If I were a lesser critic than I wish to be, I would use the title of this film as an opportunity to sardonically riff on how it’s anything but. There is, sadly, truth to such a sentiment; Opus, the feature directorial debut of one Mark Anthony Green, is safely one of the creakiest films in the entirety of A24‘s library, and especially far from what it ostensibly styles itself as — not an opus, per se, but a revelatory finger on what I would call a crucial pulse.

But if Opus isn’t exactly worthy of praise, it certainly doesn’t deserve to be lacerated. Simply put, Green needs to continue to make movies — the subject matter that he’s shown an interest in here is requisite to a widespread, necessary form of healing, and the sooner he becomes a more confident filmmaker, the sooner we can well and truly benefit from his contributions to that conversation. But at this current juncture, his filmography (meaning Opus) fatally locks itself in its own sauce, all while insisting a handful of poisonous ingredients be part of the recipe, so to speak.

The film stars Ayo Edebiri as Ariel Ecton — a small-time journalist with big dreams and a bigger obstacle in the form of a boss (Murray Bartlett) who won’t give her writing the time of day. She gets her big break when she’s invited to a listening party hosted by Alfred Moretti (John Malkovich), a legendary 90s pop icon who has come out of retirement to release a brand new album. The announcement takes over public conversation, newscasts, and every other corner of the cultural zeitgeist, and there are many Moretti fans around the world who wish they could be in Ariel’s shoes. Ariel, however, arrives at the listening party on Moretti’s private, sprawling property — teeming with blue-robed Moretti devotees — and very quickly wishes that she was not in her own shoes.

As alluded to earlier, Opus is packed with big ideas — some of which will be touched on in a moment — but the lack of writerly and directorial discipline on Green’s part (he’s here as writer, director, and producer) undermines them quite severely. With a deliciously shrewd Malkovich as his primary vehicle, Green offers monologues upon monologues of philosophy pertaining to not only our obsession with celebrities, but where that obsession comes from, and what we can learn about ourselves and each other by examining that origin. This subsequently spins out into such topics as who is capable of making an impact on the world, and who has the courage and lucidity to even try.

The ideas are undeniably rich, and some of them are even actionable, but by rendering them as several long, cumbersome, verbal maxims, it becomes very difficult for us to get a grip on what Opus believes is its primary emotional and cerebral core. Without that grip, the plot beats cannot thematically unfurl with any sort of coherence — a plot beat might have thematic significance, but there’s no way of knowing which of Opus‘ many ontological monologues it might pertain to.

Indeed, the great irony of Opus is that it ostensibly champions our individual ability to create something, no matter how insignificant our name or brand might be or feel to ourselves. And yet, it’s so fixated on verbally prescribing us its dizzying manifesto, that it denies viewers the opportunity to bring themselves to the viewing experience and subsequently create an emotional interpretation of the film. Opus‘ screen is not a shared space, but a soapbox; usually valid grounds for mudslinging, nullified in this case by the nutrition of the film’s subject matter.

In all likelihood, this is a casualty of Green’s inexperience as a filmmaker. It’s clear as day how ionate he is about getting these ideas across — as he should be — but he’s too precious about the purity of his ideas, and thereby too dismissive of the role that the audience plays in bringing those ideas to emotional life. A more disciplined version of Opus would have focused on one of these maxims and allowed it the space to breathe, flirt, and be discovered/interpreted by the audience.

Succeeding that, Green could have explored more branches of his overarching ideology with another film a la Ti West’s X trilogy (also from A24). Instead, in his eagerness to relay these ideas, Green forgot to pace himself, and also forgot to let the ideas take on a more cinematic life outside of himself.

But even then, the mechanical storytelling instincts here are highly questionable in their own right. It’s no spoiler to say that Opus takes a turn into horror territory, the specifics of which I’ll leave you to discover on your own. But — and perhaps this is a secondary symptom of Opus‘ incongruent identity — the horror elements flatten whatever sparks of digestible insight do make it through. Why platform a tangible, antagonistic evil in your narrative when the most compelling indictment you make is towards the role we play in building our own mental prisons of worship?

That, dear readers, is far more terrifying and pertinent; it’s one thing to face an enemy, it’s another to face yourself, but both are incomparable to facing yourself by detaching from what you think gives you life. What is gained by cheering for your favorite pop star at a concert? What, if anything, are you actually cheering for by doing so?

This fallible narrative unfortunately compromises both Edebiri and Malkovich, albeit not totally. Edebiri, ever the specialist of casual awkwardness, pilots the envious Ariel superbly, and contrasts with Malkovich’s alien-like guru in a way that, in a different cut of Opus, would have been the film’s greatest weapon. Ariel speaks and stumbles like an everyday person, whereas Moretti sets himself apart from everyone else with language, intonation, and a speaking pace that make him strategically enrapturing and socially unassailable — a celebrity, in other words.

In this way, there is no interaction between these two that would cause them to connect on a human-to-human level — there is no emotional benefit to be had by either party. And I ask again; what, if anything, do we gain from pouring out our energy to a pop star at a concert?

There’s not a doubt in my mind that Green has some sort of answer to that question. Frankly, I have little trouble believing that he has an answer to many questions; pressing, intense questions that can and should be rendered on the big screen in the form of sincere storytelling.

Communicating via sincere storytelling, however, requires a filmmaking maturity that Green has demonstrated a current lack of with Opus. To evoke cliché, it’s a film whose reach far exceeds its grasp, but it’s also a prime example of a film whose reach needs to be encouraged, and which should be applauded for identifying that reach in the first place. Keep going, Mark Anthony Green — your opus will come yet.

Yesterday, A24 ever so courteously let us know that we’d be getting a trailer for their film Death Of A Unicorn today. Those who were already clued into this one knew that it would follow the fallout of a father (Paul Rudd) and a daughter (Jenna Ortega) running over a unicorn, but now that we’ve seen said trailer, it can be said quite definitively that A24’s usual customers will be locked right into this one.

The trailer kicks off with Elliot (Rudd) and Ridley (Ortega) having already beaten the unicorn in a game of chicken, leaving Ridley traumatized on an existential level. The setting quickly gives way to the estate of one Dell Leopold, the head of a pharmaceutical empire that happens to be in the middle of crisis management. Among the Leopold family is one Will Poulter, who seems to be the conduit of Death Of A Unicorn‘s dry, dark, acute, and effective sense of humor.

