Compare How to Make a Killing vs The Rip

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

The constant tough-cop profanity can become grating rather than immersive, especially when paired with the film’s sourer stretches.

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 enthusiastic reviewer felt the movie offered enough star power and old-school excitement to justify paying for the experience rather than only streaming it.

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

The cop lingo, worn-down behavior, and grounded production often create convincing authenticity. That realism is weakened by implausible decisions, continuity errors, and plot mechanics that some reviewers could not buy.

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

The strongest dramatic scenes are the face-offs between Damon and Affleck, where their friendship and mutual distrust give the macho posturing real emotional intensity.

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 film’s dark neo-noir lighting and gritty sheen often create a convincing, cinematic mood. The same darkness is also a recurring complaint, with several viewers finding later scenes murky, ugly, or generically Netflix-polished.

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

The mystery can reward a second viewing, and some viewers are eager to revisit how the clues fit together. Others expect the movie to fade quickly once the twists are known.

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

Damon and Affleck’s chemistry is the clearest consensus strength. Their long friendship gives the trust, suspicion, banter, and confrontations a lived-in weight the script could not easily manufacture.

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

The quieter money-counting and interrogation scenes benefit from deliberate cuts that let tension breathe. Action editing is less consistent, with some complaints about choppiness and a chaotic final stretch.

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

Suspense is the movie’s most dependable craft strength. The money, ticking clock, uncertain loyalties, and Damon-Affleck distrust create sustained pressure even when the eventual action or reveals disappoint.

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

Its firmly adult crime-thriller sensibility is part of the appeal for viewers who want a grown-up, hard-edged genre movie.

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

Some of the early critical enthusiasm is seen as justified, especially around the darker style and stronger-than-usual Netflix craft. That praise does not erase complaints about generic plotting and thin characters.

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

The sound can make gunfire and physical hits feel forceful on a good setup, but the mix is inconsistent. One review specifically notes dialogue being swallowed by ambient noise.

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

The moral ambiguity around greed, loyalty, corruption, and who counts as a good cop gives the thriller more substance than a simple shootout movie. Some critics still wish those ideas were sharper or less simplistic.

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

Damon and Affleck repeatedly elevate the material, with Damon often singled out for the more controlled, layered work. Their performances remain compelling even when the script gives them familiar archetypes.

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

Once suspicion takes hold, the film can move with excellent momentum and make its length feel light. The main complaints are a slow first act, a long setup, and finales that sometimes run past the natural stopping point.

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

Joe Carnahan is widely praised for controlling suspicion, pressure, and contained action with confident genre instincts. A minority find the filmmaking inert, overly blunt, or chaotic once the final act erupts.

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

The contained, grounded pressure-cooker tone works very well at its best. The trouble comes when the movie shifts into shouty action, relentless dourness, or sentimental closure that feels like a different film.

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

The central friendship and weary-cop humanity give the movie real emotional weight for some viewers. Others find late grief beats or sentimental touches unearned, leaving the emotional payoff uneven.

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 an old-school cop and crime thriller, the movie generally delivers what genre fans want: stars, paranoia, moral murk, and escalating danger. Even lukewarm reviews often concede that it functions as a solid throwback.

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.

Most reactions land on enjoyable to very entertaining, especially when the movie leans into suspicion and star chemistry. The dissenters see it as disposable, generic streaming fare that is easy to forget.

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

The dialogue draws frequent criticism for exposition, tough-guy clichés, and repetitive profanity. A smaller group likes the natural banter and hard-boiled rhythm when the actors can make it feel lived in.

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 twists are the most polarizing part of the plot: some land as clever surprises, while others are spotted early or feel mandated by the genre. The structure works better than its actual novelty.

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

The action is divisive: some praise the clear gunfights, chases, and physical impact, while others find it too sparse, generic, or overbearing late in the film. The suspense often lands better than the spectacle.

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

The pulsing, glowering score is a consistent technical strength, amplifying dread and keeping momentum alive through quieter stretches. Even a more skeptical review still finds it propulsive.

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

The ordinary cul-de-sac and stash house are transformed into threatening, enclosed spaces, making the modest location feel tense rather than cheap.

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

The moody, low-light cinematography often gives the film a gritty theatrical look and turns confined spaces into pressure cookers. The main drawback is that the final act becomes too murky for at least one critic.

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 ensemble is one of the movie’s biggest strengths, with the cast repeatedly credited for lifting routine material. Even harsher takes usually blame the script more than the performers.

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

The late surge of gunfire and chases can feel excessive when it starts crowding out the intrigue that made the earlier sections work.

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

Character depth is the most consistent weakness. Damon and Affleck get the most usable material, while several supporting officers are repeatedly described as underdeveloped, thin, or introduced too late.

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

The supporting cast is frequently praised, especially Steven Yeun and Sasha Calle, and several reviews call the ensemble unusually strong. The frustration is that Taylor, Moreno, and others are not always given enough to do.

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 film usually moves well enough that its near-two-hour length is not a major problem. The most common runtime complaint is that the wrap-up or finale could lose several minutes.

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 film’s moral framing of cops and corruption splits opinion. Some appreciate its search for imperfect heroes, while others see the good-cop message as simplistic, too pointed, or close to copaganda.

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.

The movie rarely escapes the shadow of familiar cop-thriller formulas. A few reviewers find smart variations in its contained setup, but most still describe the overall package as derivative or recognizably Netflix-era genre fare.

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

The humor is light and mostly carried by banter, attitude, and the Damon-Affleck dynamic. Some viewers think that amount is just right, while others wish the grim tone had more levity.

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

The best version of the story is a compact pressure cooker about trust, greed, and corruption. The weaker version becomes generic or muddled once its thin characterization and pileup of twists start showing.

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

The movie plays best as a Friday-night, macho crime-thriller watch rather than a broad crowd-pleaser. Viewers already drawn to Damon, Affleck, and old-school cop movies are the clearest fit.

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

The screenplay earns praise for its contained premise, suspicion engine, and satisfying reveal structure. Its weaker side is exposition, thin secondary characterization, and logic that becomes patchy under the weight of the twists.

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

The layered double-crosses and hidden motives are often harder to follow than they need to be. Some enjoy that density, but several reviewers call the plotting muddy, convoluted, or logically inconsistent.

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

The ending is sharply divisive. Several critics love the final reveal and resolution, while others think the film keeps going too long, turns generic, or closes on an overly sentimental note.

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

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.

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

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

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

The stash house itself can feel lived-in and threatening, but the broader Miami setting is underused. Several critics wanted more local texture and a stronger sense that the story truly belonged to that city.