The Get Out Feature Scores
Explore all 38 feature scores for The Get Out, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
38 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.02 (5%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.47 (18%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.48 (21%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.418 (47%)
-
Very negative below 1.53 (8%)
Pros
Sort
-
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.
-
The closing use of the Gipsy Kings’ “Hotel California” is a consistent highlight and gives the ending a stylish final lift.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The ensemble is generally game and energetic, with several performers elevating limited roles. The writing often prevents those performances from becoming fully rounded characters.
-
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.
-
The protagonist’s decency and reluctance toward violence give the movie a refreshingly humane streak beneath the criminal chaos.
-
Manco and Sunny’s affectionate, loyal relationship is one of the movie’s most effective elements and gives the story a needed emotional anchor.
-
A good-hearted view of human nature gives the film more thematic interest than its conventional crime setup initially suggests.
Cons
Sort
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
The setup has workable ideas but is repeatedly described as derivative, familiar, or an imitation of better crime comedies.
-
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 crowded plotting leaves little room for meaningful investment, so violent turns and late twists land with limited weight.
-
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.
-
The film leaves little lasting impression for most critics and is often described as forgettable. One review gave its rewatchability the lowest possible mark.
-
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 central idea of an aging nightclub owner trying to leave crime behind is appealing, but the surrounding story becomes generic, excessive, and unfocused.
-
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.
-
The intersecting schemes feel tangled and tenuously connected, making the story harder to follow than its basic premise should be.
-
The blackmail, robberies, and character decisions frequently strain credibility, with several plot turns feeling contrived rather than naturally escalating.
-
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 comedy is highly inconsistent: Crowe’s deadpan delivery and some eccentric supporting turns work, but many jokes feel dry, crass, or poorly timed.
-
A few tracking shots and action images show real flair, but the overall presentation is more often anonymous, flat, or lacking visual panache.
-
The Los Angeles crime setting lacks memorable locations and a convincing sense of place.
-
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.
-
The darker violence carries little emotional weight because the characters and stakes are not developed enough to make it matter.
-
Luke Evans’ flamboyant styling is memorable, but its goofiness clashes with the movie’s broader visual palette.
-
The movie can feel stilted and lose momentum as it cuts among competing storylines.
-
The opening sexual scene is deliberately comic but can feel jarring and overly in-your-face.
-
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.
-
The premise has some charm, but the movie feels heavily indebted to stronger crime capers and rarely develops an identity of its own.
-
At roughly 102 minutes, the movie still feels overfilled because it tries to carry too many characters and ideas.
-
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 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 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.
-
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.
Cast & Creators
-
Marco KapakCrowe is the movie’s strongest and most reliable asset, mixing deadpan humor, warmth, charisma, and occasional menace. Even negative reviews find him watchable, though a few feel the campy accent and material limit the performance.
-
SunnyPalmer brings warmth and steadiness to Sunny, helping make Manco’s relationship feel affectionate and grounded. Her role is limited, but her chemistry with Crowe is consistently valued.
-
CinematographerGalvin’s moving camera and tracking shots give several scenes welcome fluidity and visual energy.
-
ComposerSenti’s playful compositions strongly shape the movie’s unserious identity, though the broader score approach is divisive in dramatic scenes.
-
CarrieDobrev’s eccentric energy and comic commitment are lively highlights for some viewers, particularly in her scenes with Paul. Others find the timing weak and the character more irritating than coherent.
-
JeffPaul’s anxious, frustrated Jeff works well for some critics, especially opposite Nina Dobrev. Others find the performance repetitive, overly grim, or badly miscast for the intended comedy.
-
Joe CarverEvans brings playful, chameleonic energy to Joe, but the character is often described as underwritten, sporadic, or two-dimensional.
-
DirectorBorte occasionally keeps the story brisk and captures a light crime-caper mood, but most criticism targets his failure to unify the tone, visuals, and crowded plot.
-
WriterForte’s co-written screenplay is criticized for tonal confusion and for clashing with the film’s comic presentation.