Compare Passenger vs Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man

The relationship drama does not blend smoothly with the horror and rarely becomes emotionally involving. It often interrupts tension instead of deepening it.

The film’s grief-heavy, introspective drama gives Tommy’s final chapter weight for many viewers, though its persistent misery and brooding occasionally overwhelm the entertainment.

The relationship and religious themes remain muddled, and the implied endorsement of settling down and conforming drew strong criticism. The movie never lands a persuasive larger point.

The strongest readings focus on legacy, self-definition, family, and the cost of valuing power over people. One severe critic felt the film squandered the larger sense of purpose built around Tommy.

Ideas about home, commitment, faith, rootlessness, and relationship incompatibility are present but lightly developed. The film gestures toward meaning without building an emotional or thematic engine.

Legacy, grief, trauma, memory, family inheritance, and self-definition give the film substantial thematic weight. Critics who resist the movie argue these ideas are compressed, overplayed, or left insufficiently explored.

The opening, projector scene, and rotating parking-lot sequence earn substantial praise, and several viewers found the film gripping. The heavy reliance on predictable, loud jump scares sharply divides opinion.

The eerie, supernatural-leaning material is praised as some of the eeriest material the franchise has attempted.

The movie creates immediate fear more successfully than lasting emotion. Thin characterization and undeveloped relationship themes keep the ordeal from carrying much weight.

For supporters, the film delivers grief, regret, family conflict, and a powerful farewell with real force. Detractors found key deaths rushed, contrived, or too hollow to land.

The desert-church climax is the most consistent disappointment. Reviewers call it generic, silly, rushed, or inconsistent with the threat established earlier.

The ending is intensely divisive: many call it fitting, powerful, or even perfect closure for Tommy, while others believe it needlessly overturns the stronger symbolism of Season 6.

Tyler and Maddie are widely seen as thinly written, with backstory and relationship conflict arriving too late or too mechanically. Several critics struggled to care about their survival.

Tommy’s reckoning with grief and Duke’s struggle with his father’s legacy work for many reviewers, but the compressed format leaves several supporting characters—and, for some, Duke himself—feeling thin or underdeveloped.

The basic pursuit is easy to follow, but the Passenger’s motives, rules, religious weaknesses, and hobo-code mythology remain inconsistent or overexplained in awkward bursts.

Some newcomers report following the story surprisingly easily without heavy recaps, but other reviews point to shaky logic or exposition that does too much work.

The road-haunting premise has a strong foundation, but most reviewers find the finished narrative generic, underdeveloped, or poorly conceived. Standout scenes rarely combine into a satisfying whole.

The core legacy-and-war story is compelling and emotionally satisfying for many reviewers, but others call the movie unnecessary, thin, half-baked, or unable to justify rewriting the series’ prior ending.

The film includes some effective makeup, gore, and surveillance-image tricks, but the demon’s digital presentation often looks ordinary, derivative, or unconvincing.

An apparent CGI hat is called distractingly bad, standing out as a conspicuous weakness in the effects work.

Relationship drama, rock songs, jokes, gore, and supernatural horror often pull in different directions. Several reviewers describe the movie’s identity and rhythm as muddled.

The sombre, gothic, highly stylized mood works for some as a fitting final chapter, but others find the film tonally off, overly miserable, campy, or caught awkwardly between old and new Peaky Blinders.

Small jokes, campy lines, and accidental silliness provide occasional amusement. For some viewers, its strongest comic value is as a knowingly bad group watch.

Dark comedy—especially the Garrison grenade sequence and father-son mud fight—provides welcome relief from the gloom. A few detractors find some of the comic touches cheesy rather than sharp.

Night roads, parking lots, headlights, shadows, and cramped van interiors are photographed with unusual clarity and atmosphere. The visual craft is one of the film’s most consistent strengths.

The cinematography is the clearest consensus strength, praised for striking light, shadow, mud, rubble, wintry landscapes, and a genuinely cinematic sense of scale.

The best action-oriented set pieces use the van, projector, parking lots, and road hazards inventively. The climax and limited number of kills provide much less excitement.

The action lands best once Tommy returns to Birmingham, with the pub confrontation, shootouts, explosions, and finale frequently singled out. Critics who wanted more momentum found the action too delayed or the climax predictable.

The creature is more effective in shadow than in full view. Its sleek digital rendering is repeatedly described as unconvincing and less frightening up close.

An apparent CGI hat is called conspicuously poor, creating a distracting visual blemish in the effects work.