Anyway, the Leopolds get dollar signs in their eyes when presented with the unicorn, and proceed to use the various pieces of its corpse to develop magical drugs that can cure cancer, bestow their s with immortality, and pull off other such miracles. The catch? There’s another unicorn nearby, and it’s none too pleased about the fate of its fallen brethren. Cue the mythological carnage set against a remixed rendition of The Beach Boys’ “Good Vibrations.”

Beyond Rudd, Ortega, and Poulter, the film will also star Richard E. Grant (Saltburn, Argylle), Téa Leoni (Only Murders in the Building), Anthony Carrigan (James Gunn’s Superman), Sunita Mani (Mr. Robot), Jessica Hynes (The Franchise), and Steve Park (Mickey 17). It will serve as Alex Scharfman’s feature directorial and screenwriting debut, and will be blessed with a score from the legendary John Carpenter, which he’ll co-create with son Cody Carpenter and godson Daniel Davies.

At a glance, Death Of A Unicorn‘s themes will fly in the realm of greed and exploitation, with the Leopolds’ comeuppance at the hands (horn?) of a unicorn being a none-too-subtle indictment of the rich. In all likelihood, though, it won’t be as cut and dry as that. The heart of the film seems to be Ortega’s character Ripley, who appears to form some kind of bond with the unicorn that allows her to tap into a deep truth about the universe. So, as fun as it will be to watch some of the film’s more gonzo proceedings play out, all the keen eyes will be on Ortega as we watch this unravel.

Even better is the fact that we don’t have to wait too long for it. The film is scheduled for a spring 2025 release date, and A24 will have plenty of other goodies to tide us over until then, the biggest of which being The Legend of Ochi, the directorial debut of Isaiah Saxton featuring the likes of Willem Dafoe and Finn Wolfhard, wherein a little girl named Yuri (Helena Zengel) befriends a baby ochi (a mix between an orangutan, cat, and Grogu) and endeavors to return it to its family. That film hits theaters on Feb. 28.

There is one question that is a shadow over the human experience. What is the meaning of life?

This is a concept theologians have been debating for centuries. A24’s new horror film Heretic doesn’t exactly answer that question, but it does pose many relevant and thought-provoking ideas that follow the viewer long after the credits have rolled.

Hugh Grant terrifies in the role of the unsettling Mr. Reed, the last stop of the day for Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) as they spread the word for the Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This concept could have easily maligned the LDS church as works such as The Book of Mormon have done in the past. Instead, Heretic pulls an amazing hat trick. The film weaves a genuinely terrifying psychological tale while humanizing the religion at the center of it. Barnes and Paxton are young girls in the church, trying to find converts. However, as they sit on a bench in the beginning scenes, the discussion of their faith offers a different perspective that those outside the church may not consider.

This complex perspective on religion is followed throughout the film as they visit Mr. Reed, who has requested information about the faith. Though they are not supposed to enter a home without a woman present, Mr. Reed promises his wife is inside. The ensuing storm and promise of following the rules leads the Sisters into a trap.

Once inside, Mr. Reed ensnares them into a conversation, purposefully testing their devotion. The following film raises the complexities of religion in a truly fascinating way that also increases fear from the viewer. Heretic hinges on the performance of Grant, who many may be startled to see step out of his romantic comedy origins. Grant still employs the humor that he is known for, but here it makes the dark moments of the film all the more insidious.

As commanding as Grant in the role is, he meets his match in the performers who portray Barnes and Paxton. While the Sisters are ittedly at a disadvantage at first, they refuse to be beaten by the older gentleman. Thatcher in particular demonstrates her depth as a performer, bringing humanity to the religious community. Similarly, East plays the younger Paxton, who seems meek at the beginning of the film but becomes a force to be reckoned with as the hours race by.

These three actors are instrumental in pulling off the true terror at the center of Heretic. Horror films full of jump scares and predictable thrills are often in the zeitgeist. Heretic does the harder thing, and masterfully so. The film is terrifying because of the dread that drags the protagonists through Mr. Reed’s house. Nothing is threatening to jump out from the shadows. The terror is derived from Grant’s foreboding presence and the fear of what religion can bear. The climax of Heretic isn’t about escaping some literal monster but becomes a battle of wits between the patriarch of the house and the Sisters. The tension builds and builds until the final moments of the film.

But while the dialogue is razor-sharp and the performances beyond reproach, the culmination of the film falters slightly. Heretic hovers around the question if there is one true god or not. Mr. Reed offers one perspective and the girls offer another. But it isn’t totally clear what the film itself is trying to imply. Without getting into spoiler territory, the ambiguous nature of the end could be interpreted that there is no right or wrong answer. People believe what they will. But if this was the thesis, the ending confuses this message.

If Heretic has accomplished one thing, however, it is raising many questions that are impossible to not mull over. Mr. Reed has gotten to us all, demanding that we question our own beliefs. And there is no point to art if it doesn’t raise questions.

A24 is a studio that many will equate with horror films, and while the production company certainly has a knack for cheap thrills, it also has plenty more than that to offer. With the growth of the studio has also come bigger budgets, and thanks to Timothée Chalamet, an A24 film is setting the bar quite high.

Marty Supreme — a new film starring the Wonka actor and based on the life of professional ping pong player Marty Reisman — is officially the most expensive movie that A24 have ever made, on par with Dwayne Johnson’s MMA movie The Smashing Machine.

While rumor has it that Marty Supreme had a budget of $90 million, Deadline reports that the movie more likely cost around $70 million, which would put it right alongside The Smashing Machine as A24’s biggest-ever budget. That’s still nothing to scoff at. The movie is currently shopping buyers at this year’s American Film Market and to no surprise, it’s the most expensive project on offer at the event.

Seeing these numbers alongside Marty Supreme and The Smashing Machine might surprise you, and trust us, we’re surprised too. These two movies are both sports biopics that are in the hands of one of the Safdie brothers. It seems things at A24 are only going to get bigger and more expensive in the coming years, and that could certainly be a good thing.

With a bigger budget, the studio is allowing its creatives to recruit bigger talent and spend more to ensure that the projects meet exactly what they envisioned. Of course, $70 million is still a long way off of those eye-watering MCU budgets, but it’s still a reasonable amount and has proven in the past to be plenty enough to create something special.

Marty Supreme is based on Matry Reisman, a professional ping pong player who was active in competition during the 50s. He won two U.S. singles championships and more than 20 titles nationally and around the world. Safe to say he was quite the player.

