When “Our Hero, Balthazar“ began filling theaters across New York and Los Angeles without a Sundance launch, a major festival platform, or a traditional studio campaign, the film industry was caught off guard. The people who actually built the release, however, were not. The film, directed by Oscar Boyson and featuring an ensemble cast led by Jaeden Martell, Asa Butterfield, and Noah Centineo, alongside Avan Jogia, Chris Bauer, Jennifer Ehle, Anna Baryshnikov, Becky Ann Baker, and Pippa Knowles, launched in tandem with a fine art exhibition in a raw Brooklyn warehouse, with no traditional studio campaign behind it.

The exhibition, titled “American Wasteland,” was hosted by Relaispunkt, locally known as RP.1, the curatorial arm of Base 36, an independent cultural network that has built its own infrastructure outside the gallery establishment. Base 36 is the core; its projects are the extensions.

From Le Parti’s years of DJing and running after-hours and warehouse events out of his Brooklyn studios, the network took shape across cities: RP.1 operating out of Berlin, and across Los Angeles and Berlin, with a recurring presence in the Downtown Los Angeles and Skid Row area, “Play,” an after-hours and warehouse party, and “Sibyl,” an art advisory. All built on the same instinct: activate the space, own the infrastructure, don’t wait for permission.

The exhibition is the work of Jet Le Parti: a painter, poet, musician, and publisher whose practice has spent years accumulating force outside the channels that typically decide what gets seen. Where Boyson came up through the Safdie brothers’ orbit, producing “Good Time” and “Uncut Gems” before stepping into the director’s chair, Le Parti built his own orbit entirely. He is not an outsider artist in the romantic sense. He deliberately chose where to build, then built it.

When the two projects collided, it wasn’t a promotional alignment. It was two people investigating the same American crisis, arriving at the same room from opposite directions.

‘Our Hero, Balthazar’ Turns Rejection Into Sold-Out Success

Oscar Boyson has spent his producing career inside a gritty, unflinching tradition of American independent cinema, films about people on the verge of coming apart. As a director, “Our Hero, Balthazar,” co-written with Ricky Camilleri, the former HuffPost journalist turned screenwriter, and executive produced alongside Halsey, is his most direct engagement with the consequences of a collapsing masculine mythology.

The film zeroes in on the specific cruelty of the environments teenage boys are placed inside, tracking the fallout of edgelord internet culture and the performance of masculine identity in the attention economy. Where most films about this terrain reach for sociological distance, “Our Hero, Balthazar” stays close: drawing from the raw, proximate lineage of Larry Clark’s “Bully,” the performances refuse the safety of retrospective judgment. The team approached the release not as a standard theatrical run but as a deliberate cultural act: a film meant to be encountered inside an exhibition that was already asking the same questions.

When the film was turned away by Sundance and SXSW, the team refused to wait for permission to exist. They found a shared ethos in Peter Gold at WG, who architected the unconventional distribution play. Through a pipeline coordinated between WG, Picturehouse, Arkhum Media Rights, and Base 36, the film went directly to audiences. Base 36 and RP.1 connected their community to it, driving turnout, moving tickets, and contributing to multiple sold-out screenings across New York. It didn’t need a traditional campaign. It needed the right people in the right rooms.

This Exhibit Takes A Shocking Look At American Decay

The film’s reception cannot be separated from that room. Le Parti transformed the warehouse into an extensive study of late American decay, operating, as he typically does, outside the permitting logic that governs institutional spaces. His is a practice of accumulation and witness: he grew up in the American South inside the military apparatus, and his work has never metabolized that origin cleanly. What remains is violence absorbed as atmosphere, institutional failure rendered as aesthetic fact, the fatigue of endurance as formal principle.

“Rocketman,” a work by London-based Base 36 artist L.S. Toy, offers a frame-by-frame, photorealistic rendering of active-duty airman Aaron Bushnell’s self-immolation in protest of the Gaza war, holding the image at the scale the decision deserves. Toy’s practice is built around media-heavy subject matter: hyperrealistic paintings of scenes drawn directly from news coverage, political commentary rendered in industrial greyscale, and works that have tested the legal boundaries of image and currency.

‘American Wasteland’ Blurs Line Between Real And ‘Simulated’ Violence

Nearby, Le Parti’s “Pawn Shop” reconstructs the police scene from the street where his own brother was shot, refusing the distance between private catastrophe and public history. Alongside military diagrams and works like “Sisyphus,” treated here not as classical allusion but as a lived condition, the myth stripped of its consolations, the exhibition features collaborative image-works by Reign.925, the visual project of “Le Parti and Toy,” created together, where school-shooting imagery bleeds into “Call of Duty” aesthetics without ironic distance. The effect is a kind of double exposure: real violence and its simulation rendered indistinguishable, which is precisely the point.

The triptych “Phases of the Nuclear Option” maps the procedural steps toward annihilation in the calm, bureaucratic language of the military itself, the aesthetic of institutional inevitability. At the center of the exhibition is “Ramble,” a long poem from Le Parti’s self-published debut manuscript “Every Day Is a Countdown,” which tracks the evolution of modern violence from the manosphere to the mainstream. The show is, in essence, his poetry made spatial, a poet who refused to soften his language for traditional publishing and who built the room to hold it instead.

Noah Centineo Backs ‘Underground’ Art-Film Collaboration

The two projects grew from relationships outside the usual industry circles, and from a conversation that began, as many things in Le Parti’s orbit do, through Converting Culture, his editorial platform and magazine. It was there that the idea for the exhibition first took shape as something more than an idea: a felt necessity.

Noah Centineo, who appears in Boyson’s film and had long been a collector of Le Parti’s work, and Enzo Marc, whose Arkhum banner is also attached to the film as a production company, came in behind it together. Nobody was waiting on a grant. It came from people who already believed in each other’s work.

During the exhibition’s opening, Boyson articulated the link connecting the two mediums, asking: “Why does dark humor feel like the only way to find catharsis amongst the horror show we’re living in? And what would you call the horror show we’re living in? I mean, it’s the American wasteland, man.”

