Compare How to Make a Killing vs Wuthering Heights

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

The adult-oriented tone, sexual material, and darkness make this a poor fit for children or younger teens.

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.

Length is a recurring complaint, with multiple reviewers describing the film as overlong or feeling the 132–136 minute running time.

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

The erotic approach divides viewers from both directions: some object to its fetishized or abusive framing, while others are surprised by how tame or chaste it feels compared with the marketing.

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

The music is mostly a strength, especially the score and Charli XCX material, though several reviewers find the contemporary songs distracting or out of place.

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

Editing earns mostly positive notice where discussed, including tight pacing within individual passages and bold montage or cutting choices.

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

This is firmly adult material rather than family viewing, though one critic noted that the marketed eroticism was tame enough to feel unexpectedly parent-watchable.

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

Writing is a major pressure point, with critics faulting shallow characterization, awkward adaptation choices, and dialogue that cannot always support the film’s visual ambition.

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 draws uneven reactions: plenty of reviewers admire the commitment and younger cast, while others find key performances underpowered or miscast.

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

Ticket-worthiness is weak overall among reviewers who address it directly, with several saying the spectacle does not justify the time or recommending other options instead.

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 a consistent drawback, especially in the later sections, with repeated complaints about dragging, repetition, and scenes running longer than their emotional payoff.

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

The story earns much less consensus than the craft, with repeated criticism that the streamlined romance feels hollow or reductive despite isolated praise for its emotional or pulpy appeal.

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

The most common thematic complaint is lost depth: many reviewers say class, race, revenge, abuse, and generational consequences are reduced in favor of surface-level desire.

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 gothic romance it splits the difference between swoony melodrama and darker material, satisfying viewers who accept the reinvention more than literary purists.

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

Where suspense is highlighted, the film’s tense, provocative staging succeeds at keeping the viewer engaged.

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

Fennell’s direction inspires both admiration for bold visual control and frustration with choices that some reviewers see as over-styled or emotionally misjudged.

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

Character depth is a recurring weakness, with critics saying major figures are flattened, simplified, or denied the growth and complexity the story needs.

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 film’s bold reinvention is hard to mistake for a conventional adaptation; reviewers differ on whether that audacity feels fresh and purposeful or merely eccentric.

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

Where rewatching is discussed directly, enthusiasm is low; one viewer said they were unlikely to revisit it despite admiring individual craft elements.

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

Sets and interiors are among the most praised elements, with lavish color, texture, and scale offset by occasional criticism that spaces look artificial, over-designed, or tonally mismatched.

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

Robbie and Elordi’s chemistry is one of the sharpest divides—some call it electric, palpable, or undeniable, while others see awkwardness or almost none at all.

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

Anthony Willis’s score is one of the most consistently praised elements, described as haunting, sumptuous, and emotionally forceful even when the drama itself falls short.

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

The mix of gothic tragedy, camp, eroticism, comedy, and contemporary style is intentionally volatile; some enjoy the blend, while others find it jarring or incoherent.

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

Structural changes leave some reviewers confused or unconvinced by motivations, while others find the streamlined narrative serviceable enough on its own terms.

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

The film can provoke tears, tension, and strong feeling, but a substantial group of reviewers reports emotional distance or numbness despite the lavish presentation.

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 look is its broadest area of agreement: bold color, texture, gowns, weather, and heightened gothic imagery make it visually memorable even for many detractors.

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

Dark and sometimes absurd humor is a notable bright spot, with Isabella and the film’s campier flourishes drawing repeated laughs.

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 leads are polarizing: Elordi often earns praise for brooding physicality, while Robbie has both strong supporters and repeated complaints about fit, age, or characterization.

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

The heightened aesthetic can break immersion, with reviewers calling parts artificial or difficult to believe even when the visual concept is striking.

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

The maximalist romance clearly has a crowd: several reviewers report enthusiastic screenings and see strong appeal for viewers who embrace its sensual, heightened style.

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 reworked plot earns mixed reactions: its fan-fiction-like departures can feel playful to some and reductive to others.

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.

Enjoyment is highly audience-dependent: admirers call it a blast or irresistibly watchable, while detractors describe stretches as dull, boring, or an ordeal.

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

Supporting players are a strong point, with Alison Oliver, Hong Chau, the younger actors, and several secondary performers repeatedly singled out for lively or nuanced work.

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

Critical reaction is openly divided rather than settled, with praise for audacity and craft sitting beside strong rejection of the adaptation choices.

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

The costumes are widely admired for sumptuous color and spectacle, even by reviewers who object to their deliberate period inaccuracy or occasional excess.

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

Dialogue reactions lean negative: several reviewers find lines theatrical, flat, cringey, or less convincing than the surrounding visual craft.

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

The photography is one of the clearest strengths, repeatedly praised for sweeping Yorkshire landscapes, bold contrast, moody textures, and strikingly cinematic compositions.

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

The central romance is deeply divisive: some viewers are swept up by the yearning and toxicity, while others find it thin, hollow, awkward, or less sensual than advertised.

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

Violence and abuse are treated as grim, provocative material, and reactions depend heavily on whether viewers feel the film interrogates that cruelty or aestheticizes it.

The class-and-greed commentary sometimes resonates, but a common criticism is that the satire stays obvious, shallow, or less incisive than it promises.

Many critics think the film muddies or weakens the novel’s ideas about class, race, revenge, and responsibility, though some still read a cautionary message about toxic obsession.

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.

Most reviewers agree this is a very loose reinterpretation that removes major characters and themes; some welcome that freedom, but many see the departures as the film’s defining flaw.

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

The finale lands for some as genuinely emotional, while others find the payoff abrupt, hollow, or insufficiently earned.

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

The heightened melodrama works for some viewers, but others find the central drama unconvincing despite the film’s scale.

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

Race and representation are a major concern, especially the handling of Heathcliff’s identity and the way the adaptation redistributes class and racial dynamics.

Period accuracy is intentionally loose, especially in costumes, music, and design; some enjoy the creative anachronism, while others find it distracting.

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

The makeup and hairstyling receive direct praise as lovely, even within a deliberately anachronistic overall design.

The gothic material occasionally chills or unsettles, but some critics think the film rarely becomes genuinely dangerous or frightening.

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

Yorkshire moors, contrasting estates, rain, fog, and richly styled interiors create a strong atmosphere, though some reviewers find the world more artificial than immersive.