Compare How to Make a Killing vs A Talent for Murder

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

The montage of shifting faces helps turn changing identities into a distinctly cinematic experience.

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

Premeditated murder, sexual material, and profanity limit the film's appeal as entertainment for families with younger children.

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

The strong language contributes to the mature-content reservation, especially for anyone seeking a gentler mystery.

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

The sensual moments are enjoyable for one account, while another sees them as a reason to reserve the film for mature viewers. The sexual material is not considered especially explicit by R-rated thriller standards.

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

The limited action does little to lift the pace for one viewer, who wanted more happening between the talk-heavy scenes.

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 favorable account finds the film's Ripley-like figure close to the personality of Highsmith's novels, especially his dissatisfaction with himself and hunger for social advancement.

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 running time feels cramped to accounts wanting fuller development of the nested thriller. Another response finds the overall experience quick and breezy despite occasional dragging scenes.

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

The thinly drawn characters can make it hard to care about their fortunes, leaving the story emotionally distant.

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

Mirren and Ehrenreich's verbal duel is frequently the film's strongest element. Ehrenreich and Cooke also generate convincing romantic heat, though chemistry cannot always overcome doubts about the situations.

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

The screenplay's clever metafictional premise earns real admiration, but its theatrical dialogue, competing narratives, and uncertain conclusion are frequent obstacles. Opinions differ sharply on whether ambiguity enriches the script or exposes its weaknesses.

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

Some find the mixture of lighter real-world scenes and darker invented ones well balanced. Others see a film uncertain of its own identity or lacking conviction.

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

The film works best as a cerebral, performance-led thriller. Some enjoy its seductive literary games, while others find too little urgency or surprise to satisfy the genre promise.

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

Identity, concealed impulses, and the connection between an author and a fictional creation give the film substantial interpretive appeal. Not everyone thinks its ambitious questions receive enough depth or payoff.

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

A slow opening and momentum lost away from Highsmith's house are recurring complaints. Supporters find the deliberate buildup absorbing or increasingly rewarding, while others experience repetition and boredom.

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

The ominous string score is admired for its atmosphere, but its insistence can also promise more thrills than the movie delivers or reveal emotional turns too clearly.

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

The ending is the biggest dividing point: some enjoy its open questions and gathering momentum, but many find it weak, abrupt, overcomplicated, or less ingenious than promised.

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

Dry insults, uncomfortable exchanges, and sly dark comedy provide much of the entertainment. Mirren's caustic delivery is a particularly reliable source of laughs.

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

Ehrenreich's character gains layers as confidence and menace emerge, and Mirren reveals vulnerability beneath hostility. Clementine is repeatedly considered underwritten, while one brief supporting character supplies welcome emotional depth.

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

The insults and verbal volleys can be sharply funny, even top-notch. Other responses find the lines insufficiently cutting, unnaturally assembled, or repetitive by the later scenes.

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

The brutal murder plotting is enjoyable as thriller entertainment for one account, while another regards even the relatively restrained violence as a mature-content concern.

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

The central literary challenge is a compelling hook, and the nested story can be inventive and immersive. Less favorable responses find the plotting dull, stale, or unable to connect its competing strands.

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 story-within-a-story device feels fresh to some, but others see a derivative inheritance scheme and a familiar Ripley imitation. Its inventiveness is more contested than its cast's appeal.

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

The conversational contest can create electric psychological tension. The invented plot's weaker stakes, predictable turns, and departures from the chamber setting often blunt that suspense.

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

Rich color, European scenery, and expressive light and shadow are major strengths. Even less favorable responses often admire the photography, though a few find the Swiss landscape underused.

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

The romance offers fun and heat but often feels secondary to the author-editor contest. Implausible encounters and time spent away from Mirren reduce its value for some.

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

The stylized fiction is grounded enough for some viewers. Others struggle with the characters' supposedly dangerous nature, the intellectual connection, or romantic encounters that make little practical sense.

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

The overlapping realities can be an intriguing puzzle or a source of persistent confusion. Visual and performance cues help some viewers follow the shifts, but the ending leaves others unsure what they have watched.

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

The dramatic games can be clever and engaging, though the combination of literary drama and thriller is less convincing to some.

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

Corbijn's strongest work creates tension through controlled staging and carefully chosen images. Detractors find the approach flat or too theatrical, particularly when the film tries to expand beyond the central house.

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

Bloody murder, sexual scenes, and strong language make this a mature thriller rather than an appropriate choice for younger audiences.

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

This is an acquired taste: patience for a contained, conversational mystery matters more than a general appetite for thrillers.

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 leading work is usually a major reason to watch, particularly Mirren's intimidating wit and Ehrenreich's transformations. A few responses find parts theatrical or less convincing, but the leads regularly outperform the material.

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

Brief supporting performances add charm and intrigue, with Brennan especially praised for emotional layers and a comforting presence.

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 cast is the most dependable attraction, with Mirren's acidic presence and Ehrenreich's shifting identities drawing frequent praise. Strong acting often carries scenes whose plotting earns a less enthusiastic response.

