The name Stephen King usually accompanies stories that are designed to haunt and terrify you. Every now and then, however, King steps outside of the horror genre. Several of those stories have been adapted over the years into cinema classics such as The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, and Stand by Me. Now, thanks to director Mike Flanagan’s deft touch, King’s short story, The Life of Chuck, can be added to that list.

Told in three parts, and in reverse, the film is about a 39-year-old accountant named Chuck (Tom Hiddleston) dying of a brain tumor. While most movies would make his illness the central premise, The Life of Chuck, though, isn’t about the sadness or tragedy. Instead, it shows you moments from his life, the good and the bad, in celebration of its title character. Even the sad parts feel like necessary additions to the uplifting, optimistic whole.

Rejoicing in life in the face of death is a concept that can be much trickier than it seems and needs a gifted filmmaker to properly handle. Thankfully, Flanagan has more than enough experience and skill to tackle the task. Like King, he is most often associated with horror, but his abilities in shot selection, pacing, and directing performers all shine through here. One of the major plot points is an impromptu dance sequence featuring Chuck and a street busker. Not one moment of this scene, not one frame or movement, is wasted. Hiddleston is a joy to watch and Flanagan crafts a perfect scene that makes the audience want to join right in the dance. The entire movie is filled with moments like that where the film grips you tight and takes you on its journey.

I should also note that, as good as Hiddleston is in the film, he isn’t actually in very much of it. The entire story is more of a collaboration from multiple characters than a focus on any one single person. Across the board, everyone does a wonderful job, but it’s hard to praise any particular performance when nobody has much time to shine. It’s a deliberate choice, as spending too much time with a character like Chuck and what he’s going through could easily undermine the optimistic tone the film is aiming for.

However, I would have liked the film to have given Chuck’s situation a bit more weight. It never feels like we’re watching the life of a dying man, not really. While that is very much the point, there was likely a way to let the audience feel the pain of the end of a life without dragging the movie down. If anyone could have pulled it off, it would have been Flanagan.

That said, the movie doesn’t suffer much for the decision. It very much accomplishes everything it sets out to and provides a meaningful and entertaining romp through the memories of a thoroughly likeable character. It may not be King or Flanagan’s usual comfort zone, but both have enough talent to easily change their rhythm and surprise us. In The Life of Chuck, they deliver a feel-good tragedy that finds joy in sadness and promises that you can too.