Jerrod Carmichael’s feature directorial debut represents a bold and uncompromising exploration of mental health, friendship, and the darkest corners of human desperation. Released in select theaters and on-demand platforms in May 2022, this Sundance Film Festival standout has carved out a unique space in contemporary cinema by tackling suicide and depression through a lens that balances pitch-black humor with devastating emotional honesty. The film challenges conventional storytelling approaches to mental illness while delivering a narrative that resonates with authenticity and raw human emotion.
The dark comedy genre has long been a vehicle for examining society’s most uncomfortable truths, and Carmichael’s entry into this territory demonstrates both courage and considerable artistic vision. Written by Ari Katcher and Ryan Welch, the screenplay earned the prestigious Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award at the Sundance Film Festival, recognition that underscores the film’s literary merit and its ability to navigate treacherous thematic terrain with intelligence and sensitivity.
The Premise: A Last Day on Earth
At its core, this cinematic examination of mental health follows Val, portrayed by Carmichael himself, a depressed mulch factory worker trapped in what feels like an inescapable cycle of disappointment and despair. After a failed suicide attempt at his workplace, Val makes the decision to help his childhood best friend Kevin, played with remarkable intensity by Christopher Abbott, escape from a psychiatric facility where he’s been held following his own suicide attempt. The two men, bonded by decades of friendship and united in their hopelessness, forge a suicide pact with a twist: they’ll shoot each other simultaneously, ensuring neither has to face death alone.
However, what begins as a grim determination to end their lives transforms into something more complex when Kevin convinces Val to postpone their plan until the end of the day. This decision sets in motion a journey that becomes equal parts revenge fantasy, settling of old scores, and unexpected examination of what makes life worth living. The film’s runtime of approximately eighty-five minutes moves with remarkable efficiency, never wasting a moment as it tracks these two broken men through their final hours.
Cast Performances and Character Development
The chemistry between Carmichael and Abbott forms the emotional backbone of the entire production. Carmichael brings his trademark understated delivery to Val, a man whose depression manifests as a kind of resigned acceptance of his fate. His performance captures the numbness that characterizes severe depression, the sense that life has become something to be endured rather than experienced. Val’s character arc, while subtle, represents the film’s most hopeful element as he begins to question whether death truly offers the escape he seeks.
Christopher Abbott delivers a performance that many critics have identified as career-defining work. His Kevin is a powder keg of unprocessed trauma, bright-haired and disheveled, clinging to artifacts of his adolescence like an iPod Nano loaded with Papa Roach’s angsty anthem. Abbott portrays Kevin as someone whose psychological torment has calcified over decades, creating a man who sees violence as the only viable response to his pain. The performance requires Abbott to navigate extreme tonal shifts, moving from dark comedy to genuine pathos, often within the same scene.
The supporting cast, though their screen time is limited, makes significant contributions to the film’s emotional landscape. Tiffany Haddish appears as Natasha, Val’s ex-girlfriend, delivering what some reviewers have called her finest on-screen performance despite appearing for fewer than five minutes. Her character serves as an anchor to reality and consequence, reminding Val that his actions ripple outward to affect others. J.B. Smoove portrays Val’s father Lyndell with a combination of menace and pathetic neediness that makes him simultaneously repellent and pitiable.
Henry Winkler’s casting as Dr. Brenner, the psychiatrist who sexually abused Kevin as a child, represents a deliberate subversion of the actor’s beloved television persona. This against-type casting adds layers of discomfort to scenes that are already difficult to watch, forcing the audience to confront how predators can hide behind professional respectability and familiar faces.
Thematic Exploration of Mental Health
What distinguishes this film from other attempts to dramatize mental illness is its refusal to offer easy answers or conventional redemption arcs. The narrative doesn’t suggest that love, therapy, or any single intervention can magically cure depression or erase trauma. Instead, it presents mental health struggles as complex, deeply personal experiences that resist simple solutions. Val’s depression stems from different sources than Kevin’s psychological torment, yet both men arrive at the same desperate conclusion about their futures.
The film examines how mental illness affects men specifically, touching on themes of toxic masculinity and the barriers men face in seeking help. Kevin and Val’s friendship operates within certain unspoken rules about emotional vulnerability. Their conversations about suicide and pain are filtered through layers of dark humor and bravado, reflecting real patterns in how men often struggle to express psychological distress. The screenplay by Katcher and Welch demonstrates remarkable insight into these dynamics, creating dialogue that feels authentic to how people actually discuss these taboo subjects.
