Compare The Get Out vs How to Make a Killing

The opening sexual scene is deliberately comic but can feel jarring and overly in-your-face.

One customer approvingly notes that there is no sex, helping make the film feel less explicit than its R-rated premise suggests.

The closing use of the Gipsy Kings’ “Hotel California” is a consistent highlight and gives the ending a stylish final lift.

One video review found the song choices overused, arguing that the film leans on too many needle drops.

Luke Evans’ flamboyant styling is memorable, but its goofiness clashes with the movie’s broader visual palette.

Wardrobe choices add polish and noir flavor, especially Julia’s fashion, though one critic wished the film did more with its costume possibilities.

The screenplay is the central weakness, overloading the movie with twists, thin characters, tonal conflict, and forced connections. Its promising pieces rarely form a satisfying whole.

The script has clever ideas and occasional sharp scenes, but exposition, thin characterization, and underdeveloped themes keep it from fully landing.

A few tracking shots and action images show real flair, but the overall presentation is more often anonymous, flat, or lacking visual panache.

The film’s slick, colorful, polished look is a regular positive, even among critics who think the style never fully coheres with the tone.

The darker violence carries little emotional weight because the characters and stakes are not developed enough to make it matter.

The film finds occasional gravitas, especially late, but many critics say its serious dramatic side never earns enough emotional investment.

The crime-comedy blend rarely feels cohesive enough to satisfy as either a thriller or a farce. More positive reactions treat it as undemanding, laid-back genre entertainment.

It works best for viewers who accept it as a light dark-comedy thriller; critics wanting sharper farce or tougher suspense are often disappointed.

Reactions to the setting are split. Some locations convincingly stand in for Los Angeles, while others make the Australian shoot obvious and visually generic.

The wealthy settings and glossy surfaces help sell the Redfellows’ world, giving the movie a convincingly lavish presentation.

At roughly 102 minutes, the movie still feels overfilled because it tries to carry too many characters and ideas.

The roughly 100–110 minute length is usually manageable, though some feel the film either drags or needs more time to develop its crowded cast.

The crowded plotting leaves little room for meaningful investment, so violent turns and late twists land with limited weight.

There are isolated moments of genuine feeling, but much of the film is described as emotionally distant, hollow, or hard to invest in.

The action is usually serviceable rather than exciting, with several critics finding little tension or originality. One car-wreck sequence stands out for its claustrophobic staging and impact.

The murder set-pieces can be brisk, clever, and tense, but several critics found later deaths too throwaway or lacking in impact.

The central idea of an aging nightclub owner trying to leave crime behind is appealing, but the surrounding story becomes generic, excessive, and unfocused.

The inheritance-murder premise has obvious appeal, but opinions split on whether the story remains engaging or becomes repetitive and implausible.

Most critics find the climax flat, unsurprising, or unearned, with the converging subplots producing relief more often than payoff. A few enjoyed seeing the puzzle connect and praised the final song choice.

The ending is sharply divisive: some viewers love the twists and coda, while others find the resolution contrived or unsatisfying.

The visuals range from anonymous and unremarkable to fluid and inventive. Tracking shots and the interior car-wreck sequence earn praise, but the overall look often lacks a distinctive identity.

The polished, grainy photography is widely admired, with several critics singling out the lighting, texture, and camera work.

The protagonist’s decency and reluctance toward violence give the movie a refreshingly humane streak beneath the criminal chaos.

The class-and-greed commentary sometimes resonates, but a common criticism is that the satire stays obvious, shallow, or less incisive than it promises.

The intersecting schemes feel tangled and tenuously connected, making the story harder to follow than its basic premise should be.

The confession structure helps some viewers follow the story, but others find the narration cumbersome and the timeline or logic needlessly confusing.

The comedy is highly inconsistent: Crowe’s deadpan delivery and some eccentric supporting turns work, but many jokes feel dry, crass, or poorly timed.

The comedy is inconsistent. Some scenes and supporting performances draw real laughs, but many critics say the film never becomes funny enough.

The setup has workable ideas but is repeatedly described as derivative, familiar, or an imitation of better crime comedies.

Customers often find the murder-inheritance setup fun or fresh, while critics repeatedly point out how closely it echoes earlier films and familiar genre beats.

The direction earns occasional praise for brisk movement and a light crime-story tone, but more often struggles to unify the humor, violence, and crowded plotting.

John Patton Ford draws praise for visual control and some set-pieces, yet several critics fault his tonal decisions and handling of the remake.

The film leaves little lasting impression for most critics and is often described as forgettable. One review gave its rewatchability the lowest possible mark.

Repeat appeal looks limited overall: a few viewers would watch again, but others explicitly call it forgettable or a one-time watch.

Manco and Sunny’s affectionate, loyal relationship is one of the movie’s most effective elements and gives the story a needed emotional anchor.

The Ruth relationship provides warmth and a moral counterweight, but several critics find the romance too thin, perfunctory, or underdeveloped.

