character Chuck’s love for dancing throughout the film adaptation of Stephen King’s work.

Moreover, the film adaptation of “The Life of Chuck” emphasizes female characters significantly more than the original novel does. For instance, in Act 3, Felicia’s perspective is given more attention, Chuck’s wife (Q’orianka Kilcher) is present at his deathbed instead of his brother-in-law, the character of Miss Rohrbacher (Samantha Sloyan) in Act 1 is expanded, and the street drummer in Act 2 is changed from male to female, portrayed by Taylor Gordon. This enriches the world surrounding Chuck beyond what was depicted on the written page.

2025-06-07 18:29