Trauma forms another central pillar of the film’s thematic architecture. Kevin’s history of childhood sexual abuse by his therapist creates a particularly cruel irony: the person tasked with helping him through mental health challenges instead became the source of deeper wounds. This betrayal fundamentally damaged Kevin’s ability to trust treatment systems, a reality that resonates with many who have had negative experiences with mental health care. The film doesn’t shy away from depicting how such trauma can metastasize over time, warping a person’s entire worldview and relationship with themselves.
Directorial Vision and Filmmaking Choices
For a first-time director, Carmichael demonstrates impressive command of tone and pacing. The film walks a razor’s edge between comedy and tragedy, never tipping too far in either direction. The opening sequence establishes this balance immediately: Val and Kevin stand in a parking lot, guns pointed at each other, counting to three. The absurdity of the situation generates dark laughter, but the genuine desperation in both men’s eyes prevents the scene from becoming purely comedic.
Carmichael employs a jaunty soundtrack that creates deliberate cognitive dissonance with the film’s grim subject matter. Upbeat music plays over scenes of profound despair, highlighting the disconnection between how life appears from the outside and how it feels for those struggling with mental illness. This technique forces viewers to experience the disorientation that characterizes depression, where the world continues its cheerful indifference while internal suffering intensifies.
The visual aesthetic favors naturalistic lighting and handheld camerawork that creates intimacy with the characters. Cinematographer Eric K. Yue captures the bleakness of the midwestern winter setting without making it feel staged or overly symbolic. The locations feel authentic to working-class American life: the mulch factory, the psychiatric facility, the repair shop, and the diner all exist as fully realized spaces rather than mere backdrops. This attention to environmental detail grounds the film’s more heightened emotional moments in recognizable reality.
Controversial Elements and Ethical Considerations
Any film that centers on suicide inevitably invites scrutiny regarding how responsibly it handles the subject. Mental health advocates and critics have debated whether the film’s approach could potentially be harmful to vulnerable viewers. The movie includes multiple depictions of suicide attempts and detailed discussions of suicidal ideation, content that could serve as triggers for individuals struggling with similar thoughts.
Some reviewers have expressed concern that the film’s ending might inadvertently suggest that death by suicide represents a valid solution for treatment-resistant mental illness. The ambiguous conclusion, which sees Kevin apparently accepting his fate while Val chooses to live, has been interpreted by some as sending mixed messages about recovery and hope. Critics arguing this position worry that susceptible viewers might identify more strongly with Kevin’s trajectory than Val’s, potentially reinforcing harmful thought patterns.
However, defenders of the film argue that it never glorifies or romanticizes suicide. The screenplay presents the suicide pact as emerging from desperation and trauma rather than rational choice. The violence and pain associated with the characters’ actions throughout their final day undercuts any sense that their path offers real relief or resolution. The film also includes moments of genuine connection and meaning that contrast with the characters’ stated desire to die, suggesting that life contains possibilities they’re too damaged to fully recognize.
The handling of Kevin’s childhood sexual abuse represents another ethically complex element. The film depicts Kevin’s desire for violent revenge against his abuser, and the narrative doesn’t explicitly condemn this impulse. While the screenplay doesn’t endorse vigilante justice, it acknowledges the rage that survivors of abuse often carry. This acknowledgment of dark emotions, even those that might lead to harmful actions, reflects the film’s commitment to exploring psychological reality rather than offering moral instruction.
Critical Reception and Industry Response
The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2021, where it generated significant buzz and earned the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award for writers Katcher and Welch. Critics at the festival praised Carmichael’s assured direction and the performances from both leads. After the premiere, Annapurna Pictures acquired North American distribution rights for approximately two million dollars, partnering with Orion Pictures through United Artists Releasing for the theatrical and video-on-demand release in May 2022.
Professional critics have generally responded positively to the film, though not without reservations. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an eighty-five percent approval rating based on over one hundred reviews, with an average rating of seven point one out of ten. The critical consensus describes it as occasionally uneven but ultimately successful in its ambitious blend of dark comedy and drama. Metacritic, which uses a weighted average methodology, assigned the film a score of seventy-four out of one hundred, indicating generally favorable reviews.
IndieWire’s David Ehrlich awarded the film an A-minus grade, writing that it succeeds because of how Abbott and Carmichael work together. Ehrlich characterized the film as dangerous but ultimately exhilarating, praising its willingness to find comedy and meaning in extremely dark material. Roger Ebert’s website featured a positive review from Carlos Aguilar, who described it as a rousing tragicomedy that straddles the line between calibrated gallows humor and devastating discourse on the burden of existence.