The screenplay is the central weakness: generic structure, thin characters, exposition dumps, inconsistent rules, and a weak finale repeatedly undercut the direction.

The script earns credit for themes, twists, and some strong dialogue, but criticism is substantial: exposition, clichés, rushed character work, and compressed plotting repeatedly surface.

The dialogue is frequently criticized as clunky, unnatural, or overloaded with lore. Relationship conversations and explanations often sound more functional than human.

Dialogue receives mixed marks: some reviewers praise sharp lines and economical exposition, while others call it simplistic, clunky, corny, or overly explanatory.

Christopher Young’s score is repeatedly praised as restrained, fearsome, and effective. It supports the road-at-night atmosphere without overwhelming the strongest scenes.

The score is repeatedly praised for building dread, atmosphere, and intensity, especially as Tommy’s return pushes the film toward its climax.

The film works best as uncomplicated B-horror with polished craft. Viewers expecting fresh mythology or a major new horror landmark are likely to be disappointed.

As a gangster-period-drama send-off, the movie retains much of the show’s identity and pulp energy. Several critics still feel it plays more like an extended television episode than a fully realized feature.

The road setting offers a modest twist, yet the plot follows a familiar curse-and-exposition formula almost beat for beat. Predictability is one of the most repeated complaints.

The central comeback structure, Nazi scheme, and legacy conflict are often described as familiar or clichéd, with several critics saying the film rarely finds a genuinely new plot shape.

At roughly 94 minutes, the film is compact on paper but often feels padded. Multiple reviewers argue the premise would have worked better as a short.

At roughly feature length, the movie often feels too compressed for the number of character turns and plot developments it attempts. Several reviewers explicitly wish the story had been a season or miniseries instead.

Many reviewers find Scipio and Llobell likable, supportive, and believable together, which helps carry the movie. Others see the pairing as bland or unconvincing.

Murphy and Keoghan’s father-son dynamic is often described as raw, magnetic, and powerful. A smaller group felt the pair never generated the expected sparks or emotional bond.

André Øvredal’s command of light, timing, camera movement, and spatial tension repeatedly elevates the material. Even negative reviews tend to find his set-piece direction more accomplished than the script.

Tom Harper is frequently praised for confident staging, visual control, suspense, and explosive set pieces. A few reviews fault specific tonal or narrative choices even while admiring the filmmaking.

The opening moves with precision, but the middle repeatedly loses steam and the climax arrives without enough buildup. Several reviewers felt the short runtime dragged.

Pacing is the most consistent weakness: the first half is repeatedly described as slow or drawn out, while the later material can feel rushed as too much story is compressed into feature length.

Individual scare timing can be sharp, but the overall rhythm is uneven. Repetitive set pieces, abrupt cuts, and stop-start transitions prevent the film from building sustained momentum.

Hazy reverie-style editorial cuts are criticized as visually cheesy and as interruptions to the otherwise painterly presentation.

The limited bursts of gore are vivid, surprising, and generally well received. Some reviewers wished the movie had committed more consistently to that harsher edge.

The film’s cold-blooded, stylized violence generally fits the franchise’s appeal and is often balanced with swagger or dark humor, though it can edge into grim excess for some viewers.

Character reactions, decisions, and relationship conversations often feel manufactured for the plot. Several critics found the couple difficult to believe as real people.

Period immersion is weakened for some by modern-looking styling, oversized stakes, and questionable wartime plausibility. The film’s stylized mythmaking of Tommy also draws skepticism.

The engaged couple has flashes of warmth and support, but the relationship conflict is thin and unevenly integrated. Some viewers buy their chemistry; others never believe the romance.

The romantic material fares poorly, with Tommy’s sex scene described as cheesy rather than convincing.

Patient camera movement, negative space, darkness, and long takes generate real tension in the strongest scenes. Confusing rules and repetitive payoffs frequently break that momentum.

Several set pieces generate strong tension and claustrophobia, especially the pub and tunnel material. Negative reviews say predictability weakens the climax and removes the sharper twists associated with the series.

The most negative reviewers advise waiting for streaming or skipping it entirely, describing a theatrical ticket as poor value for such familiar material.

The big-screen outing is framed as earned and worth paying for, with the theatrical presentation treated as part of the appeal.

Most negative reviewers have little interest in returning to the full film, though a few expect its visual set pieces may gain cult appreciation on streaming.