Deadline explains that the movie isn’t just expected to be your normal sports biopic, but instead an adventure-comedy similar to The Wolf of Wall Street or Catch Me If You Can, both of which also chronicle real-life stories. If it manages to replicate the success of either of these films, that will be a big win for A24, which has already reached Oscar heights with award-winning films like Lady Bird, Minari, Moonlight, Room and Past Lives, to name a few.

Alongside Chalamet, the movie is also set to star Gwyneth Paltrow, Fran Drescher, Odessa A’zion, Sandra Bernhard, and even Tyler the Creator. Yep, not since Air have we seen a sports movie assembled this starry of a cast. Photos from the set have already begun surfacing on social media, with some even including Tyler on set with Chalamet. The pair are seen cruising in a taxi, and if that alone is enough to pique your interest, you can see more above.

Since the movie is still in its production phase, there is yet to be a release date or timeline given for when it will actually be here to watch, but expect more information about its sale to surface before we get to that point.

Earlier this year, acclaimed director Luca Guadagnino (Call Me by Your Name, Suspiria, Bones and All) teamed with scribe Justin Kuritzkes to unleash Challengers upon the world. A technically triumphant romantic drama driven by the leads of Zendaya, Josh O’Connor, and Mike Faist, Challengers quickly established itself as the film to beat all the way back in April.

Whether or not it still holds that title is up for debate, but either way, Guadagnino and Kuritzkes could very much be in the process of upstaging themselves with Queer, the long-awaited, Daniel Craig-led historical romance film that just unearthed its first trailer, and it looks every bit as hypnotic as the names involved would suggest.

Based on the William S. Burroughs novel of the same name, the 1940s-set Queer stars Craig as William Lee, a man who has fled to Mexico City after evading capture during a drug bust in New Orleans. As he drifts through the city, surviving off of part-time jobs and military benefits, he encounters discharged Navy serviceman and drug Eugene Allerton (Drew Starkey), and his infatuation with him blooms.

Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross also return from Challengers as Queer‘s composers, but you wouldn’t know it from the trailer. Where the duo tends to base their film scores in electronica, this first glimpse at Queer features a soft, acoustic drift that punctuates the film’s apparent interest in tenderness, redemption, and revolutionary — even mutinous — love. And yet, undertones of urgency abound, as they would for a queer man navigating 1940s Mexico City, let alone one who barely dodged the consequences of a drug bust.

Starring alongside Craig and Starkey are Jason Schwartzman, Lesley Manville (The Crown), and Henry Zaga (The New Mutants). Producing with Guadagnino himself is Lorenzo Mieli, who also served as a producer on Challengers. Cinematographer and frequent Guadagnino collaborator Sayombhu Mukdeeprom is also on board, as especially indicated by the last couple of seconds of the trailer, which promises a film that’s as visually stunning an experience as the best of the best this year.

The film’s source material, published in 1985, was an extension of sorts to Burroughs’ 1953 novel Junkie, wherein the protagonist William (the same William played by Daniel Craig here) was navigating his addictions to morphine and heroine. Queer (the novel) follows the aftermath of William breaking away from drug use, and it looks as though a similar, if not identical, backstory has worked its way into the adaptation.

This is not the first time that Queer has been sought out for the big screen. Back in 2011, Oren Moverman (producer on The American Society of Magical Negroes) penned an adaptation of the novel that was due to be directed by Steve Buscemi. That production, of course, never got off the ground.

But this one did, and we’re going to go out on a limb and say it’s in far better hands with Guadagnino and his resident Avengers (sans Timothée Chalamet). And while it may be the job of trailers to make their subjects seem worthy of awards, the narrative promise that Queer has made here just might earn it a handful of nods in due time. But for now, all eyes are on the end of autumn for when Queer begins its limited theatrical run in the United States on Nov. 27.

Thanksgiving is just around the corner, and we can almost smell it — the intoxicating aromas filling our homes with the scent of a perfectly stuffed, juicy turkey roasting in the oven, soft and savory mashed potatoes, and, of course, the deliciously sweet fragrance of cranberry sauce.

If reading that made you particularly excited about the Thanksgiving feast, get ready because I might just be about to ruin it for you — especially if blueberry pie is a staple in your household. As it turns out, you might experience the smell of blueberry pie without having to bake it yourself, simply by heading to the theater to watch Hugh Grant‘s new and terrifying film, Heretic.

Set for release on November 8, Heretic has a simple yet chilling premise. It tells the story of two young female missionaries who, against all odds, knock on the door of the “diabolical” Mr. Reed (played by Grant) and find themselves trapped in a deadly game of cat and mouse, according to the IMDb description. Now, you may be wondering: Where on earth do blueberry pie and trauma come into play? Well, allow us to explain.

As it turns out, Heretic includes a chilling scene in which Mr. Reed assures the young missionaries that his wife is in the kitchen baking a blueberry pie, allowing them to enter his home — since, for religious reasons, they couldn’t enter a man’s house without a woman present. However, once inside, the young women notice that there’s only a blueberry pie-scented candle in the room, with no wife or actual pie in sight.

For this particular scene, A24 — the company responsible for bringing this thriller to life — partnered with Joya Studio to create multi-sensory screenings, exclusively at Alamo Drafthouse theaters nationwide, for a limited time. On October 30, advance screenings of Heretic will be held at Alamo Drafthouse theaters, and sure enough, during the blueberry pie candle scene, audiences will begin to smell blueberry pie.

Regarding the logistics, Joya Studio uses a cutting-edge yet simple technique to fill the theater with the aroma. The studio uses atomization technology, which entails the use of cold-air diffusion to disperse scented molecules as fine, dry air without the use of heat, water, or alcohol to activate. If you’re impressed, we have to let you know that this isn’t the first time Joya Studio has teamed up with A24 either.

In 2022, the studio collaborated with A24 to create candles (scentless, we assume) based on the butt plug trophy from Everything Everywhere All at Once. These sensory experiences are not only incredibly alluring but they’re also highly effective marketing tools — the best of both worlds. If this interests you and you’re hoping to get tickets for the advance screenings, you still can by visiting the Alamo Drafthouse website, with prices ranging from around $14.50 to $31.40.

While speaking to Variety, directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods shared that the blueberry candle is a “a metaphor for blind faith and a disturbing reminder to question everything,” and that the very idea of a blueberry pie aroma made them cackle with laughter. “When we first heard A24’s bold idea to resurrect the multi-sensory experience to underline this crucial sequence it made us howl with laughter.”