Too many subplots make the film feel sluggish, jarring, or overstuffed despite its moderate runtime. A few critics found the movement brisk or at least never dull.

Pacing is uneven across the set. Some call it brisk and fleet-footed, while others find the middle repetitive, sluggish, or poorly proportioned.

The movie rarely creates sustained danger or tension, and many action beats feel toothless. A few critics still enjoyed waiting to see how the storylines would collide.

The framing device and predictability often weaken suspense, though several viewers still enjoy the late-game tension and third-act escalation.

The score divides opinion. Its playful, synth-heavy approach reinforces the unserious tone for one critic, while another finds it misplaced during dramatic and violent scenes.

Emile Mosseri’s score is a notable craft strength, praised for giving the movie momentum and a distinctive propulsive texture.

Most characters are reduced to one-note quirks, familiar types, or functional plot pieces. The crowded story rarely gives their motives and arcs enough room to matter.

Character depth is a recurring weakness: Becket’s motives and several supporting players are often described as thin, rushed, or underwritten.

Russell Crowe is the clear highlight, bringing warmth, comic timing, charisma, and grounded presence to Manco. Even the harshest reviews consider him the main reason to keep watching.

Glen Powell is the clearest consensus strength, repeatedly praised for charisma and likability even by critics who think he is miscast or too mild.

The dialogue lacks the sharp wit and quirky specificity expected from this kind of crime comedy. Too many exchanges exist to explain motives or move the next twist into place.

A few quips and bits of repartee land, but narration-heavy exposition and a shortage of sharper wit are frequent complaints.

The cast brings strong energy and commitment even when the material falters. Most praise centers on the performers making thin or chaotic scenes more watchable.

The cast is one of the film’s steadier strengths, with many viewers praising the ensemble even when the material around them feels uneven.

The blackmail, robberies, and character decisions frequently strain credibility, with several plot turns feeling contrived rather than naturally escalating.

Plausibility is one of the sharpest recurring complaints, especially around the FBI, forensic gaps, and how easily Becket gets away with repeated murders.

A good-hearted view of human nature gives the film more thematic interest than its conventional crime setup initially suggests.

The film raises worthwhile questions about greed, class, contentment, and entitlement, but many critics say it stops short of exploring them deeply.

The film struggles to balance goofy comedy, sincere drama, and sudden violence. A small minority found the lethal-but-light blend effective, but most experienced jarring shifts.

Tone is one of the most repeated weaknesses, with the movie often described as caught between farce, noir, thriller, and moral drama.

This fits best as a casual streaming crime comedy or B-movie for viewers who enjoy quirky capers. Its recognizable cast broadens the appeal, though the messy execution limits it.

Audience reactions lean warmer than the critic consensus, with many calling it watchable, fun, or worth seeing even when imperfect.

Manco and Sunny provide a warm, grounding relationship, while Paul and Dobrev can be funny when their opposite energies click. That second pairing is more divisive, becoming irritating for some critics.

Chemistry varies by pairing. Becket and Ruth earn some warm praise, while other romantic dynamics are described as forced or unconvincing.

The movie is intermittently fun and easy to watch, especially when the cast leans into the goofiness. Its clutter, weak tension, and uneven comedy keep it from becoming consistently engaging.

Reactions are mixed overall. Many customers found it fun and easy to watch, while a large share of critics called it dull, forgettable, or underwhelming.

The ensemble is generally game and energetic, with several performers elevating limited roles. The writing often prevents those performances from becoming fully rounded characters.

The supporting ensemble is frequently praised, especially Zach Woods, Bill Camp, Topher Grace, Jessica Henwick, and Margaret Qualley, despite limited screen time.

The movie can feel stilted and lose momentum as it cuts among competing storylines.

A few critics argue that protracted or loosely shaped passages sap momentum and blunt the film’s comic-thriller rhythm.

The premise has some charm, but the movie feels heavily indebted to stronger crime capers and rarely develops an identity of its own.

The film’s polish and some modern touches are appreciated, yet its remake roots and familiar eat-the-rich ideas make originality a major weakness.

One customer considered the restrained sex and language suitable for younger teens, despite the movie’s murder-heavy premise.

Early reactions were reported as positive, but the broader critical response represented here is substantially more divided and often cool.

The modern reworking of Kind Hearts and Coronets divides critics, with a few admiring the update but many finding it far weaker than its inspiration.

One customer felt the restrained sexual content and language made it more teen-suitable than the premise might suggest.

A customer specifically praised the relatively restrained language, viewing it as a point in favor of teen suitability.

One critic broadly praised how strong the film looks and sounds, though sound-specific commentary is otherwise scarce.

Value reactions are polarized: some customers felt rentals were worthwhile, while others explicitly wanted a refund or said it was not worth paying for.

The violence is generally restrained rather than graphic; some appreciate the wry approach, while others wanted more bite from the murder set-pieces.

The Los Angeles crime setting lacks memorable locations and a convincing sense of place.