Stephen King prefers The Life of Chuck over The Shining, declaring that the recent Mike Flanagan film adaptation holds greater emotional depth than Stanley Kubrick’s classic. Fans and critics are now assessing whether this new release truly captures King’s vision more authentically, as the film continues to fuel conversations about his cinematic legacy.
A New Direction for Stephen King Storytelling
The Life of Chuck, based on a lesser-known short story by Stephen King, has taken audiences by surprise with its innovative narrative structure and poignant emotional core. This 2024 film, directed by Mike Flanagan, moves away from typical Stephen King horror tropes, providing instead an introspective journey into the life and memories of Chuck Krantz. Unlike stories set in haunted hotels or featuring supernatural elements, The Life of Chuck uses a reverse-timeline structure, bringing viewers into Chuck’s existential farewell as the world seemingly ends, not with terror, but with gratitude and love.
The plot unfolds starting at the apparent apocalypse, revealed through nationwide tributes to Tom Hiddleston’s portrayal of Chuck. The film’s initial sense of confusion transforms into revelation, as audiences learn these tributes symbolize Chuck Krantz’s death. Layered throughout are metaphors about personal universes and the meaning of memory, with philosophical commentary delivered by Kate Siegel as Chuck’s teacher, Miss Richards, discussing the idea that each person‘s consciousness forms its own universe.
The film‘s reverse narrative becomes clear as viewers move from the world‘s end back to Chuck’s earlier days, witnessing him experience joy despite looming mortality. In the middle section, Chuck, aware of his fatal brain tumor, chooses to dance with strangers in the street, highlighting a moment of joy and resilience. Rewinding further reveals young Chuck’s formative years with his grandparents, his curiosity, and his encounter with a mysterious cupola that foreshadows his fate. Mark Hamill brings depth to the role of Albie, Chuck’s grandfather, whose warnings and eventual absence shape Chuck’s awareness of mortality and the passage of time.
This format, chosen by both King and Flanagan, intentionally avoids a straightforward timeline. Instead, it reflects the non-linear experience of memory, suggesting that lives, when reflected upon, appear as a series of moments collapsing inward rather than progressing outward. The narrative aims to capture the way people recall their lives in flashes, especially near the end, giving the film a contemplative resonance distinct from King’s more traditional adaptations.
Flanagan’s Adaptation in Contrast to Kubrick’s ‘The Shining’
Stephen King’s relationship with film adaptations of his work has often been complicated, most notably regarding Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. While Kubrick’s 1980 film, starring Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance, is widely celebrated for its chilling visuals and atmosphere, King has consistently voiced objections to the director’s interpretation of his novel’s characters. In King’s view, Kubrick’s vision sacrificed emotional complexity and instead painted Jack Torrance as irredeemably unstable from the outset.
“I think The Shining is a beautiful film and it looks terrific and as I’ve said before, it’s like a big, beautiful Cadillac with no engine inside it. In that sense, when it opened, a lot of the reviews weren’t very favourable and I was one of those reviewers… I feel the same because the character of Jack Torrance has no arc in that movie. Absolutely no arc at all.”
—Stephen King, Author
“When we first see Jack Nicholson, he’s in the office of Mr. Ullman, the manager of the hotel, and you know, then, he’s crazy as a shit house rat. All he does is get crazier. In the book, he’s a guy who’s struggling with his sanity and finally loses it. To me, that’s a tragedy. In the movie, there’s no tragedy because there’s no real change.”
—Stephen King, Author
Kubrick’s decision to depict Jack as already “crazy” undermined what King described as the true tragedy of his novel: a good man gradually succumbing to inner demons. The lack of character development, in King’s view, diminished the emotional impact and arc that defined his written work.
This dissatisfaction seems to have positioned The Life of Chuck as a kind of counterpoint. Directed by Mike Flanagan—who previously worked on other King adaptations such as Doctor Sleep and Gerald’s Game—this new film centers on emotional authenticity rather than horror. Tom Hiddleston’s Chuck Krantz, unlike Jack Torrance, is a quiet hero who is allowed to express grief, find joy, and reflect meaningfully on his life. Rather than focusing on terror or spectacle, Flanagan’s adaptation is designed to honor the nuances of King’s characters and themes, presenting death not as something to fear but as a contemplative transition filled with love and memory.