If you were hoping to be fully traumatized by Mr. Reed and his fake blueberry pie but don’t have an Alamo Drafthouse theater nearby, don’t be too disappointed. You can still enjoy an immersive experience elsewhere. Specifically, if your local theater hosts advanced screenings, you may also have access to exclusive treats and scratch-and-sniff cards available for viewers. Fun!

Hot Items On Amazon This Week

Photo	Title	Price	Buy
	Apple AirPods Pro 2 Wireless Earbuds, Active Noise Cancellation, Hearing Aid Feature, Bluetooth Headphones, Transparency, Personalized Spatial Audio, High-Fidelity Sound, H2 Chip, USB-C Charging	$199.00
	Bluetooth Speaker with HD Sound, Portable Wireless, IPX5 Waterproof, Up to 20H Playtime, TWS Pairing, BT5.3, for Home/Party/Outdoor/Beach, Electronic Gadgets, Birthday Gift (Black)	$19.99
	Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K (newest model) with AI-powered Fire TV Search, Wi-Fi 6, stream over 1.5 million movies and shows, free & live TV	$49.99
	Stanley Quencher H2.0 Tumbler with Handle and Straw 30 oz | Flowstate 3-Position Lid | Cup Holder Compatible for Travel | Insulated Stainless Steel Cup | BPA-Free | Lilac	$34.35
	Crock-Pot 7 Quart Oval Manual Slow Cooker, Stainless Steel (SCV700-S-BR), Versatile Cookware for Large Families or Entertaining	$39.99

It feels almost serendipitous that a film like We Live in Time exists. To have two of our generation’s most magnetic, vulnerable, and charming actors, Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh, share a screen and a love story in such a carefully and tastefully constructed romance film feels special.

We Live in Time is directed by John Crowley (Brooklyn, The Goldfinch) — who had previously worked with Garfield in his silver screen debut in 2007’s Boy A — from a screenplay by Nick Payne. It follows a couple, Almut (Pugh) and Tobias (Garfield), over the course of a decade, as they fall in love, meet each other’s families, begin a family of their own, and battle terminal illness.

The contours of We Live in Time might feel overly familiar, maybe even dated, but its specifics are surprisingly novel and current. We meet these characters in their thirties, each living in their own particular socioeconomic context, with more or less developed careers, more or less enough money, and two very important past relationships that inform every decision they make regarding their newfound attraction for each other. Not only does this feel true to the reality of finding love in our day and age, but, much like the title suggests, the choice to portray two people in this distinct period of their lives forces the reflections on time (and how we choose to spend it) that permeate We Live In Time‘s entire runtime.

In your thirties, long gone is the wide-eyed recklessness of your ’20s, when everything is possible, and there’s little regard for the consequences for your future self of your current self’s actions and choices. On the other hand, you’re far from achieving the stability and routine of your forties, and there is still so much room for change and growth. Your thirties are really, and usually, the very last time you will have the whole world staring you down and asking you to make a decision regarding your love life, your family life, and your work life, for you’re approaching the phase where all those consequences finally catch up to you.

We Live in Time forces this evolution to an extreme when Almut is diagnosed with stage three ovarian cancer, her terminal illness pronouncing and emphasizing the urgency that was already there. By establishing this foundation, a whole world of possibility opens up for Crowley to explore the age of time and, for the most part, he revels in it — starting with the choice to present the narrative non-linearly through constant jumps in time between three parallel timelines in the couple’s relationship. A less capable and inspired director would have hidden behind the gimmick as nothing but a stylish whim, without realizing its potential to drive the story forward and amplify its message.

By jumping forward and backward (and forward again) between the past, present, and future, Crowley illustrates the interconnectedness of time as circular in shape, more akin to a skein of yarn than a straight line, and articulates the complicated causality of the first full decade of actualized adulthood — that every moment is a product of everything we have lived through, and every decision we have made. We don’t live independently of our history, we live in time, and a limited one at that. Cancer forces Almut and Tobias to face the ephemerality of life much sooner and much more intensely than they would have otherwise, though We Live in Time is more interested in expanding this meditation to anyone watching, regardless of how long they think they may live. The cancer, so to speak, is just a vehicle to make the issue more tangible.

One especially poignant scene sees Tobias deliberating between the future and the present, after he realizes he’s falling in love with a woman who might not want children, when becoming a dad is one of his dreams. It’s a tricky conversation to have, and We Live in Time‘s typically naturalistic and realistic tone gains a special brightness in this moment. The characters say the wrong thing and have a hard time explaining themselves, resulting in an aggressive defensiveness that pulls them apart. Almut is less concerned about the future, she’s someone who lives entirely in the present, whereas Tobias, who has recently overcome a painful divorce, sees any new relationship as an investment. He knows time is precious, and he has used too much of it already in a situation that didn’t yield the returns he had hoped for.

The cancer forces both to change their approach. Does Almut prioritize the little lifetime she still has left, or spend it sick from chemotherapy in the hopes of perhaps having more time in the future? Does she keep her reproductive organs in hopes of having a child one day and risk cancer recurrence, or remove them entirely? Meanwhile, Tobias must learn how to live in the present, and understand it might be just as important, if not more, than the future.

We Live in Time wraps these preoccupations brilliantly in the gorgeous paper of Florence Pugh and Andrew Garfield, whose faces and talents shine all the brighter when merged together, set alight by the leads’ easygoing, seamless chemistry and approach to their craft. The love story is soul-feeding and soul-crushing in all the right ways; their interactions believable and human, charmingly funny, and effortlessly loaded, propelled by Crowley’s minimalistic directing, and Stuart Bentley’s earthy photography that oscillates between warmth and coolness.

In the end, we’re left wishing only that the screenplay had gone a little further into, and with, these meaty ideas. The ending is too quick to release the tension that had been building up for over an hour, and too simplistic to feel truly satisfying after all the soul-searching the film had been inviting us to do.

We Live in Time is designed to make us emote, and it succeeds; it fluctuates between sensibility and tastefulness, never crossing into emotional manipulation. It’s a romance, no doubt, but you will find a lot more than just butterflies and tears between its frames. Even though it never strays too far from the surface, it raises pertinent questions about what we leave behind when we’re gone, and what we take with us — all while treating us to one of the best romantic pairings in recent memory.

I Saw the TV Glow doesn’t have the blood and guts typical of the horror genre. No, what it does have is far more terrifying than any machete or chainsaw-wielding maniac.