Le Parti’s answer was blunt. It’s all just atmosphere now, he said, people wake up, see a child die online, scroll to delivery options, order something, share a story, move on. Extreme violence has become ambient, absorbed into the scroll. Words are just noise. Maybe the art is too. But we’re still recording it. What Le Parti is describing is less a failure of empathy than a structural condition: a culture so saturated with images of its own catastrophe that outrage has become another content category. The exhibition doesn’t solve that. It just refuses to look away.

And the film, in its own way, is proof of the same condition. You don’t arrive at dark comedy about school shooters as a viable form of entertainment unless the culture has already done the work of normalizing the subject matter. “Our Hero, Balthazar” could only exist, could only find an audience willing to laugh and wince and sit with it, because the ambience Le Parti is describing has already settled in. The film isn’t commenting on desensitization from the outside. It was made from the inside. That’s what makes it a document as much as a film, a timestamp of exactly where America is right now, rendered in the only register the moment could hold.

‘American Wasteland’ Challenges How Stories Reach Audiences

Neither the film nor the exhibition is context for the other. They are operating on different registers of the same problem. Le Parti works at the systemic level, the military apparatus, the cultural infrastructure that normalizes violence, the long American tradition of absorbing catastrophe without consequence. Boyson works at the phenomenological level, two boys, one country, the specific texture of the damage done. The distinction matters: one maps the structure, the other inhabits it. Together, they argue that neither register is sufficient on its own.

Together, they pulled off what the conventional apparatus could not, and would not. “American Wasteland” and “Our Hero, Balthazar” didn’t prove a theory about independent distribution. They proved something older: that when the work is honest, and the room is right, the audience finds it. Institutions are optional.

“Our Hero, Balthazar” is currently in distribution through Picturehouse. “American Wasteland” was presented by RP.1 / Base 36, featuring works by Jet Le Parti, L.S. Toy, and Reign.925. “Every Day Is a Countdown” by Jet Le Parti is available through Base 36.

By Chris Snellgrove
| Updated 1 hour ago

Star Trek has some of the most passionate fans on the entire planet. For the most part, those fans are unified in their love for this decades-old sci-fi franchise. However, there are a few things the fandom has bitterly debated over the years. One of the most intense arguments involves a seemingly innocuous question: can Vulcans lie? Some fans are convinced that these logic-loving aliens are far too moral and upstanding to deceive anybody. Other fans believe Vulcans are fully capable of lying and have successfully convinced the galaxy that they always tell the truth.

This persistent Star Trek myth goes back to The Original Series and claims made by characters like Spock and Dr. McCoy. Eventually, this myth was busted by Tuvok, who reluctantly told Seven of Nine that Vulcans were capable of lying but generally preferred not to do so. After decades of fan debate, this finally settled the matter. However, what most fans don’t know is that Tuvok accidentally busted this myth far earlier in the show. In “Twisted,” he blatantly lies to Captain Janeway in a scripted exchange that seriously upset Tuvok actor Tim Russ.

The Man, The Myth

First, we need to talk about how the “Vulcans don’t lie” myth came about. Back in The Original Series episode, “The Enterprise Incident,” a Romulan commander asks Spock if it’s true that Vulcans can’t lie, and Spock responds, “It is no myth.” This idea is also backed up by Dr. McCoy, who offered his medical opinion on the matter in “The Menagerie, Part 1” when he says of Spock, “the simple fact that he’s a Vulcan means he’s incapable of telling a lie.” Even the android Data agrees. In the Next Generation episode, “Data’s Day,” he wrote a message to Bruce Maddox about how Vulcans couldn’t lie.

If you pay close attention, though, Spock himself sometimes justified telling blatant lies. In The Wrath of Khan, when Saavik realizes Spock told Kirk that Enterprise repairs would take longer than they did, she confronts him: “You lied!” Spock (who was speaking in code to Kirk) simply replies, “I exaggerated.” In The Undiscovered Country, his apprentice, Valeris, does something similar. When asked to name her fellow Starfleet traitors, she says she does not remember. When Spock asks, “A lie?”, she responds, “A choice.”

A Secret Onscreen Lie

When he began working on Star Trek: Voyager, Tuvok actor Tim Russ seemingly bought into the idea that Vulcans don’t lie. In an interview with Cinefantastique, the actor discussed some dialogue from the episode “Twisted” that he disagreed with. “There’s a line in an episode we just finished, ‘I’ve always respected the Captain’s decisions.’ And that line was difficult to say.” Elaborating, he said, “[The] line was difficult to say when, in fact, we know he […] violated protocols [in ‘Prime Factors’] by taking matters into his own hands.” He’s referring to an earlier incident where Tuvok traded Starfleet technology to aliens for technology that could transport the Voyager crew 40,000 light-years.

To those closely watching Star Trek: Voyager, this settled the old debate: Vulcans can lie, as we saw Tuvok do to Captain Janeway. On other occasions, Tuvok has found ways to (like Spock before him) justify his deception. After he tells Chakotay, “As a Vulcan, I am at all times honest,” the commander says that Tuvok clearly lied when he passed himself off as a loyal member of the Maquis. Tuvok replies, “I was honest to my own convictions within the defined parameters of my mission.” To this Vulcan, it seems, lies are in the eye of the beholder.

A Borg Assimilates The Truth

Later, Star Trek: Voyager would bust this old franchise myth in a much more blatant way. In the episode “Hunters,” Seven of Nine asks, point-blank, if Vulcans can lie. Tuvok reluctantly admits to her that Vulcans have the capability of lying, but that he has never found it useful or necessary. Given Tuvok’s previous moral flexibility, this information might square the circle with the line about always respecting Janeway’s decision. In Tuvok’s mind, he may respect her decision without following it. 

With any luck, this helps settle the debate, once and for all. Vulcans can lie. They just mostly choose not to do so. This explains what they are capable of while also explaining their reputation for honesty. If nobody ever sees you lying, why would they doubt you are honest? If you doubt what I’ve written, though, you can always wait until First Contact Day and ask the first Vulcan you see about all this. Don’t worry: I’m sure he’ll tell the truth! 