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

Memorability is a weakness: several accounts describe fleeting entertainment, forgettable sequences, or little desire for a second viewing.

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.

Strong performances and attractive craft make this an enjoyable diversion for many. Enjoyment depends on tolerating the slow start and an ambiguous payoff that some find fascinating and others reject outright.

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 handsome, richly colored presentation and giallo-like imagined sequences are frequent pleasures. A dissenting response finds the film visually anonymous despite its attractive material.

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

Highsmith's weapon-filled, cluttered home vividly communicates her personality, while the glamorous interiors offer a contrasting world. The sets are among the most consistently admired parts of the production.

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

Elegant clothes add visual pleasure, while smaller wardrobe changes help distinguish the nervous editor from his more polished fictional counterpart.

Mirren's American accent draws a specific complaint for sounding exaggerated, even from an otherwise enthusiastic response to her performance.

The isolated house and cool European settings create an appealing mix of cozy intimacy and menace. Some find the mood absorbing, while others wish the landscape or claustrophobia had been used more effectively.

The fictional Highsmith portrait earns both appreciation and frustration. Some find a convincing late-life personality, while others see a softened caricature or little more than a collection of biographical details.

The treatment of a real author is contentious, especially where her prejudices are softened or murderous possibilities are suggested. An explicit acknowledgment that the story is fictional offers some reassurance.

The ensemble can feel exceptionally well chosen, but one account finds the insistence on Edward's youth awkward beside the actor's clearly adult appearance.

Mirren's long absences are a recurring frustration because the housebound contest is often the main attraction. Cooke likewise has less material than her performance seems capable of supporting.

The social-climbing plot loses force for one critic because advancement seems assured, without enough risk of exposure or loss of status.

Hitchcock-inspired visual techniques give the film a pleasing classical-thriller flavor, especially in its close-ups, juxtapositions, and understated staging.

Mirren's timing makes the barbed remarks land, with both a critic and an audience reaction singling out her comic precision.

A supposedly seductive surprise involving a bedroom intrusion and a knife is criticized as crossing the boundaries implied by the invitation.

The imagined collaboration between Highsmith and Edward is exhilarating when their intellectual, artistic, and psychological sparring comes together.

The best moments turn inventing a murder into a revealing contest between author and collaborator. Opinions split on whether the film explores that process sharply enough or wanders too far into the story they create.

The near-constant smoking is distracting for one viewer, who finds it excessive rather than an effective part of the period atmosphere.

The film's balance suffers when the expanding story sidelines Mirren, whose central contest is often its strongest material.

Claustrophobic close-ups and carefully juxtaposed faces give the psychological exchanges visual force and emphasize unstable identities.

The attempted blend of literary drama and psychological thriller does not fully click for one account, leaving the performances stronger than the combined story.

The deliberately unflattering haircut contributes to Mirren's convincing lack of glamour as the reclusive author.

The handling of sexuality divides opinion: one account appreciates its integration with identity themes, while another objects that a story about a queer figure remains heavily heterosexual.

Cold Alpine light and warmer noir shadows distinguish the film's different worlds. Low light and firelit interiors are also praised for expressing the characters' hidden sides.

The film can feel like a clever lost Highsmith tale, capturing her interest in deception and dark impulses. Other accounts see fan fiction that misses the originality, nastiness, and elegant plotting of its model.

The strangers-on-a-train opening supplies a clever, recognizable nod to Highsmith that adds pleasure for viewers who catch the reference.

One account credits the visibly convincing location work with strengthening the film's sense of place.

The lined, pasty physical appearance supports a committed, deliberately unglamorous version of Highsmith.

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 premise offers intriguing literary games, but the mystery does not always match the standard it invokes. A missing-agent thread is also criticized as underdeveloped.

Several accounts struggle to care about the invented murders because the story feels hypothetical or the social advancement too assured. The absence of meaningful risk weakens the thriller's urgency.

The initial train meeting is singled out as a clever way to launch the story and introduce its literary echoes.

Reversals divide opinion between ingenious surprise and predictable, low-impact plotting. Several accounts feel the final turns either go on too long or fail to reframe the story convincingly.

A few jump scares work effectively because Mirren's presence and the uneasy staging make small jolts count.

The face-transition effect earns a strong complaint for looking poorly executed at a crucial late moment.

Opening the play into multiple screen realities is clever and cinematic for some viewers. Others find the expansion stiff, overcomplicated, or less tense than the basic two-person contest.

Highsmith makes an intriguing adversary: difficult to read, mischievous, and apparently several moves ahead of her visitor.

Edward works as a worthwhile protagonist for some, but the thinner, status-driven characters can make emotional investment difficult.

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

The title sounds somewhat like a direct-to-video thriller to one account, underselling the film's more sophisticated ambitions.

The opening narration suggests an intriguing possibility about who is inventing the story, but that possibility is considered underdeveloped.

The promotional impression can make the film look safer and more conventional than its adult wit, dark comedy, and ambiguous design actually are.

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

The production values are gorgeous enough to stand out even in a strongly negative response to the movie overall.

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

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