Written and directed by Jane Schoenbrun, the genre film is an unrepentant and harrowing allegory for the trans experience. I Saw the TV Glow follows two teens, Owen (Justice Smith) and Maddy (Brigette Lundy-Paine), who bond over a cult television series in the ‘90s. The series within the movie is called “The Pink Opaque,” and is heavily coded to reflect shows of the era, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The television show centers around two girls, Isabel (Helena Howard) and Tara (Lindsey Jordan) who, after meeting at a sleepaway camp, develop a psychic link and battle the forces of darkness together.

The film delves into how two people can become trauma-bonded when it seems that only a television series can understand you. That in itself would be a moving film, but I Saw the TV Glow then goes on to question the nature of Owen and Maddy’s reality. After Maddy disappears without a trace, “The Pink Opaque” mysteriously gets canceled, and Owen spirals into the darkness of mundane society. When Maddy returns 8 years later, she posits that “The Pink Opaque” wasn’t just a television series but perhaps could have been their true reality. Lundy-Paine spoke to CBR about the inherent themes present in the story.

“I think it’s always been a trans story. For me, I think from the beginning, when I first met Jane, we talked about what the story meant. And I think it’s cool because the root of it is what it means to be trans and what it means to blow up your life and choose to transition or choose to not.” 

These themes are integral to understanding the devastating and abrupt ending of I Saw the TV Glow.

What happens at the end of I Saw the TV Glow?

I Saw the TV Glow doesn’t contain dramatic calls to action or a rising climax. In true A24 fashion, the film is thought-provoking and culminates in a startling and heartbreaking end. When Maddy returns after almost a decade gone, Owen is desperate to know where she’s been. But once he learns the truth, he prefers that he hasn’t. Maddy posits that “The Pink Opaque” felt so real to them, particularly because it was. She instructs Owen to watch the series finale in hopes that he will understand. Owen watches in despair as Tara and Isabel have a tragic ending.

In the final episode, they lose the battle against the series-long Big Bad, Mr. Melancholy. He traps both the girls and removes their hearts before burying them alive. For the entirety of the film, Owen has been grappling with the sense that something is wrong with him. He tells Maddy that he feels empty and that if he opened himself up, he would be empty inside. This fact, along with his life-long asthma, makes him understand that he is Isabel. After drugging Isabel with Luna Juice and burying them, Mr. Melancholy sends Isabel and Tara into the Midnight Realm, a reality of unending torment where they live other people’s lives. 

Maddy came to this realization and buried herself alive in this reality, which allowed her to travel back to her true self as Tara in “The Pink Opaque.” But even when confronted with all this evidemce, Owen refuses to return to the television world with her. He doubles down on his life of torment, no matter how terrible it is.

For the next 20 years, he continues to work in an arcade where he gets a family and endures his breathing problems — a clear sign that Isabel is still suffocating in “The Pink Opaque.” Only later in life does he snap. In the middle of a child’s birthday party, he screams that he’s dying, finally coming to with the understanding he is in the wrong body and living the wrong life. 

He excuses himself to the bathroom, where he uses a box cutter to slice open his chest. He pulls apart the skin to reveal exactly what we all knew was true. Inside, he doesn’t have a heart but a glowing television, revealing the reality he is supposed to be in. The final shot of the film ends as Owen walks through the arcade, all sewn back up, apologizing to everyone for his outburst.

What does it all mean — I Saw the TV Glow’s stars weigh in

While the ending of I Saw the TV Glow may inspire many interpretations, one thing is certain. Schoenbrun wrote a personal film reflecting the pain and specific experiences of the trans experience. Lundy-Paine spoke to CBR about their take on the film.

“It’s like, finally people, trans people specifically feel like they’re not being lied to, or like corralled into saying, ‘But it’s all going to be okay.’ This is a movie that lets you feel like it’s not okay, and that’s really meaningful.”

Owen spends his life struggling with his identity, literally because he is not in his correct body. He is forced to live a false experience, not given the option of anything else. The Midnight Realm is an allegory for how struggles with gender identity can manifest and how many are forced into silence. Owen endures hateful rhetoric from his Midnight Realm father (Fred Durst), who does not allow him to return to his true form. Smith added to Lundy-Paine’s comments, adding his experience in how he related to the film.

“I feel like there is this like congruency between the way marginalized identities experience the world, you know, being a Black person and a queer person. I know the constant choice that I have to make in between, you know, suffering in silence or suffering in the open. What I mean by that is that when you hide bits of yourself, because you spend time you spend so much time assimilating, it causes you pain. It causes you emotional pain, but sometimes physical pain.”

Smith concluded even when people try to live as authentically as possible, there is not always a victory in that either. Society is an unaccepting place, and trans people who try to live as their true selves are not always accepted. This fact is represented most significantly when Owen walks back into the arcade and apologizes to every single person he sees for his outburst. The film posits that the trans community must apologize for simply existing in a cruel world. While some interpretations may point to the look of relief on Owen’s face when he finally opens himself up to see the truth, the ending seems to point in a dour direction. Owen still has breathing issues and does not appear to be taking steps to reunite himself with his real body. 

Maddy tells Owen earlier that Isabel has time before she dies, but not infinite time. The film doesn’t make it clear exactly how long the realities will allow her to live, and it creates an impression that Owen could die sooner rather than later. But as Smith points out, it is not easy to accept your true self and present that person to the world. Acceptance is not always a straight line, because, tragically, the world is not accepting of trans people. This reality makes the ending even more heartbreaking. Even if Owen decides to return to “The Pink Opaque,” it will never be an easy journey.  I Saw the TV Glow is thought-provoking, but more important, representative of many experiences that have not been portrayed on screen before. Schoenbrun’s film is, without a doubt, the most significant piece of art so far in 2024.

Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson might have his eyes on Oscar glory, as the former WWE wrestler is poised to take a more dramatic turn as Mark Kerr in the film, The Smashing Machine.

The A24-produced movie is directed by Benny Safdie, one half of the filmmaking duo known as the Safdie brothers, and is set to reunite Johnson with his Jungle Cruise co-star Emily Blunt. It will mark a departure from Johnson’s usual fare of comedies and action movies like Black Adam and Baywatch, and is set to begin production in May, 2024.

So, as Johnson looks to expand his acting chops with this biopic, who is the real-life subject that might see him collect an Academy Award?

What happened to Mark Kerr?