Overshadowed by actors in his wake like James Gandolfini, Jon Hamm, and Bryan Cranston, David Duchovny is quietly one of the most accomplished television stars of his generation. Before the prestige television boom in the 2000s, The X-Files pushed the envelope for episodic storytelling. After playing Fox Mulder on the Fox mystery series for 194 episodes, Duchovny could’ve made a living off playing true believers in the supernatural and otherworldly existence in any genre.

For his X-Files follow-up, however, Duchovny graduated to premium cable to play the anti-Mulder, a misanthropic writer who doesn’t want to believe anything other than his hedonistic urges. Californication, airing on Showtime for seven seasons, was the Emmy winner’s victory lap, tracking his on-screen versatility. Now charting high on the Apple TV Store, the dramedy deserves your consideration as one of the unsung gems of the prestige TV era.

What Is ‘Californication’ About?

Created by Tom Kapinos, hailing from the Dawson’s Creek writers’ room, Californication follows Duchovny as Hank Moody, a self-loathing, narcissistic author struggling with a long-term case of writer’s block. While gifted in his prose, Hank’s addiction to alcohol, drugs, and sexual escapades has made him radioactive in the publishing industry and a force of self-destruction that alienated him from his former partner, Karen (Natascha McElhone), and their daughter, Becca (Madeleine Martin). Through a series of shenanigans and genuine acts of reformation, Hank hopes to reconnect with his family, all while navigating his tumultuous career under the guidance of his manager, Charlie Runkle (Evan Handler).

Running from 2007 to 2014 across 84 episodes, Californication earned David Duchovny a Golden Globe for his performance as Hank Moody. Similar to Fox Mulder, Hank is steadfast in his belief in a higher power, but in this case, he’s convinced that life is hell, as his claim to fame is the acclaimed novel titled God Hates Us All. Deep down, though, Hank isn’t as much contemptuous of the world as he is resentful of himself. Not only is creative writing psychologically draining, but the business apparatus surrounding it is especially poisonous, especially when Hollywood studios are adapting watered-down versions of his work on the big screen. Hank’s internal angst is an archetypal case of midlife crisis, but his approach to handling these woes goes beyond buying a sports car or dating a partner decades his junior. Rather, Californication enters each season pondering whether Hank will make it through without being sentenced to jail or death.

‘Californication’ Balances Raunchy Comedy With Sincere Family Drama

While it lost its way in the back half of its run, Californication‘s early seasons are superb, striking a perfect chord between raunchy comedy and poignant drama that grappled with serious issues such as addiction and fatherhood. Hank’s various hijinks caused by his promiscuity and debauchery were en vogue at the time, and they still feel fresh thanks to the show’s pointed criticism of the character. Because he’s played by Duchovny, it’s hard not to be amused by his candor and brash sensibilities, but the actor imbues all the character’s actions with pity and even darkness. Although he acts like he doesn’t care, Hank is actively calling for help during his bouts with the law, scandalous affairs, and conflicts with publishers. The series is also an accurate, if not cathartic, look into the writer’s process and how defeating it can be for even the sharpest minds. On top of it all, Californication tackles the intersection between art and commerce, which kicks into a new gear when Hank tries his hand at writing screenplays.

If the focal point of the narrative revolved around Hank’s career prospects, Californication wouldn’t have an ounce of its dramatic undercurrent, nor would you even really care that much about this egotistical cynic. What makes the audience pull for Hank is his determination to get his life on track by winning over Karen and Becca, two strong-minded individuals who refuse to tolerate his toxic behavior. Thanks to the conviction in Duchovny’s performance, you’re convinced that he’s actively fighting the demons inside his heart and soul to finally settle down. McElhone also shines as an aggrieved ex-girlfriend who can’t walk away from Hank, and she goes toe-to-toe with Duchovny in every scene, matching his grating persona with a steely defense. Both a raw family drama and a witty showbiz satire that unpacks the seedy side of Los Angeles, Californication will surprise you with its layered characterization that upends the norms for raunchy comedies set in a sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll culture.

There are various things you could focus on when it comes to trying to define which sci-fi movies are the most realistic, because maybe a realistic sci-fi movie is one that gets predictions right. Or maybe it’s more important whether it felt believable at the time. Or a bit of both can be considered. Or, an outlandish idea can be taken and made to feel realistic.

There aren’t as many outlandish idea films below, with more of a focus on films that felt like they could’ve become true one day, or still feel like they might be eventually proven prescient. If you want science fantasy movies, then these are not the films you are looking for. But if you’re into hard science fiction, and sci-fi that keeps things realistic (or realistic-feeling), then you’re in the right place.

10

‘The Andromeda Strain’ (1971)

Image via Universal Pictures

Based on the Michael Crichton novel of the same name (and doing a solid enough job as far as adaptations go), The Andromeda Strain is about the discovery of an extraterrestrial organism brought to Earth via a crashed satellite. There’s also a great many deaths in a small town near to where the satellite landed, which raises the issue of things turning into a full-on viral outbreak.

Yes, it’s one of a fair few virus-related movies released in the decades before the world was changed by an actual full-on global outbreak, so whether that makes The Andromeda Strain more or less interesting nowadays… eh, it’s up to you. There’s a real emphasis on science here, more so than most science fiction movies, and that makes The Andromeda Strain a bit dry and almost too methodical in its approach to the premise at hand, but those qualities are also admirable, on the other hand.

Image via Warner Bros.

Contact is easy to compare to Arrival (2016), which might well be the better film, but Contact is probably even more grounded, and it was also based on a novel by Carl Sagan, who co-wrote the screenplay, too. And Sagan was a scientist first and a novelist/screenwriter second, so it’s not too surprising, then, what Contact chooses to focus on narratively and thematically.

It’s about possibly finding evidence of extraterrestrial life, then looking at what might logically happen in the lead-up to making actual, you know, contact with said potential extraterrestrial life. It’s more than solid as a piece of science fiction, though maybe less engaging if you’re after something that’s more broadly entertaining or blockbuster-ish in nature (plenty of other movies out there like that, though, including some by the director of Contact, Robert Zemeckis).