Rewatch interest is sharply polarized: one enthusiastic reviewer immediately wanted another viewing, while several detractors say they would not revisit it and even feel it harms the series’ rewatchability.

A few striking scares and likable moments make the ride enjoyable for some viewers, but many find the surrounding story forgettable or dull. Enjoyment depends heavily on tolerance for familiar jump-scare horror.

Reactions range from gripping, highly enjoyable fan service to dull, hollow, or unnecessary viewing. A common middle ground is that the movie becomes much more entertaining after its slow first half.

The score and some needle drops are praised, but several song choices feel random or tonally disruptive. The music works best when it stays restrained.

Modern-rock needle drops remain a signature strength and are widely praised for driving emotion and atmosphere. A few reviewers find the choices dated, overly loud, or less appealing outside the iconic theme reprise.

Melissa Leo brings authority and presence, but her exposition-heavy role is repeatedly described as wasted or underused. Other supporting performances are generally serviceable.

The supporting ensemble is generally considered strong, particularly Keoghan, Roth, Rundle, Graham, and Ferguson. The bigger complaint is often that the movie underuses them or gives their characters too little depth.

The lead performances divide opinion, but the stronger notices praise their grounded reactions, natural charm, and ability to keep a thin story watchable. Harsher takes call the acting flat or unconvincing.

The cast is one of the film’s safest bets: even many negative reviews praise the performances, with the central actors repeatedly credited for elevating uneven material.

The leads are often praised for naturalism, charm, and grounded fear responses. Lou Llobell receives particular credit for doing strong work with underwritten material.

Cillian Murphy’s return as Tommy is overwhelmingly praised for its weary stillness, menace, grief, and emotional control; even harsh critics routinely identify him as a major strength.

The hobo code, Saint Christopher imagery, van-life folklore, and demon rules never fully cohere. The antagonist becomes less frightening as the movie explains more while contradicting itself.

For supporters, Birmingham and the Peaky underworld feel convincingly restored and expanded into wartime. Critics miss the old ensemble and argue the newer, thinner supporting world makes the film feel smaller than the series.

The customized van and nighttime road environments can feel convincingly lived-in and claustrophobic. Other stops and locations are criticized as drab or underused.

Blitz-era Birmingham, grime, rubble, docks, pubs, and warehouses are generally rendered with impressive tactile detail and scale. One negative review thought parts of the production looked like a soundstage.

Silence, road noise, horns, and carefully timed impacts make the opening and several set pieces unnerving. Abrupt audio cuts and excessive loud stingers become distracting elsewhere.

The soundscape can feel forceful and theatrical, with one review highlighting Dolby Atmos impact and another calling the sound design incredible. A major dissent criticizes an aggressive music-to-dialogue mix.

The movie’s strongest identity comes from red lights, deep shadows, projector images, rotating camera moves, and readable nighttime compositions. Even harsh reviews acknowledge striking visual ideas.

The visual presentation is consistently celebrated: smoky interiors, chiaroscuro lighting, slow-motion swagger, period grime, and large-scale wartime imagery make the movie look distinctly cinematic.

Casual viewers seeking a straightforward jump-scare movie may have fun, while seasoned horror fans are much more likely to find it safe, repetitive, and disposable.

Longtime Peaky Blinders fans are the clearest audience, especially for the callbacks and emotional closure. Reviewers disagree on newcomers: some found the film easy to follow, while others strongly recommend watching the series first.

The film generated early breakout expectations, but the completed movie drew sharply divided reactions, with visual craft praised more often than the story.

Aggregated critical reaction is broadly favorable but not uniform, with enthusiasm for craft and performances tempered by repeated complaints about pacing, script compression, and sequel necessity.

The return of Tommy’s tailored Peaky Blinders look remains a major visual pleasure, with covetable coats and sharp suiting earning praise. One review found Duke’s modern-looking styling immersion-breaking.

Tommy’s spiritual and gypsy side is praised as one of the most worthwhile expansions of his character in the film.

The film restores the show’s swagger, music, visual language, and callbacks, satisfying many longtime fans. Others see missing characters and major legacy decisions as betrayals of the series’ established arcs.

The Passenger’s hollowed, decayed look can be creepy and physically threatening, especially at a distance. The design loses impact when overexposed or paired with weak digital work.

The sexual material draws a negative reaction because Tommy’s sex scene is viewed as cheesy and out of place.

Reviewers appreciate the use of World War II events and the counterfeit-currency plot as historical grounding. Others question specific period details, plausibility, or the sentimental elevation of Tommy within wartime history.