Mark Kerr is a former wrestler and mixed martial artist who will be the subject of The Rock’s movie, The Smashing Machine. The film derives its title from the nickname given to Kerr throughout his illustrious wrestling career, which he entered into at a young age. Kerr would go on to become a two-time UFC Heavyweight Tournament Champion, and featured in three tournaments throughout his MMA career. 

While The Smashing Machine will chronicle Kerr’s MMA pursuits, the highs and lows of the wrestler’s personal life might also form part of the story. Kerr struggled with substance abuse issues throughout much of adult life, and was specifically addicted to painkillers. The addiction wreaked havoc on both his personal and professional life, leading him to consistently underperform in the later stages of his career. 

The substance abuse bled into Kerr’s relationship with his now-wife, Dawn Staples, leading to an intense fallout and his hospitalization. Kerr went on to enter a rehabilitation facility, and patched things up with Staples before their marriage in 2000. Kerr retired from the sport in 2010, and has remained vocal about his struggles with addiction. In 2019, Kerr revealed he had been battling peripheral neuropathy since 2016. 

Kerr was the subject of the HBO documentary, The Smashing Machine: The Life and Times of Extreme Fighter Mark Kerr, which aired in 2002. As for his portrayal by Johnson, Kerr has been spotted training with the actor in the lead-up to the film’s production, with The Rock describing their relationship as a “brotherhood.”

Reflecting on the role and what it means for his career, Johnson said he is at a point where he “want[s] to make films that matter, that explore humanity and explore struggle [and] pain.” Boxing, wrestling and MMA has seen success at the Oscars before with films like Raging Bull and Million Dollar Baby, so don’t count Johnson out just yet.

Ever since it was initially announced, Crystal Lake, the much-anticipated Friday the 13th prequel series, has undoubtedly been on the radar for a large collection of ever-ionate horror fanatics. But is the future of the series truly as bright as it was before?

The aforementioned horror series, which was previously expected to be overseen by Hannibal showrunner Bryan Fuller, was equally set to serve as a prequel to the events in the long-standing Friday the 13th franchise — with a specific focus placed on famed baddie Jason Voorhees and his mother, Pamela Voorhees. However, it appears that some information behind-the-scenes and being switched around — which has now left the series seemingly up in the air and fans unsure of what direction the show will now head in, and if a cancellation is looming.

So with horror fanatics and Jason Voorhees defenders struggling to unscramble their brains and uncover exactly what is happening in regards to the once-anticipated series from Peacock and A24, let’s dive in and share everything we know about the show’s potential cancellation.

So, is Crystal Lake getting canceled?

Belief that the Friday the 13th prequel series could potentially be canceled originated from film critic Jeff Sneider, who insisted in his online newsletter that production house A24 had put a halt on the prequel series —- an update that immediately set die-hard horrorhounds into a panic.

Despite the Insneider report, however, horror site Bloody Disgusting has countered the news and insisted that Crystal Lake is not fully down and out just yet. Instead, sources have revealed that the prequel series is being “retooled” — which could mean anything from reshooting of scenes, rewriting of the plot points, or bringing in a new showrunner to oversee the first season.

Either way, we’re glad Crystal Lake still has a decent shot of being released to the public — especially since it’s been years since we’ve seen Jason Voorhees on the big screen.

Writer and director Alex Garland isn’t shy about making grand statements with his movies, be it the collapse of society in 28 Days Later, surreal alien encounters in Annihilation, or an atmospheric trip to the sun in Sunshine. But his newest, Civil War, may be his best yet.

Civil War takes place during the ‘Second American Civil War’ and follows a group of journalists making a dangerous trek across the United States. It’s a glimpse into a bizarre and terrifying world that feels as if it may be just around the corner in reality. But if you’re hungry to see a dystopian future United States, the world of cinema has your back:

1. The Purge (and its sequels)

Many films tackle the topic of social commentary extremely well, but the most terrifying ones just get more relevant with age. In the alternate future featured in The Purge movies, an extreme political party called The New Founding Fathers legalized all crime, including murder.

The first film dabbles in resonant themes as a Black homeless veteran, Dante (Edwin Hodge), takes refuge in a house after a gang of prep school yuppies try to kill him. And if you thought that wasn’t subtle enough the first go-round, you’re in luck. The rest of the films dive even deeper into systemic issues prevalent in America. Purge Night is something widely accepted by Americans, fetishing firearms and praying at the altar of violence. Like Civil War, these themes only get more realistic as time goes on.

2. Dredd

Alex Garland cut his teeth on screenwriting films such as 28 Days Later and Sunshine, but Dredd was his directorial debut. Though Pete Travis is officially credited for helming the comic book adaptation, Garland is acknowledged as being its true director after taking creative control over the project and Dredd is a precursor to many of his later films.

Crime is so prevalent in this dystopia that “Judges” are a combination of police and executioner, with the film is essentially the Training Day of this society. Taking place in one day, Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) takes a young Judge, Cassandra (Olivia Thirlby), under his wing on a high-octane trip through the Peach Trees tenement building of Mega-City One. Dredd represents the fear of where civilization is heading, like so many films of its ilk.

3. Red State

There’s a thin line between horror and humor, expertly balanced in Kevin Smith’s 2011 film, Red State. Smith’s history in comedy applies well to his critique of organized religion in America. The independent film features three friends who get more than they bargained for after replying to an online invitation for group sex.

After arriving at the location, they find that the ad was a rouse when they are drugged. Instead of having a night of debauched fun, they are delivered to an ultra-conservative preacher (Michael Parks) and his sect of religious fanatics. The film is horrifying in its own right because of the cult’s access to firearms, but even more concerning is how this story could be true to life.

4. Children of Men

There are many ways to fracture a society, and one of those ways is to stop reproduction. In the world of Children of Men, women have lost the ability to have children anymore. This has led humanity to become despondent, especially following the death of the youngest person on the planet at only 18 years old.

Theo Faron (Clive Owen) is just going through the motions until one day when everything changes. His former partner, Julian (Julianne Moore) enlists him to take a woman to the coast to safety. Theo is surprised to learn that the woman in question, Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey), is pregnant. The only hope for humanity, Theo gets back in the fight and does everything he can to escort her to safety. Alfonso Cuarón brings his visionary perspective to a film with incredibly bleak material but a shining light at the end of the tunnel.

5. District 9

In Neill Blomkamp’s found footage film, District 9, he posits an alternate world where unwanted entities in South Africa are cordoned off into slums. But these entities aren’t people. They’re aliens. A clear commentary on racism and xenophobia, the film follows Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley) as he and his company attempt to relocate the aliens outside of the city.