8

‘After Yang’ (2021)

Image via A24

There’s a real lack of flashiness in After Yang, and even if there’s a pretty strong sense of drama throughout, it’s not really heightened or big in any way. Call it a slow-burn, if you want, or the kind of film that’s much more concerned with characters over narrative, but the approach works, so long as you’re willing to be patient.

Essentially, After Yang is kind of a family drama, but the family is made up of a married couple, an adoptive daughter, and an android son. The android starts to experience problems, which threatens the whole family unit and forces them to slowly confront the idea of life without – or after – Yang, the android. Lots of the realism comes from the scope being limited, so huge special effects aren’t really needed to showcase a different/futuristic world, and the way it’s all acted and paced. The lifestyle and family dynamic explored here both feel very natural and, for lack of a better word, real.

7

‘Gattaca’ (1997)

Image via Sony Pictures Releasing

It’s not directly said when Gattaca takes place, but the setting is a somewhat dystopian one mostly defined by the fact that eugenics is commonplace, and all the genetic selection makes births that take place by more natural means rare. The protagonist, played by Ethan Hawke, was born outside the eugenics program, and so he is discriminated against and feels as though he has to work harder in certain areas of life.

From there, you can unpack Gattaca as something that comments on more present-day or past kinds of discrimination, or something that looks at the sorts of hardships that could occur in a future where genetic selection plays more into the act of giving birth. That’s all to say there’s a lot to think about with this fairly believable take on near-futuristic ideas/issues, and there’s also a bit to feel, when it comes to Gattaca, since there’s something of a love story in here, too.

6

‘Gravity’ (2013)

Image via Warner Bros. Pictures

It was internally debated whether Gravity should even go here, since it’s more of a survival/thriller film that just so happens to be set in space, and not deep in space, either. It’s all rather mundane for something that could be considered science fiction, but it does explore the effects of the Kessler syndrome in a manner that has not happened to Earth… yet.

There are new things explored, to some extent, even if the spacewalk mission that goes wrong is pretty low-key, at least initially. It’s still easier to call Gravity science fiction than something like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, which do indeed go into space, but explore real-life things that happened as part of actual space programs. Anyway, Gravity has some realistic things (it certainly looks and feels real) alongside some inaccuracies, but there’s enough of the former to make it feel worth including here. It’s also an impressive ride of a film, not to mention one with a very satisfying and cathartic finale.

5

‘Moon’ (2009)

Image via Sony Pictures Releasing

Anything that can be said about the premise of Moon runs the risk of sounding like a spoiler, so there’s your warning. The biggest reveal won’t be discussed, but you sort of have to hint at it, otherwise, it’s a movie you can only really summarize as being about a guy who is the only human being at a mining site on the Moon. There is also GERTY, who’s an AI assistant.

There’s a mundane sort of quality to Moon early on, and then even when things get a bit wilder and more outwardly sci-fi in nature (rather than being mostly a slice-of-life thing about loneliness on the Moon), there’s still an attempt to explore such stuff in a relatively believable way. It gets the balance right, with the whole thing being entertaining, interesting, unique, and eventually thought-provoking, too.

4

‘Ex Machina’ (2014)

Image via A24

Of all the movies about AI made in the last decade and a half, Her (2013) might’ve been better than After Yang, and perhaps even a little better than Ex Machina, too, but those non-Her films just feel a bit more real. Her’s idealism was nice, and maybe even still is nice, but something like Ex Machina, which has a more cynical approach to AI overall, just feels more realistic and/or believable, nowadays.

There’s a humanoid robot with advanced artificial intelligence in Ex Machina, and she ends up becoming alarmingly self-aware, posing a threat to her creator and another man who won a contest to see the robot in action before the rest of the world. It works as a sci-fi drama that builds tension enough to eventually also feel like a thriller, with it being engaging on all those fronts, plus lots of it feels genuinely convincing, too.

3

‘Primer’ (2004)

Image via StudioCanal

Understandably, Primer has a reputation for feeling like the most grounded and plausible of all the movies out there that deal with some kind of time manipulation, whether you want to call it a time loop or a time travel-related story. There are two guys, and they have a device that lets them experience time backwards, so as long as things are set up properly, being inside the device for five hours will lead to going back five hours in time.

That’s simplifying things a little, but you do need to keep things brief when summarizing Primer in only so many words. There are so many interesting complications, dilemmas, and outright bizarre events that occur once the device’s capabilities are stretched, and the movie sort of dares you to keep up. Even if things fly over your head on a first watch, it remains compelling, and – as everyone says – the fact that Primer was done on so small a budget is also very much worth celebrating and admiring.

2

‘Children of Men’ (2006)

Quite a lot has been written about watching Children of Men some years after its initial release, and only a little is going to be written here. Put simply, it feels like one of the most regrettably prescient science fiction movies in recent memory, and maybe some of that comes from it being set 21 years in the future, which is, at the time of writing, pretty much the present, but even then.

Children of Men does have global infertility as the biggest problem its dystopian world is facing, and there isn’t anything in real life that’s as existentially devastating, but there are so many fears around various things in the last couple of decades that could destroy humanity, eventually. There was unease in the 2000s, when Children of Men was made, and it was a film with heightened unease, showcasing a worst-case scenario for what was then the near-future. Now, time has caught up, and the worst-case scenario feels a little more believable. Again, that’s simplifying things, but there are plenty of other think-pieces out there about the soul-crushing prescience of this film.

1

‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (1968)

Image via Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

An easy pick, sure, but hopefully also a welcome one, 2001: A Space Odyssey is likely the film people think of first when they hear the term “hard science fiction.” It’s also successful in living up to the “Odyssey” part of its title even more than the “2001” and “Space” parts, though it’s certainly willing to tick those off, too. Basically, 2001: A Space Odyssey is about human evolution across a mind-bendingly long period of time.

Part of that involves the distant past, and some of it seems to involve the near future, while the center of the film is a little more concerned with events that happen in and around the titular year. While the scope of 2001: A Space Odyssey is much grander, it shares something in common with the far more intimate aforementioned Primer: rewatches of either prove very rewarding. Also, even if 2001: A Space Odyssey had some predictions that were off, they felt realistic at the time. And then there’s the fact that almost all the special effects hold up, keeping some of the film’s most impressive sequences still looking very much believable all these decades later.

