Mike Flanagan’s latest Stephen King adaptation, The Life of Chuck, is making headlines for its disconnect between sharply positive reviews and lackluster financial performance, underscoring how Stephen King adaptation struggles at box office despite acclaim. Although the movie has received praise from critics and industry insiders, it has faced an uphill battle finding a broad audience in cinemas since its wide release in the United States.
Celebrated Director Takes a New Direction With “The Life of Chuck”
Flanagan, known for turning King’s stories into acclaimed works for Netflix with series like Midnight Mass and The Haunting of Hill House, ventured into new territory with The Life of Chuck—a science-fiction drama rather than a horror film. The director’s creative gamble paid off critically, garnering recognition and even sparking early Oscar speculation. However, while the movie has amassed accolades, its performance at the box office has fallen well short of expectations.
This marks the third time Flanagan has brought one of King’s stories to the screen. Notably, Stephen King has openly praised Flanagan’s vision, a rare endorsement given King’s often forthright critiques of adaptations of his work—including his long-standing issues with Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. This mutual respect highlights a creative partnership that delights fans of the source material. Still, despite their artistic collaboration, financial returns remain elusive.
“The Life of Chuck” Opens Weakly in U.S. Theaters
After a promising showing at festivals and a limited release, The Life of Chuck was rolled out nationwide by NEON. In its first weekend of wide release, the film brought in $2.1 million, for a total domestic tally of $2.4 million after a week in select theaters. This opening placed it well below many other films at the box office, including Final Destination Bloodlines, which outperformed it even in its fifth weekend, and trailing behind competitors like The Phoenician Scheme.
The exact budget for The Life of Chuck remains undisclosed, making it difficult to measure the scale of the financial shortfall. Since NEON purchased the distribution rights after its showing at the Toronto International Film Festival, expectations were set for a solid theatrical run. Pushing the wide release into the following year was intended to maximize awards season buzz, but so far, this strategy has not resulted in the hoped-for box office performance.
Mike Flanagan’s Stephen King Films Find Trouble in Cinemas
The challenges faced by The Life of Chuck echo Flanagan’s earlier efforts with King’s novels. His previous Stephen King theatrical project, Doctor Sleep—a sequel to The Shining—similarly failed to resonate financially despite favorable reviews. Made with a $45 million production budget, Doctor Sleep earned just $31 million domestically and $72 million worldwide. Audiences and critics responded well, reflected in strong ratings from outlets like Rotten Tomatoes, but high praise did not convert into blockbuster sales at the box office.
Doctor Sleep’s timing might have contributed to its struggles. Released just two months after It: Chapter Two—a well-publicized but divisive film—it seemed audiences had little appetite left for another King adaptation. Flanagan’s debut King adaptation, Gerald’s Game, fared differently; released on Netflix in 2017, its success solidified his reputation on the streaming platform. Since then, Flanagan’s projects have consistently premiered on Netflix, a pattern that may have dampened the draw of his theatrical releases.
Awards Prospects Clouded by Poor Financial Performance
The Life of Chuck’s journey began on a high note, winning the People’s Choice Award at the 2024 Toronto International Film Festival—a distinction closely tied to Oscar momentum. Since 2012, every TIFF People’s Choice winner has gone on to earn a nomination for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, with films like Nomadland and Green Book taking home the Oscar.
This track record set high hopes for The Life of Chuck as an awards season contender. However, the movie’s sluggish box office returns may complicate its awards campaign. Oscar voters can be influenced by recent buzz and accessible theatrical runs, but The Life of Chuck’s delay in capitalizing on festival acclaim might limit its awards impact. Unlike prior TIFF winners that rapidly followed up with theatrical releases, this film’s timeline may reduce its visibility during the critical voting period.
How Mike Flanagan’s Television Projects Outperform His Movies
While his theatrical Stephen King adaptations have stumbled financially, Flanagan’s TV and streaming work has consistently found success. His approach to horror, which emphasizes psychological depth and character-driven stories, seems to resonate best in serialized formats. On Netflix, viewers can experience his slow-burn narratives at their own pace, leading to strong engagement with shows like The Haunting of Bly Manor and The Fall of the House of Usher.
The challenge of promoting a film like The Life of Chuck—neither traditional horror nor following blockbuster convention—is significant. Audiences tend to flock to horror films that promise spectacle and scares, as seen with hits like Final Destination Bloodlines. Flanagan’s cerebral style requires careful marketing to distinguish itself, and this may prove easier on streaming platforms than in theaters. As Flanagan looks ahead to new TV adaptations of King’s works, including a planned series based on Carrie, expectations are high for renewed success outside of movie theaters.
Streaming Success May Salvage “The Life of Chuck”
Even if The Life of Chuck’s theatrical run has disappointed, there are reasons for optimism. With Flanagan’s established popularity on Netflix, NEON can find a second life for the film through digital distribution. Doctor Sleep, despite its underwhelming box office, ultimately reached a wider audience on streaming services. The strong critical reception of The Life of Chuck is likely to draw streaming interest and could potentially revive attention for possible awards consideration or even a re-release in theaters.
The film’s journey emphasizes the importance of strategic timing and momentum in the film industry. Had The Life of Chuck been released soon after its TIFF triumph, it might have maximized audience excitement and sustained buzz through awards season. Instead, the gap between festival acclaim and commercial release may have diluted its initial impact, serving as a cautionary tale for future festival favorites navigating the transition to mainstream audiences.
Mike Flanagan’s adaptation stars Tom Hiddleston as Charles ‘Chuck’ Krantz and Matthew Lillard as Gus, bringing together a cast that helped earn its honors at the festival. Their performances, along with Flanagan’s vision, have earned critical praise even as the film’s box office stands as a reminder of the challenges facing niche and prestige cinema when up against market expectations. For Flanagan and Stephen King fans, The Life of Chuck remains a testament to creative risk—and to the shifting dynamics of audience engagement in today’s entertainment landscape.