This metaphor is thinly veiled, but impactful nonetheless. Wikus starts ingrained in prejudice against the aliens but, following his exposure to them, sees the issues prevalent in society. District 9 shows the value of empathy and what happens when you don’t get it.

6. Snowpiercer

While Chris Evans was playing Captain America, he was also pulling doing double duty as a survivor at the end of the world. Snowpiercer, takes place in a dystopian world where efforts to combat climate change froze the earth. The only survivors are on a constantly moving train separated into caste systems. Those in the back of the train are the lowest class that subsist off of protein bricks made out of bugs.

The further you get to the front of the train, the more luxury you find. “Know your place” is a common theme of the film, as it is the only way the train keeps functioning. But though reluctant, Curtis (Evans) ultimately understands that the system cannot continue. Once again, Bong Joon-ho can distill societal issues in another aesthetically fascinating film.

7. Elysium

While not as effective as District 9, Blomkamp’s follow-up, Elysium, is a worthy addition to his social commentary collection of films. Matt Damon stars as Max, a citizen of an Earth ravaged by disease, pollution, and overpopulation.

Only the exorbitantly rich can afford to make it to Elysium, a space station where there is no poverty and everyone is healthy. But it is a fabrication that you can somehow work your way off Earth. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. A sickening allegory for the world we live in, Blomkamp shows just how bad society can get.

8. RoboCop

Blomkamp and Smith weren’t the first ones to think of social commentary. Paul Verhoeven was making socially conscious movies long before. His shining accomplishment is of course RoboCop. Not just a silly action movie about a robot shooting criminals, the 1987 film has a significant message at its heart.

In a dystopian version of Detroit, the police have become privatized and have gone forward with a program to make cyborg police forces. To do this, they lead police officer Alex Murphy (Peter Weller) into a standoff where he is killed. In using his body to create their machine, Alex retains none of his humanity and acts only on the whims of a private corporation. A wildly misunderstood film, RoboCop is as relevant today as it was when it was created — if not more so.

9. Red Dawn

If there is one thing that Red Dawn wants to communicate, it’s that war is hell. Even though the 1984 film stars all the young Hollywood actors of the time on the frontlines of World War III, it is an incredibly serious film.

After Russia invades the Midwest, high schoolers Jed (Patrick Swayze), Matt (Charlie Sheen), Robert (C. Thomas Howell), and Daryl (Darren Dalton) disappear into the woods to survive. Their families are thrown into camps and executed. And while some of them find love, many of them die or are hardened by their circumstances. Red Dawn is as anti-war as a film can get and more emotional than you may think.

10. V For Vendetta

Alan Moore may rip his film adaptations limb from limb, but V For Vendetta still has merit. The film by the Wachowski siblings shows an England that has turned fascist.

Evey (Natalie Portman) doesn’t the government, but there is little she can do before meeting the titular V (Hugo Weaving). Labeled a terrorist by the government, V only wants to free the people from the yoke of an unjust system. While it splits off from the source material substantially, at its heart, V For Vendetta encourages people to stand up against corruption.

Warning: This article makes multiple references to suicide. Viewer discretion is advised.

The Iron Claw has been met with acclaim from critics and audiences since its theatrical release in late December 2023, with much of the praise being directed at the performances surrounding the four brothers of the real-life wrestling family, the Von Erichs. The A24 biographical film has also been lauded for its examination of masculinity and mental health in the rise and fall of the iconic wrestlers, and the ultimate tragic deaths of all but one Von Erich brother, occurring between 1984 and 1993.

As is often the case with films that draw from historical and biographical works, The Iron Claw took several creative liberties to fit its desired cinematic narrative – including a more simplified biography of the Von Erichs, a controversial take on Fritz Von Erich’s parenting, as well as a missing brother. The facts surrounding the fates of the family differ from what was depicted on screen.

Fritz Von Erich (1929 – 1995)

Fritz Von Erich, the patriarch of the Von Erich family, started his career in college football. Fritz, born Jack Barton Adkisson Sr. never played the sport professionally after graduating, despite relocating to Canada to the Canadian Football League — something which soon turned out in his favor. While visiting the country, he was tapped by legendary wrestler-turned-trainer Stu Hart.

An icon of the wrestling world, Hart saw Adkisson’s potential as a “heel” — the primary villain in wrestling. His size and natural athletic ability made him a perfect match for a German villain, and in 1952, Adkisson and Walter Sieber started their iconic run as the Von Erich brothers, a role they would play until 1959.

During that time, Adkisson and his wife welcomed their first son, Jack Jr. At the age of 6, Jack Jr. died from an electrical shock that led to an accidental drowning death outside of the family’s Niagara Falls home. Jack was the first son of the Adkisson family to die, and by the time of Frtz’s death in 1997, he had outlived five of his six sons.

While Jack Sr. never stopped pursuing his career as a wrestler, he stopped touring the East Coast and left the region to his former partner. Adkisson continued his career grind, becoming a wrestling promoter and inheriting World Class Champion Wrestling (WCCW) after his business partner died of a heart attack in 1969.

He continued to tour the country scouting talent for WCCW while participating in matches, and even travelled overseas to rebuild the Japanese wrestling scene in the 1970s. Jack’s “Iron Claw” grip, a move involving gripping an opponent’s head before slamming them down, became one of the most popular moves in wrestling, helping to combine Japan’s predominant “Puroresu” Sumo style of wrestling with the more theatric elements of televised American wrestling. 

Adkisson’s last match came in 1986, just as the WCCW talent pool was running dry. By 1989, his company merged with the Continental Wrestling Association. Shortly after, Adkisson and his wife divorced in 1992 after 42 years of marriage.

Jack Adkisson died of brain and lung cancer in 1997. While holding an overall positive view of The Iron Claw film, Kevin Von Erich, the sole Von Erich son who survived Jack by the time of his death, stated that the film’s depiction of his father as an abusive mentor was inaccurate. The now 66-year-old stated that addiction, rather than upbringing, played a much larger role in his brothers’ premature deaths.

Kevin Von Erich (1957-present)

Kevin Von Erich, the then-eldest living Adkisson son, made his wrestling debut in 1976. With his natural good looks and charming personality, he was frequently used as a headliner for the WCCW, which he spent most of his life wrestling for. His first major success came in the late 1970s, as part of a tag team with his brother David. He wrestled for the WWF and the NWA and made a name for himself in the singles category by taking down Bruiser Brody, a hardcore brawler known for making his opponents bleed.

