Compare How to Make a Killing vs Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.