The Life of Chuck is a three part story told backwards which, during the first part—actually the last part narratively, gawrdangit I hate it when they do this—created in me a sense of anxiety. Not like Eddington, but more like “Oh, no, what have I done?” You see, the first part shows the world ending. And it’s ending in the way a CNN watcher would perceive it as ending. I don’t know how else to describe it. Chiwetel Ejiofor, whose name I have been struggling to pronounce for half my life at this point, is Marty, a teacher who’s dealing with the death of the Internet, kids not showing up to school, roads literally collapsing, PornHub going away, etc.

Then there’s a speech (by Carl Lumbly), a monologue of liberal pieties about man’s mistreatment of the Earth, which is short-circuited by “but this is even bigger”.

Meanwhile, inexplicably, signs appear all over town, in windows, on TV, “Thanks, Chuck! For 39 great years of service!”

Nobody knows who Chuck is, however.

We meet Chuck in Act II. He’s an accountant, played by Tom Hiddleston, and he’s at a conference when he walks past a busker drumming. But he doesn’t walk past, he starts to dance instead. And he’s good. And he’s joined by a young woman (Karen Gillan) whose boyfriend just broke up with her via text.

In the last part of the movie (Act I), we see young Chuck, and we get an explanation for his behavior and, essentially, what happened in the first part of the movie.

The Boy and I liked this, but for me, the experience was rather odd. There were things that I didn’t like at first that won me over eventually.

Pluses, Delayed Pluses

First of all, I have to call out the movie’s look. It’s a good look. It’s not generic, it’s not color-coded, it’s not ugly. This means it towers over the average 2020s era film.

Second, the acting is impeccable. Hiddleston probably goes without saying. If you only know him as Loki, you might not recognize him. You’ll hear a lot about Mark Hamill because it’s probably his best performance ever as Chuck’s grandfather. Chuck’s grandmother is played by Mia Sara (forever best known as Ferris Beuller’s girlfriend, Sloan, looking lovely and unmodified here). And if that’s not enough of an ’80s cage-rattler, Chuck’s nosey neighbor who lets him in on the family secret is played by Heather Langenkamp, nasal cannulas hanging on her upper lip.

No, no, she’s great. Really. I just need to lie down.

Anyway, the acting is top notch, with many fine actors having small but meaningful parts: Mathew Lillard, Harvey Gullen, David Dastmalchian. On and on.

So, where did it put me off?

Well, there’s a narrator (Nick Offerman). I’m leery of narrators. Show me the story. If I wanted a narrator, I’ll read the book. But this is very well done. By Act II, I had decided it was a good choice.

The music (The Newton Brothers) does this low-toned “bong” at significant dramatic moments which I rolled my eyes at at first. But ultimately it fits with the tenor of the film: This is a movie about a man’s life, and the consequential and inconsequential aspects thereof, and how we don’t necessarily know which is which.

It didn’t forget its mission. It is very United Colors of Moviemaking, with an improbable racial mix, but everyone’s talented so, y’know, who really cares about that?

Is it great? Ironically, perhaps, it’s the philosophical underpinning of the story that is the weakest. Like, the third act (the beginning)—a very writerly concept shoehorned into the Everyman’s head—doesn’t actually make any sense in the context of the story. Literally everyone in the apocalyptic part of the story should know who Chuck is.

Furthermore, the punchline/twist is fine, but also doesn’t comport with human behavior in any very admirable way. Chuck has a choice about living that he makes in a life-affirming way. But he also keeps his choice a secret, which strikes me as very selfish.

This is done far, far better in the Korean film Be With You.