The Von Erich’s multi-year-long feud with the Fabulous Freebirds is still considered to be one of the best-worked stories in wrestling and one of the most memorable long-term feuds to date. David’s untimely death in 1984 put an end to the Freebirds story, but Kevin wrestled for years after, even mentoring a young “Stone Cold” Steve Austin in the late 1980s.

Adkisson never approved of his father’s decision to sell the WCCW at the turn of the decade, and took a brief hiatus in the early 1990s to focus on rebuilding the brand. His attempt was ultimately unsuccessful, and within the year he was forced to close it down yet again. He took a hiatus from wrestling during the venture but returned to the sport in 1991 when he ed the WWF.

Kevin retired in 2005, but two of his sons have continued on the Von Erich line. In 2017 at the age of 60, Adkisson made a brief comeback after a 22-year-hiatus when he appeared with his sons at The Rage Wrestling Mega Show. Kevin Von Erich was the only member of the Adkisson family to live to accept his induction into The WWE Hall of Fame in 2009, alongside his brothers posthumously.

Kevin Von Erich was not ed by The Iron Claw’s director, Sean Durkin, until after the screenplay had been finished. Kevin praised the final cut of the film, Zac Efron’s performance as him in particular, and even revealed plans to go on a trip with Efron to celebrate their newfound kinship.

David Von Erich (1958-1984)

With a fiery disposition that led to memorable interviews, David Von Erich was an instant hit after his mainstream debut in 1977. He made his first, and only, WWF appearance that year before transitioning to Florida and following in his father’s footsteps as a heel for Champion Wrestling. During his time in Florida, he teamed up with wrestler Gorgeous Jimmy Garvin, and the two began a year-long feud, becoming nemesis for the remainder of their season. By 1983, Von Erich had returned to Texas to compete with the Fabulous Freebirds in the first-ever Six-Man Championship, with his brothers, Kevin, and Kerry.

Just a few weeks later, David Von Erich died in a Tokyo hotel. While some have claimed that David’s sudden death at the age of 25 could have been from an unintentional overdose, the official coroner’s ruling cites enteritis, swelling of the small intestine, which the Von Erich family also believe to be the case. The disease can be contracted by several factors, such as underlying autoimmune disorders like Crohn’s disease, or contaminated food and drink. In The Iron Claw, David was portrayed by actor Harris Dickinson.

Kerry Von Erich (1960- 1993)

Kerry Adkisson spent more than a decade working for his father’s company, the World Class Championship Wrestling (WCCW). He made his debut in 1978, and had a consistent running feud with Ric Flair, one that would tie into the Fabulous Freebirds storyline. Kerry defeated Flair in 1984, just three months after David’s death, declaring the victory a tribute to his late brother. He lost the championship belt just 18 days later in a controversial match, although it was later revealed that the short reign was agreed upon before the match. 

In 1986, Kerry was in a near-fatal motorcycle accident that left his right foot mangled. According to Kevin, doctors managed to save his brother’s foot, but Kerry exacerbated the injury while attempting to walk after surgery. The resulting damage resulted in amputation, a fact only revealed posthumously.

He continued to wrestle after the accident, working for various promoters across the globe, winning several championship titles despite his hidden injury. During this time, Kerry developed an addiction to painkillers in order to continue wrestling after his injury.

Kerry died by suicide in 1993 at the age of 33, becoming the third Von Erich brother to die in this way. According to wrestling contemporary Bret Hart, Kerry felt that God had called upon him to his brothers at what he deemed to be the “right” time, which Hart believes occurred following a depression after the breakdown of his marriage.

In The Iron Claw, Kerry’s belief surrounding his predeceased brothers is depicted in one of the final scenes. When Kerry (played by Jeremy Allen White), is reunited with David, Mike, and Jack Jr.

Mike Von Erich (1964-1987)

Mike Adkisson made his wrestling debut in 1983, just before the Von Erichs’ famous family feud with the Fabulous Freebirds. The feud made up most of Adkisson’s career, but the young wrestler found success in international wrestling federations. Though his brother Kerry tried to give Mike a feud of his own after his 1986 accident, Mike never lived to see the match-up.

The young wrestler tragically died by suicide in 1987 at the age of 23, and was the first Von Erich brother to die by suicide. Many attributed his death to the pressure of living up to his late brother, David, but the wrestler suffered several traumatic brain injuries before his death.

He was diagnosed with Toxic Shock Syndrome after undergoing surgery for a shoulder injury, and brain damage resulted from the infection. The year he took his own life, Adkisson suffered from another Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), worsening his condition significantly.

Kevin Von Erich later said that the injury caused dramatic, more aggressive changes to his brother’s personality, citing an incident where his brother attacked a streetlight out of frustration over his condition. Such changes are thought to perhaps play a role in Kevin’s death by suicide. Mike was portrayed by Stanley Simons in The Iron Claw.

Chirs Von Erich (1969-1991)

The youngest son of Jack Adkisson grew up watching his brother’s successes. He frequently did odd jobs backstage and behind the WCCW’s cameras, and won his first wrestling match at the age of six. His youth prevented him from taking the stage during the company’s heyday, and though he made his debut at 20 in 1990.

At just 5’ 5”, Adkisson was significantly disadvantaged against his much larger brothers, but chronic illness prevented him from matching their strength. He suffered from severe asthma from a young age, and took Prednisone to suppress his immune system. The drug is known to cause bone and skin thinning, and Chriss regularly broke or fractured bones while performing wrestling moves within his skillset.

Despite such disadvantages in comparison to his brothers, Chris remained a fan favorite. Just prior to his 22nd birthday in September 1991, the youngest Adkisson took his own life. Despite the quick intervention of Kevin and his mother, Chris died 20 minutes after arriving at the hospital.

Chris Von Erich was omitted from The Iron Claw entirely, a decision that was met with controversy by fans of wrestling, as well as within the wrestling community itself. While many critics of this decision cited this choice as potentially disrespectful to Chris’ memory, filmmaker Sean Durkin argued the opposite was the case.

“There was a repetition to it, and it was one more tragedy that the film couldn’t really withstand,” Durkin explained to Variety. “These are characters on a page, and this is a film, and there’s no way you’re going to fully capture the life of a person in a film,” Durkin continued.

If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, you can call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline​ at​ 1-800-273-TALK (8255)​.