The Guardian’s Benjamin Lee gave the film three out of five stars, acknowledging its ambition while suggesting it doesn’t fully achieve its goals. Lee praised Carmichael as a director to watch but felt the screenplay needed additional refinement. This mixed assessment represents a common thread in the critical conversation: admiration for what the film attempts combined with questions about its execution.
Comparative Analysis: Dark Comedies About Mental Health
This film exists within a broader tradition of dark comedies that examine mental illness, suicide, and psychological pain. Films like Harold and Maude from nineteen seventy-one pioneered the use of comedy to explore death and suicide, using absurdist humor to defuse the heaviness of its themes. More recent entries like Little Miss Sunshine from two thousand six demonstrate how dysfunctional family narratives can address depression and suicide attempts while maintaining comedic elements.
The Skeleton Twins from two thousand fourteen offers perhaps the closest contemporary comparison. That film also features two suicidal protagonists, played by Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, who use dark humor and their sibling bond to navigate depression. Both films recognize that people dealing with severe mental illness don’t lose their sense of humor or their connections to others; these elements persist even in the darkest circumstances. The comedy in both films emerges from character rather than from making light of mental illness itself.
Where this Carmichael film distinguishes itself is in its willingness to depict violence and anger as responses to trauma. Many films about mental illness emphasize sadness, withdrawal, and self-harm, but this narrative acknowledges that trauma can also generate outward-directed rage. Kevin’s desire to confront and harm those who hurt him reflects a reality that mainstream cinema often avoids: not all people dealing with mental health crises respond with passive suffering.
The Role of Race and Class in Mental Health Representation
An important dimension of the film that merits attention is its centering of Black male friendship and Black male mental health. Mental health challenges in Black communities face particular stigmas and barriers to treatment, including systemic racism in healthcare, economic obstacles to accessing care, and cultural attitudes that discourage vulnerability. By casting two Black men as the protagonists in this story about psychological pain, Carmichael creates representation that challenges stereotypes and acknowledges these specific community realities.
Val’s experience as a working-class Black man trapped in a dead-end job reflects broader patterns of economic precarity and limited opportunity that contribute to mental health struggles. The film doesn’t explicitly frame his depression through a racial lens, but the context of his life – including his relationship with his absent father and his position in the economic hierarchy – contains implicit commentary on how structural factors shape individual mental health outcomes. This approach allows the film to address race without making it the singular focus, treating the characters as fully realized individuals whose racial identity forms one component of their experience.
The screenplay includes moments that gesture toward racial dynamics without dwelling on them. Kevin briefly attempts to engage Val in a conversation about race, but Val deflects, highlighting how even close friends may struggle to discuss certain topics. This interaction feels authentic to real relationships, where important subjects sometimes go unaddressed despite their relevance. The film trusts its audience to recognize these layers without requiring explicit exposition.
Production Context and Development
The journey from screenplay to screen reflects the challenges of bringing difficult material to mainstream audiences. Writers Katcher and Welch, who previously collaborated with Carmichael on The Carmichael Show, crafted the screenplay with an awareness of the tonal difficulties inherent in the subject matter. Their work on The Carmichael Show, which used sitcom conventions to explore controversial topics like gun control and sexuality, provided valuable experience in balancing comedy with serious themes.
Carmichael became attached to direct and star in June twenty nineteen, marking his transition from standup comedy and television to feature film directing. His selection of this particular project for his directorial debut signals his commitment to challenging material and his confidence in his ability to handle complex tones. The decision to cast Christopher Abbott, known for dramatic work in independent films, opposite himself created an interesting dynamic between comedic and dramatic performance styles.
Principal photography took place in upstate New York in late twenty nineteen, capturing the dreary winter atmosphere that pervades the film. The production design emphasized authenticity over glamour, creating spaces that feel lived-in and real. The relatively modest budget required creative solutions and efficient shooting, contributing to the film’s raw, unpolished aesthetic that serves the story well.
Music and Sound Design
The film’s approach to music deserves specific attention for how it contributes to the overall tone. The soundtrack features a mix of unexpected song choices that create ironic counterpoint to the action on screen. Travis Tritt’s country anthem celebrating being alive plays during Val’s suicide attempt, creating dark comedy through the contrast between the song’s message and Val’s actions. This technique recurs throughout the film, using music to highlight the disconnect between external cheerfulness and internal suffering.
