There is feedback against a recent trend called "Hopkore", a cultural meme seen on social media platforms (mostly Tik tok) that highlights the positive. The reasons for this reaction are several, of course. Those who think they are realistic believe that such uncontrolled positivity can be toxic. It certainly does not help that so many popular feelings about the interconnection of mankind are reduced to phrases printed on throwing pillows and door mattresses that you can buy on target. In an era when so much think that being positive is to be a deliberately ignorant, the idea that things can (or even) work well feels like an empty width.

No work of art can turn the pessimist into an optimistic or vice versa, but the power of art can certainly address macro and micro in an attempt to reconcile them. Movies, As Roger Ebert once saidThey are empathy machines and as much as they can function as such for the audience who learned to empathize with other people rather than them, the cinema can turn that empathy back to the audience. "The Life of Chuck", The latest by director Mike Flanagan, is tried with empathy towards humanity, a quality that is a major part of Flanagan's entire filming (yes, that includes his horror movies and shows). However, this is not a film that wants to break people with empty feeling, nor is it a film that supports the simple heroism of the shining. It's not a hopecore and it's not Frank Capri, in other words.

Instead, "The Life of Chuck" is one of the most sincere and moving philosophical films so far, a film that is as much as Kierkegor as king. It can actually be Steven King that makes Kierkegor, given that its unique structure (reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's film) is adapted to the author's novel. That, he said, Flanagan and his ensemble make the film their own, telling a story that is trying to balance the micro with micro and act as a cinema -equivalent of the idiom of the cup that is either half full or half empty.

Much of the magic that makes up the "Life of Chuck" lies in how the story is structured and told, so I won't spoil too much here. Suffice it to say that, like the novel, the film is told in three chapters that take place in reverse chronological order, and all three refer to Charles "Chuck" Cranz, loved if the average person working as an accountant.

In the first chapter (which is truly the third chapter, if you follow me), Chuck (played by Tom Hiddleston) begins to appear on various billboards and advertisements, while the world seems to be steadfast to the apocalypse, a mystery that Marty's school teacher (Chiveli Egi) and Dive). In the second chapter, Chuck encountered a drummer (Taylor Gordon) on a street whose music inspires him to miss everything and dance, an improvised moment where the girl recently joined. Then, in the last chapter (which is first), Chuck grows from a young teenager (played by Cody Flanagan, Benjamin Spider and finally Jacecob Trembla), learning some awkward lessons for life on the road. Among these lessons is a very king, which includes Chuck's grandfather, Albi (Mark Hamil), warning him to never get into the ceiling, because it may have the power to show the death of a close to you, including yourself.

As you can see, although the "Life of Chuck" is ultimately a parable with the same character in his center, he works more like an anthology film. Flanagan, as a horror movie veteran, is undoubtedly aware of the tradition of the Portal Film in the genre, and although it does not have to change its style for every segment, it certainly varies with a pleasant variety. The first segment is complemented by creeping fear, the second is bitter, and the third mixtures that come at age with a supernatural miracle, a combination of Spielberg or Serling. There's something attractive "Dusk Zone"-Overall about the film, with Flanagan conveying the romanticism of King's blue collar in poetry of common human poetry.

Although each segment works perfectly as its own short, the combination of the three together - once put in the correct order of the viewer, for the film does not hold anyone's hand in this way - it has a cumulative effect, making the film the second film to release on June 6 this year that pushes the anthology of anthology (the other being "Predator: Killer Killer").

The ambition shown in the "Life of Chuck" never feels too heavy, but still requires Flanagan to run a needle with delicacy. He did it before, as with Oculus and his parallel timeline, and in "Doctor Sleep", which seems impossible in his Match the different visions of King's "glitter" and Stanley Kubrick. Despite the reverse structure and a few mysteries that lie in "Chuck", Flanagan seems impressive to be uncertain. Although the film is characterized by Nick Offerman's Dulcet tones as a popular, omniscient narrator, there is never an attempt to obviously write what is happening and why. Flanagan does not have to; He plays fair with the audience, giving them all the answers, even if they have to wait a little time to be able to put the pieces of puzzles themselves.

Flanagan's secret weapon, as always, is its seriousness, which is a quality that we don't see much in the cinema these days, let alone the mainstream American cinema. It is partly due to the time of change, of course: if a movie like 1989 "Field of Dreams" in 1989 They were published today, its numerous allure and heart will easily drown in the sea of ​​discourse, and as a result of social media toxicity and the cloud of irony poisoning that we have been breathing almost since the end of the century. Although he may certainly be accused of wearing the heart of the sleeve (and allowing himself and his actors to pursue a monologue), Flanagan in an essential course for what kind of audience makes a movie, and he never allows a "chuck" peak in total cynicism or saccharism. Thus, it can be said that "Chuck" lies in the middle too long, too long for some and too much out for others. The film is equal parts intellectually and emotional, something that continues to pay dividends after it is over (or redirecting), but has the potential to make the film feel alienated while unstoppable. Flanagan runs the risk of making his film glass semi-full (or semi-empty) water, and as such, the response to the film depends a little more than usual on what you bring.

To anyone who is familiar with the work of Flanagan and King, the "Life of Chuck" should not come as a huge surprise. Of course, both are known for their works of terror, but the heart they demonstrated in works such as "St. However, for someone like me, who is a lifelong fanboy of the two artists, there was still a discovery in "Chuck". For the first segment of the film, Flanagan delivered a kind of fear in me that I didn't realize that I owned it, while the structure of the story showed me that King has greater inventiveness than I might have given him credit.

The most attractive aspect of the "Life of Chuck" is the way it deepens and reflects so many topics and concepts in the cinema and in real life. She tells the story of "Amor's catch" that feels like a kind of flip -page about how the idea can be used in a horror context, As it was in the last winter "Nosferatu". It talks about the loss as something and important and usually, because of course, that's exactly what the loss is. I lost my grandmother earlier this year; The film is dedicated to The late Scott Wamplera man I knew personally if only as an acquaintance. However, where some deal with loss and spectrum of death as a sad cavity, it may also feel like these loved ones never disappear, that their lives have made influences of different size, and size is not important. This leads to a warm sense of acceptance and that is the conclusion that "Chuck" comes, whether it is death or the way someone lived their lives. We should not be afraid of as terrible, it should not be accepted as beautiful, it is only. When it comes to "Chuck Life" is the most affordable, empathetic and gentle film of the year, it's just.

/Movie rating: 9 out of 10

The Life of Jacques opens in selected theaters on June 6, 2025 and wide on June 13, 2025.