Advertisement

2001: A Space Odyssey

Advertisement

Release Date

April 10, 1968

Runtime

149 minutes

Advertisement

Director

Stanley Kubrick

Advertisement

Writers

Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke

Advertisement

• 

  Keir Dullea

  Dr. David Bowman

  Advertisement
• 

  Gary Lockwood

  Dr. Frank Poole

  Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Jessica Alba has no plans to get her boyfriend, Danny Ramirez, to sign a prenup if they walk down the aisle.

The actress reportedly sees prenups as the “least romantic thing,” and although her friends are worried about her stance, she does not share the same concerns.

Jessica Alba and Danny Ramirez were linked nearly a year ago and have often flaunted their love in public.

Nearly one year after Jessica Alba and Danny Ramirez were linked romantically, the duo’s relationship still appears to be going strong.

Now, sources have claimed that the actress is even ready to marry her beau, and when that time comes, she is not considering having him sign a prenup to protect her wealth.

One insider told Star Magazine that Alba sees prenups as “the least romantic thing,” which goes against her romantic personality.

What’s more, she reportedly wouldn’t even consider walking down the aisle if she didn’t trust Ramirez.

“She cringes at the idea and says if she is going to marry someone, it’s because she knows their character and trusts them,” the source added about Alba, who is reportedly worth $60 million.

They continued, “If she feels she needs a prenup to ‘protect’ herself, she’s not going to get married. To her, that’s a sign something is wrong.”

The Actress Wants People To Stop Bugging Her About Getting A Prenup

Alba’s stance is said to have left her friends worried, especially since her previous marriage to Cash Warren reportedly did not include a prenup. In their divorce settlement, she was told to pay him $3 million dollars in two installments: Half in 2026 after finalizing their split and the other half in 2027.

Despite this and her friends’ fears, the actress is reportedly still not a fan of prenups and “wants people to stop bugging her about it.”

Meanwhile, what concerns Alba’s friends even more is the feeling that she may be rushing into marriage, considering how recently her relationship with Ramirez began.

“They feel like she’s rushing way too fast and isn’t thinking straight, but there’s nothing they can do,” the insider revealed. “She’s totally lost in this guy.”

Still, despite their worries, Alba’s friends are not against Ramirez, as they can see how much he is also invested in the actress.

“He treats Jessica like the queen she is, and there’s never any drama or even a hint of a wandering eye. It’s easy to see why she’s fallen so hard for him,” the insider added about the “Top Gun: Maverick” actor.

Jessica Alba Is Calling The Shots In Her Relationship

In public appearances, Alba and Ramirez have looked like the perfect couple, with their good looks complementing each other.

But behind the scenes, Alba is reportedly calling the shots in the relationship, and her boyfriend has no issue with her taking the lead.

“Danny’s happy to play by Jessica’s rules because he wants this thing to last,” a source told Star at the beginning of the year.

The Actress Already Has A Huge Influence On Danyy Ramirez’s Life, Sources Claim

The insider claimed that there were already several changes in Ramirez’s life stemming from Alba’s influence, which they noted was proof of the couple’s relationship dynamics.

“You can already see some of the changes she’s implemented in Danny’s personal style, his hair and grooming, and the smoldering vibe he projects whenever he and Jessica are out together,” added the source.

While some may see it as Ramirez putting on a faux persona, the source claimed that isn’t the case, and that the actor is keen on making any adjustments Alba wants in order to keep her happy.

Jessica Alba And Danny Ramirez Might Tie The Knot This Year

Last year, reports obtained by Star claimed that there is a strong possibility the duo will tie the knot in 2026, although no exact date was given.

“They’ll be husband and wife within the next year because things are going so strongly in that direction,” a source said at the time, adding, “Danny isn’t going to screw this up.”

To the duo, their 10-year age difference is reportedly not an issue despite outside concerns over it. The source claims this is due to Ramirez being very different from Alba’s ex in terms of attitude.

“There’s a bit of an age difference between them, but Danny is a mature guy, and he may be a little cocky, but he’s not an egomaniac, and he isn’t anything like Cash when it comes to his attitude and the way he is around Jessica,” noted the insider.

HBO’s “Euphoria” is back, but instead of just storyline buzz, the spotlight is once again landing on rumored off-screen drama between its biggest stars. And now, an actress from the hit show is setting the record straight amid ongoing speculation about tension between Sydney Sweeney and Zendaya.

Jessica Blair Herman, who appears in the series as a neighbor to Sweeney and Jacob Elordi’s characters, pushed back on the rumors during a recent interview. “They really did,” she said of the cast getting along. “And I’m not just saying that.”

Herman doubled down, insisting there was “no drama” behind the scenes, adding, “Really, they’ve created this beautiful working relationship, and everyone wants to do the work, to come in and do the job.”

According to Herman, one major factor fueling the rumors is simply how the show is structured. “To be fair, when I was there, they’re not sharing scenes,” she explained. “Their storylines are very separate, you’re shooting on different days and stuff.” That separation has likely contributed to fan speculation, especially as viewers continue to analyze every public interaction between the two actresses.

‘Euphoria’ Actress Insists Zendaya And Sydney Sweeney Have ‘No Drama’

Rumors reignited earlier this month at the Season 3 premiere, where social media users claimed Sweeney and Zendaya appeared to avoid each other on the red carpet. Clips quickly circulated online, with fans dissecting body language and interactions, including moments where Zendaya was seen chatting with Hunter Schafer while seemingly not engaging with Sweeney.

The chatter only intensified after Sweeney was noticeably missing from a Season 3 cast photo, though a source later claimed she was filming at the time. Still, the moment added fuel to years-long whispers of tension, which have also been linked to rumors involving Zendaya’s boyfriend, Tom Holland.

Sydney Sweeney Slams ‘MAGA Barbie’ Label

Beyond feud speculation, Sweeney has also faced online scrutiny over her perceived political stance, with some critics labeling her “MAGA Barbie.”

Earlier this year, she addressed the controversy, pushing back against how she’s been portrayed. “I’ve never been here to talk about politics. I’ve always been here to make art, so this is just not a conversation I want to be at the forefront of…” she said. “I think because of that, people want to take it even further and use me as their own pawn.”