Kevin’s choice to listen to Papa Roach’s “Last Resort” on his iPod Nano represents a more on-the-nose musical selection, but one that feels authentic to the character. The song’s nu-metal angst, with its famous lyric about suffocation and bleeding, captures Kevin’s arrested development and his connection to the music of his youth. The iPod itself, an obsolete technology, reinforces Kevin’s inability to move forward from his traumatic past.
Sound design emphasizes realism and intimacy, favoring natural ambient sound over intrusive music cues. The soundscape creates a sense of mundane reality that makes the film’s more extreme moments feel grounded. Gunshots, when they occur, sound appropriately loud and violent, not glamorized or softened. This commitment to sonic realism reinforces the film’s serious treatment of its subject matter even when employing comedic elements.
Impact on Broader Conversations About Mental Health
The release of this film occurred during a period of increased public discourse about mental health, particularly accelerated by the isolation and stress of the COVID-nineteen pandemic. Mental health conditions became more visible and discussed more openly as record numbers of people sought treatment for depression and anxiety. In this context, the film contributed to ongoing conversations about how society addresses psychological suffering and supports those in crisis.
Mental health advocacy organizations have expressed mixed responses to the film. Some appreciate its frank depiction of suicidal ideation and its refusal to offer simplistic solutions. The National Alliance on Mental Illness and similar groups have acknowledged that authentic portrayals of mental health struggles can reduce stigma and help people feel less alone. However, these same organizations have also emphasized the importance of including resources and helpline information when depicting suicide, cautioning that graphic depictions could potentially trigger vulnerable individuals.
The film’s treatment of psychiatric hospitalization and mental health care systems touches on real issues within these institutions. Kevin’s negative experience in the psychiatric facility, while not detailed extensively, reflects widespread concerns about the quality of emergency mental health care. Many people who have been hospitalized for mental health crises report feeling trapped, misunderstood, or inadequately treated, experiences that can worsen rather than alleviate psychological distress. The film’s depiction of Kevin escaping from the facility, while obviously problematic from a treatment perspective, resonates with those who have felt failed by mental health systems.
Carmichael’s Broader Career Context
Understanding this film requires situating it within Jerrod Carmichael’s broader artistic trajectory. His standup comedy has consistently demonstrated willingness to examine uncomfortable truths about race, sexuality, family dynamics, and social hypocrisy. His HBO special “Rothaniel,” released in April twenty twenty-two shortly before this film’s theatrical release, featured Carmichael publicly coming out as gay and discussing his struggles with authenticity and family acceptance. This personal revelation added another dimension to discussions of the film, as viewers recognized connections between Carmichael’s own experiences with difficult truths and his artistic choices.
The Carmichael Show, which ran for three seasons on NBC, established his approach to using comedy as a vehicle for serious discussion. Each episode tackled contentious topics including police brutality, transgender rights, religion, and pornography, using the family sitcom format to create space for genuine debate. This body of work demonstrates Carmichael’s commitment to comedy that challenges rather than comforts, that provokes thought rather than simply generating laughs.
His directorial debut thus represents a logical evolution rather than a departure from his established artistic concerns. The film’s willingness to make audiences uncomfortable, its refusal of easy answers, and its faith in viewers to grapple with complexity all align with Carmichael’s previous work. The transition from sitcom and standup to feature film directing allowed him to explore these themes with greater depth and darkness than broadcast television would permit.
Audience Response and Cultural Resonance
While critical reception skewed positive, audience responses have proven more divided. Viewer ratings on platforms like IMDb hover around seven out of ten, suggesting general appreciation mixed with significant reservations. Common criticisms from general audiences focus on the film’s bleak tone, its refusal of conventional catharsis, and its graphic depictions of violence and suicide. Some viewers expecting a traditional comedy based on Carmichael’s standup background found themselves unprepared for the film’s darkness.
However, many viewers, particularly those with personal experience of mental health struggles, have expressed deep appreciation for the film’s honesty. Online discussions on platforms like Reddit and Letterboxd feature numerous testimonials from people who felt seen and validated by the film’s depiction of depression and suicidal ideation. These viewers value the film’s acknowledgment that mental illness doesn’t always respond to treatment and that dark humor can coexist with genuine suffering. For some, seeing characters who reflect their own experiences, even in a film with a tragic trajectory, provides a sense of recognition and community.
The film has developed a particular following among younger audiences who appreciate its unflinching approach to mental health topics. Generation Z and younger millennials, who have grown up with more open discussions of therapy and mental health, often respond positively to media that doesn’t sanitize or sentimentalize psychological struggles. The film’s dark comedy sensibility and its incorporation of social issues also resonate with these demographics who expect entertainment to engage with serious themes.