Breaking Down the Reverse Timeline and Its Symbolism
The reverse-order storytelling used in The Life of Chuck is a deliberate device that aligns with both King’s original narrative and Flanagan’s cinematic vision. The screenplay begins at what appears to be the universe’s collapse, only to reveal its true nature as a metaphor for Chuck’s personal death and the dissolution of the world he built within his mind. Through conversations with Miss Richards, Chuck and viewers alike are confronted with the notion that every person lives within their unique universe, constructed from their experiences, dreams, and memories.
This backward progression mirrors how many experience life in memory, particularly in its final moments—a series of recalled snapshots, with the past collapsing back toward childhood. The story uses this structure not only as a narrative choice but as a philosophical meditation on mortality and remembrance. Miss Richards’ teaching, referencing Walt Whitman, deepens the thematic resonance, reminding audiences that each life is a multiverse of possibilities and regrets.
At various stages—adult, dying Chuck embracing spontaneous delight, or his younger self trying to unravel family mysteries—the film explores how awareness of death can foster appreciation for small, joyful moments. Chuck’s obsession with the cupola and his subsequent vision of his own mortality ties all acts together, illustrating his lifelong consciousness of impermanence and the interwoven nature of memory, loss, and acceptance.
Comparing Box Office Performance: A Tale of Two Films
The commercial success of The Shining is undeniable. Released in 1980, Stanley Kubrick’s film grossed approximately $46.8 million, a significant box office achievement at the time. Over the decades, the film has earned cult status, generating millions more through re-releases, home entertainment, and streaming platforms such as HBO Max and Prime Video. Its iconic imagery and unsettling mood have made it a staple of horror cinema, ensuring its place in popular culture.
By comparison, The Life of Chuck entered theaters on June 13, 2025 with the hallmarks of an indie release, supported by festival acclaim and star power from Tom Hiddleston. Despite not reaching blockbuster numbers—its opening weekend tallied $3 million—the film has already made a mark, benefiting from both Flanagan’s dedicated horror audience and widespread critical praise. In the context of King’s film adaptations, financial figures alone may not capture the true value of the movie’s impact.
While The Life of Chuck may not surpass The Shining in box office revenue or global cultural recognition, its emotional resonance and fidelity to King’s literary themes have prompted many—King included—to view it as a more authentic portrayal of his intentions as a storyteller. The comparison highlights the distinction between commercial and artistic success, inviting new debates on what defines the legacy of an adaptation.
What Sets ‘The Life of Chuck’ Apart in King’s Legacy
For Stephen King, the real strength of The Life of Chuck lies in its refusal to rely on conventional horror. Instead, the film challenges audiences to confront the spiritual and psychological dimensions of mortality. Through the careful direction of Mike Flanagan and the soulful performance by Tom Hiddleston, the story manages to balance moments of existential dread with warmth, levity, and hope. Chuck Krantz emerges not as a victim, but as an ordinary person who finds meaning in the ordinary, ultimately embracing his fate.
This emotional and conceptual approach distinguishes The Life of Chuck from King’s other adaptations, including the visually striking but emotionally distant The Shining. By championing a story anchored in personal memory and gentle goodbyes, the film invites conversation about what makes a King adaptation “true” to its source. The involvement of actors like Mark Hamill as Albie and the metaphor-rich classroom scenes with Kate Siegel further contribute to its layered depiction of loss and self-discovery.
As The Life of Chuck continues its theatrical run in the US, it is establishing itself not as a simple successor to The Shining’s legacy, but as an example of how King’s stories can evolve on screen to prioritize character, emotion, and philosophical depth. Audiences seeking either spectacle or psychological insight may find that this new adaptation reshapes their expectations for what King’s storytelling can achieve on film.