Sweeney also admitted the situation has been frustrating to navigate. “I haven’t figured it out. I’m not a hateful person. If I say: ‘That’s not true,’ they’ll come at me like: ‘You’re just saying that to look better.’ There’s no winning. There’s never any winning,” she said. “I just have to continue being who I am, because I know who I am. I can’t make everyone love me. I know what I stand for.”

Zendaya has also been vocal about her views in the past, including a 2020 Instagram post on voting rights where she wrote, “Vote this MF out.”

‘Euphoria’ Season 3 Sparks Backlash Over Sydney Sweeney’s Controversial Cassie Scene

The off-screen chatter isn’t the only thing stirring debate. “Euphoria” has already faced backlash, which started just one episode into Season 3. Fans quickly sounded off online over a controversial scene involving Sydney Sweeney’s character, Cassie, with many criticizing the moment as over-the-top and uncomfortable.

In the episode, Cassie is seen dressed as a dog while creating content for her followers, later telling Jacob Elordi’s Nate that she wants to start an OnlyFans account to fund their wedding, a plot point that immediately sparked debate.

‘Euphoria’ Creator Sam Levinson Defends Controversial Scene

Show creator Sam Levinson addressed the controversy, explaining the scene was intentionally designed to feel jarring. “[Cassie] has got her dog house and her little dog ears and the nose, and that has its own humor, but what makes the scene is the fact that her housekeeper is the one filming it,” he told The Hollywood Reporter. “What we wanted to always find is the other layer of absurdity that we’re able to tie into it so that we’re not too inside of her fantasy or illusion. The gag is to jump out, to break the wall.”

Levinson added that the moment was meant to underscore just how disconnected Cassie has become from reality, with the creative team, including cinematographer Marcell Rév, carefully crafting the setting to amplify that unsettling tone.

With nearly a hundred books to his name, Stephen King is one of the most prolific and celebrated authors of our time, widely acknowledged as the master of horror. From haunted hotels and ghostly supermarkets to possessed prisoners and mysterious shopkeepers, King’s work has covered every shade of terror, both supernatural and psychological, and his works have been adapted for the screen numerous times over the years. But the problem with being so prolific and having so many adaptations of your work is that some are better than others.

Netflix has a sizable collection of titles adapted from Stephen King novels and novellas in its catalog, including shows and movies based on some of his most gripping, chilling, and thrilling works. So if you’re a fan of the King of Horror, there’s a lot to choose from on the streaming platform, but if you’re looking for the best of the best, we’ve got you covered. Here’s our ranked guide to the best Stephen King movies and shows you can watch right now on Netflix.

7

‘Firestarter’ (2022)

Image via Blumhouse Productions

Directed by Keith Thomas, Firestarter is a sci-fi horror thriller based on King’s 1980 novel and a remake of the novel’s 1984 film adaptation by Mark Lester. The film tells the story of Charlene “Charlie” McGee (Ryan Kiera Armstrong), a troubled little girl with anger issues and dangerous pyrokinetic abilities who is hunted down by a secret government agency that seeks to control her. The film also stars Zac Efron, Sydney Lemmon, Kurtwood Smith, Michael Greyeyes, Gloria Reuben, and John Beasley in his final film role.

2022’s Firestarter received much tougher criticisms than the 1984 adaptation, with critics panning the film for its uninspired narrative and lack of thrills. With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 10%, it is definitely not one of the better screen adaptations of Stephen King’s stories, nor is it one of Blumhouse’s best productions. That being said, the film’s campy quality might find its audience in genre fans seeking a totally escapist streaming movie.

6

‘In the Tall Grass’ (2019)

Image via Netflix

A Canadian supernatural horror thriller written and directed by Vincenzo Natali, In the Tall Grass is an adaptation of the eponymous novella written by Stephen King and his son, Joe Hill. The story follows a pregnant young woman and her brother on the drive to San Diego, who are drawn into a field of grass by a little boy’s cry for help and soon find themselves lost in a primal horror. The film stars Harrison Gilbertson, Laysla De Oliveira, Avery Whitted, Will Buie Jr., Rachel Wilson, and Patrick Wilson.

Combining themes of the paranormal, philosophical, and mystical, In the Tall Grass is both engaging and terrifying. The film thrives mostly in the claustrophobic atmosphere of the never-ending maze of towering grass and the cosmic horror narrative. On its release, the movie earned a mixed response, with critics praising the film’s faithfulness to the original story and the way it successfully translates the source material’s atmosphere to the screen, and it also earned positive reviews for Patrick Wilson’s compelling performance.

5

‘Mr. Harrigan’s Phone’ (2022)

Image via Netflix

Written and directed by John Lee Hancock, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone is an adaptation of King’s novella from the collection If It Bleeds. The film follows Craig, a teenage boy who befriends the titular billionaire, but after Mr. Harrigan dies, Craig discovers that he can communicate with his friend from the beyond. Donald Sutherland stars as John Harrigan, Jaeden Martell as Craig, with Joe Tippett, Kirby Howell-Baptiste, and Cyrus Arnold in supporting roles.

Mr. Harrigan’s Phone is part supernatural horror story and part coming-of-age drama, exploring grief, technology addiction, and revenge in a grounded, emotional narrative. Unlike generic horror films whose core purpose is to incite fear of an impending doom, the Netflix film is more character-driven, diving into Harrigan and Craig’s particular character arcs and their dynamics. While the film had mixed reviews on its Netflix premiere, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone was deemed “brilliant” by King, and it is a well-made horror film that the author’s fans are sure to enjoy.

4

‘11.22.63’ (2016)

Image via Hulu

Advertisement

Based on Stephen King’s 2011 novel, 11.22.63 is a sci-fi thriller miniseries developed by Bridget Carpenter and produced by J.J. Abrams. James Franco stars as Jake Epping, a divorced English teacher who travels back in time to the 1960s to prevent the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. But when he starts getting attached to his new life in the past, it puts his mission and history itself in danger. The show also features Chris Cooper, Sarah Gadon, Lucy Fry, George MacKay, and Daniel Webber in key roles.