The Ethics of Representation
The question of how media should depict suicide remains contentious, with mental health professionals, advocates, and artists holding varying perspectives. Research on media effects suggests that certain types of suicide depictions can contribute to contagion effects, where vulnerable individuals may be more likely to attempt suicide after consuming related media. Studies of the Netflix series “Thirteen Reasons Why” documented measurable increases in youth suicide following the show’s release, raising serious concerns about how entertainment media handles this subject.
This film’s approach differs from “Thirteen Reasons Why” in several key respects. It doesn’t romanticize suicide or present it as a form of revenge or communication. The characters’ suicidal impulses emerge from long-standing mental health struggles rather than acute social conflicts. The film includes moments of genuine connection and meaning that suggest life contains value even for those struggling to perceive it. These elements may mitigate some of the potential risks associated with suicide depiction.
Nevertheless, the film’s graphic nature and its portrayal of a suicide pact raise legitimate concerns. Mental health guidelines typically recommend against detailed depictions of suicide methods or portraying suicide as inevitable. The film arguably violates both of these recommendations, showing characters planning and discussing methods while suggesting that Kevin’s trajectory toward death may be unchangeable. Whether the film’s artistic merits and thematic sophistication justify these choices remains a matter of debate.
Lessons for Future Mental Health Narratives
Regardless of one’s ultimate assessment of the film’s success, it offers valuable lessons for creators interested in depicting mental health with complexity and honesty. The screenplay demonstrates that comedy and serious treatment of mental illness aren’t mutually exclusive. People experiencing depression and suicidal ideation don’t lose their capacity for humor; often, dark jokes become survival mechanisms. Acknowledging this reality creates more authentic and relatable characters.
The film also illustrates the importance of specificity in depicting mental health. Rather than presenting generic “depression,” it shows how different experiences of trauma and psychological pain can lead to different manifestations of mental illness. Val’s quiet resignation differs from Kevin’s volatile rage, yet both represent authentic responses to suffering. This specificity prevents mental illness from becoming a monolithic category and acknowledges the diversity of human psychological experience.
The decision to center male friendship and masculine vulnerability offers another important model. Men’s mental health remains under-discussed and under-represented in media, contributing to higher suicide rates among men. By creating two male protagonists who express genuine affection and concern for each other, even as they plan to die together, the film challenges toxic masculinity’s prohibition on male emotional intimacy. Future narratives might build on this foundation to explore how gender shapes mental health experiences and treatment-seeking behaviors.
Conclusion
Jerrod Carmichael’s directorial debut stands as a challenging, imperfect, but ultimately significant contribution to cinematic explorations of mental health and suicide. Its willingness to embrace darkness and ambiguity, to find humor without minimizing pain, and to resist easy resolutions marks it as a serious artistic statement rather than mere entertainment. The performances from Carmichael and Christopher Abbott elevate the material, creating characters whose suffering feels achingly real despite the film’s comedic elements.
The ethical questions the film raises about depicting suicide and mental illness don’t have simple answers. Art that addresses difficult subjects always involves risk, the possibility of causing harm alongside the potential for insight and connection. This film takes those risks consciously, crafting a narrative that refuses to sanitize or sentimentalize the experience of wanting to die. Whether this approach ultimately serves or harms audiences likely varies based on individual circumstances and perspectives.
What remains undeniable is the film’s ambition and its artistic integrity. Carmichael could have chosen safer material for his directorial debut, something with broader appeal and less potential controversy. Instead, he committed to a project that demands engagement with society’s most stigmatized mental health issues. The result is a film that will undoubtedly disturb some viewers while profoundly affecting others, a work that refuses to let audiences remain comfortable or detached. In an entertainment landscape often characterized by bland consensus, such bold choices deserve recognition even from those who ultimately question the film’s approach.
For mental health advocates, the film offers both opportunities and challenges. It can serve as a starting point for discussions about men’s mental health, the limitations of treatment systems, and the reality of living with persistent suicidal ideation. However, it requires careful contextualization and should probably be paired with resources and support for vulnerable viewers. The film itself includes end credits information about suicide prevention resources, a crucial inclusion that acknowledges its potential impact.
As conversations about mental health continue to evolve and as stigma slowly diminishes, films like this one play an important role in expanding the range of acceptable representations. Not every narrative about mental illness needs to end with recovery or offer hope. Sometimes acknowledging the depth of suffering, the possibility that not everyone survives their mental health struggles, and the complexity of psychological pain serves its own valuable purpose. This film does exactly that, creating space for difficult truths while never forgetting the humanity of those who struggle.