11.22.63 is a well-crafted alternate history series that successfully blends history, conspiracy theory, drama, sci-fi, and time travel into a thrilling narrative. The eight-part series is anchored by James Franco’s outstanding performance as a man torn between past and present, with critics comparing his acting style to Old Hollywood stars. Interesting and intriguing in every episode, the Hulu original series is easily one of the most well-made and well-performed screen adaptations of King’s work.

3

‘1922’ (2017)

Image via Netflix

Advertisement

Written and directed by Zak Hilditch, 1922 is a horror film based on Stephen King’s novella of the same name, published in his 2010 collection, Full Dark, No Stars. Set in Nebraska in the early 20th century, 1922 follows a farmer named Wilfred “Wilf” James, who murders his wife with the help of his teenage son and becomes tormented by guilt and shame as they slowly lose everything they held dear. Thomas Jane leads the cast as Wilf, with Dylan Schmid, Molly Parker, Kaitlyn Bernard, Bob Frazer, Brian d’Arcy James, and Neal McDonough in key roles.

Often considered one of Netflix’s best original thrillers, 1922 has been well praised by critics for its justice to the theme, tone, and essence of the original story. The narrative steers clear of any dramatic moments or clichéd horror motifs, but plays more on the slowly corroding life and psychological decay of its protagonists. The well-paced storytelling and strong performances make 1922 one of the better adaptations of King’s stories ever to hit screens, even if it’s a relatively underrated one.

2

‘Castle Rock’ (2018–2019)

Image via Hulu

Advertisement

Created by Sam Shaw and Dustin Thomason, Castle Rock is a unique screen adaptation of Stephen King’s work, in that it’s not based on any specific novel or short story but the eponymous fictional town that appears as a frequent setting for the author’s stories. The anthology series consists of two separate stories, each following a diverse set of characters who are linked to the titular town through unpredictable, mysterious events. Each season of Castle Rock stars an ensemble cast, with Bill Skarsgård, André Holland, Melanie Lynskey, Lizzy Caplan, and Tim Robbins playing notable roles.

Castle Rock intelligently combines supernatural horror, mystery, and psychological thriller into an intimate, intense drama that does justice to King’s world-building. Despite strong allusions to various popular works, the show’s characters and storylines remain distinctive to the show, elevated by chilling performances by Skarsgård in Season 1 and Caplan in Season 2. A dark, character-focused, and atmospheric horror series, Castle Rock is easily one of the best TV renditions of Stephen King’s literary canon.

1

‘Gerald’s Game’ (2017)

Image via Netflix

Advertisement

Directed and co-written by Mike Flanagan and adapted from King’s 1992 novel, Gerald’s Game is a chilling psychological thriller that follows Jessie and Gerald, a couple who go to an isolated lake house for a romantic getaway. While exploring a sexual fantasy, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed, but dies of a heart attack, leaving her trapped with no way to escape or get help. Bruce Greenwood stars as Gerald and Carla Gugino as Jessie, with Carel Struycken, Henry Thomas, and Kate Siegel in supporting roles.

King’s novel was long considered unfilmable because of its deeply internal narrative, until Flanagan came along and masterfully translated it into an atmospheric horror that largely takes place in Jessie’s mind. Although slow and deliberate, its pace never feels stagnant, creating constant tension through Jessie’s physical and mental struggles, which Carla Gugino brings to life with a phenomenal performance. Gerald’s Game has been critically acclaimed for its direction, acting, and treatment of the novel, and it’s easily one of the greatest Stephen King adaptations of all time.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

September 29, 2017

Runtime

104 minutes

Advertisement

Producers

D. Scott Lumpkin, Matt Levin, Trevor Macy

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Justin Baldoni’s legal team has rejected claims that he caused Blake Lively’s alleged financial losses, arguing her challenges stem from pre-existing reputation issues.

As their dispute over “It Ends With Us” heads to trial, both sides are clashing over claims of reputational harm and projected earnings.

Justin Baldoni’s lawyers also dispute the scale of Blake Lively’s losses, calling them unrealistic, while the actress’s team maintains she suffered significant career and financial damage.

Baldoni’s lawyers are pushing back against claims that he is responsible for Lively’s reported financial setbacks, arguing instead that her challenges stem from a pre-existing public image and business track record.

At a recent pre-trial hearing, Baldoni’s lawyers pointed to Lively’s past public behavior, including her criticism of Kate Middleton, as evidence that any reputational damage did not originate from events surrounding “It Ends with Us.”

According to the Daily Mail, they argued that her actions during the March 2024 photo-editing controversy contributed to public backlash well before the film’s release.

Lively had responded to the incident with a satirical, heavily edited image of her own, which drew criticism. She later issued an apology after Kate revealed a cancer diagnosis.

The Director’s Lawyers Slammed Blake Lively’s Claims Of Hefty Financial Losses

Baldoni’s side also challenged Lively’s claims of major financial losses, dismissing estimates from her team as exaggerated.

The actress’s attorneys have suggested she lost tens of millions in endorsements and potentially hundreds of millions in projected earnings.

However, Baldoni’s lawyer, Amir Kaltgrad, described these figures as “pie in the sky,” describing what he called “unrealistic assumptions” about Lively’s future workload and income.

According to court arguments, Lively earned about $21 million from four film projects over eight years before the movie’s release.

In contrast, projections from her expert suggested she could have earned over $140 million in the following five years, a jump Baldoni’s team characterized as implausible, citing what they described as “scattered work history.”

Blake Lively’s Financial Claims Under Scrutiny As The Former Co-Stars’ Trial Looms

Amid claims of financial losses, Baldoni’s legal team pointed to Lively’s business ventures, particularly her beverage brand Betty Buzz, as evidence that her issues were not tied to any alleged smear campaign.

Court filings indicated that concerns about the brand’s long-term profitability existed independently, with internal discussions suggesting challenges in sustaining growth in the U.S. market.

As a result, more focus was reportedly placed on expanding her alcoholic line, Betty Booze, as the “anchor product.”

The dispute is part of a broader legal battle between the former co-stars, with a trial scheduled for May 18.

Both sides are expected to argue over claims of reputational harm and financial damages tied to the fallout from their film collaboration, while the court also considers whether to release currently sealed evidence and set limits on the trial’s duration.

Justin Baldoni’s Side Disputes Online Narrative As The Bring Up ‘Bully’ Allegations Against The Actress

Baldoni’s legal team continues to challenge Lively’s claims, with another of his attorneys, Fabien Manohar Thayamballi, arguing that negative online comments labeling her a “bully” were not purely the result of any coordinated digital interference.

He pointed to Lively’s own past actions, including her 2024 remarks about Kate during the edited photo controversy, suggesting that public perception of her behavior had already been shaped before the current dispute.

Meanwhile, speaking outside the courtroom, Lively’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley, downplayed the chances of a last-minute settlement. She emphasized that Lively is focused on having her side of the story heard in court.

McCawley confirmed that the actress is prepared to testify and expects to take the stand. According to her, Lively has been anticipating this moment and is ready to present her account, expressing confidence as the trial approaches.

“She’s feeling really good… she’s finally at a point where she will be able to tell her side,” she said, per the Daily Mail.

Hollywood Reportedly Keeps Its Distance As Blake Lively Faces Fallout From ‘It Ends With Us’ Dispute

Meanwhile, industry reaction appears to be shifting. As the legal fight continues, Lively is said to be facing an increasing distance from parts of Hollywood.

Much of the conversation has moved beyond the courtroom to what this situation means for her career standing. Sources suggest studios are proceeding cautiously, wary of the controversy surrounding alleged on-set issues, with one insider describing her current position as that of a “persona non grata.”

Despite that characterization, there has been no formal effort to blacklist her. As reported by The Blast, NewsNation journalist Paula Froelich shared that the label reflects industry sentiment rather than any official action.

She notes a growing reluctance among agents and executives to get involved while the case remains unresolved, with many opting to keep their distance from the actress for now.

By Robert Scucci
| Published 24 seconds ago

Confession time: ever since Mad Max: Fury Road came out in 2015, the fantasy of getting beaten up by Charlize Theron was born. Just two years later, Atomic Blonde hit theaters, and all bets were off. While I’ve always appreciated Theron’s dramatic range, with 2003’s Monster showing her menace and 2011’s Young Adult showing how brilliantly she could portray a woman’s ongoing mental health crisis and alcoholism, I will check out any action thriller she ever stars in because, like Keanu Reeves with the John Wick films, she’s clearly put in the work to be a total badass on screen.

Which brings us to her latest outing, a Netflix Original action thriller that dropped April 24, 2026, called Apex. After watching, the fantasy still stands. I would love to get into a fistfight with Charlize Theron and lose. I’m not a masochist, and this isn’t normal territory for me, but if I found out I only had six months to live, I’d make it a bucket list item and go out on my own terms by encouraging her to fight me on top of a skyscraper or a moving train.

You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.

As for the movie itself, Apex is solid. It’s a chase thriller. It’s The Most Dangerous Game for a modern audience. Charlize Theron plays a grieving widow who is hunted for sport in the Australian wilderness by a total psycho with a home-field advantage, and she has to rely on grit and intuition to survive. If you’ve seen one of these movies, you’ve basically seen them all, but the performances here cannot be overstated.

Like The Ice-T Movie, But In The Forest 

One of my favorite “hunting humans for sport” plots can be found in 1994’s Surviving the Game, starring Ice-T, Rutger Hauer, and Gary Busey. In this film, Ice-T’s Jack Mason is hunted by a group of wealthy men who regularly get together to let a human loose on their sprawling property designed for exactly this kind of activity. They give him a head start, then roll out on their ATVs, armed to the teeth and ready to kill.

It’s an inherently ridiculous premise, but it’s totally unhinged and worth your time because everybody knows the assignment.

Apex takes a more grounded approach while still exploring that same familiar territory. Context is everything, though, and it plays out as a much more serious film. Here, Sasha (Charlize Theron) takes a solo trip to the Grand Isle Narrows just months after her husband Tommy (Eric Bana) fell to his death during a climbing expedition in Norway.

During her travels, she has an unwholesome run-in with a couple of hunters, as well as a kindly stranger named Ben (Taron Egerton). While briefly talking shop at a petrol station, Ben tells her to start her trip at Blackwater Bay if she really wants to experience next-level hiking and kayaking. She takes his advice, but quickly learns she shouldn’t have when she crosses paths with him again the following day. This happens after she’s harassed by the same hunters from earlier and has her supplies stolen while sleeping in her tent.

At first, Ben is hospitable. He offers her warmth by the fire, food, and water. Sasha quickly realizes he’s the one who stole her bag, and his demeanor shifts immediately. He pulls out a crossbow and a boombox and tells her that her head start will only last as long as the song he’s currently playing. From here on out, the chase is on. Ben is the hunter, and Sasha has to move fast if she wants to avoid getting executed in the middle of nowhere by somebody who’s clearly engaged in this kind of activity before.

Far From Original, But Beyond Adequate 

Apex does not offer anything new in this subgenre, but it’s still worth your time if you like movies with this setup. Plot-wise, there’s not much to it. You get some drama leading up to the hunt, and from that point forward it’s Sasha versus nature versus Ben. The real tension comes from the fact that Ben knows the terrain and Sasha doesn’t, while the fun comes from watching Sasha adapt and prove she knows how to survive in harsh environments.

The third act tension is palpable when things stop going according to plan for either of them, forcing a fragile truce when options run out. It’s a small twist on a tired setup that I appreciated. Add in some beautiful nature shots, and you almost forget this is a Netflix Original because the lighting actually holds up.

If you’re a fan of the tried-and-true chase thriller formula, you’ll likely find Apex satisfying. It’s in and out in 95 minutes, establishes its conflict quickly, and doesn’t overstay its welcome. Charlize Theron and Taron Egerton have strong chemistry as things escalate toward the inevitable breaking point.

Truth be told, if you’ve seen one movie like this, you’ve seen them all. But that applies to most subgenres that are this hyperspecific. If you know what you like and this is your lane, Apex should be your next Netflix watch, and you won’t be disappointed.