Compare Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man vs The Mortuary Assistant

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

Effects work is overwhelmingly praised, especially the visceral corpse preparation, gore, prosthetics, and body-horror imagery. Even reviewers who dislike the movie often single out the effects as worth seeing.

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.

The limited physical action drew a sharp complaint for awkward staging and editing when characters are thrown around or fight supernatural forces.

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

Scare effectiveness is the central disappointment for many reviewers. Creepy background figures, the Mimic, body horror, and occasional fake-outs work, but repetitive jump scares and weak buildup often keep the film from feeling truly frightening.

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.

A handful of reviewers liked the unusual mortuary-and-demon concept and reality-bending setup, giving the core premise stronger marks than the execution around it.

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

CGI impressions are mixed-to-positive: some reviewers found the digital work solid or unobtrusive, while another thought noticeable CGI use undercut creature scenes that would have benefited from more practical work.

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

The score divides reviewers: some found it enveloping or appropriately eerie, while others thought the cues were intrusive, generic, or forgettable and sometimes spoiled otherwise tense moments.

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.

Music reactions lean negative overall: some liked the creepy game-derived theme, but others found the broader music distracting, overbearing, or too eager to manufacture scares.

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.

The finale is one of the weakest consensus areas, often described as rushed, underwhelming, confusing, or not worth the buildup. A minority liked how it folded multiple game endings together and left room for more.

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.

The clinical mortuary work benefits from tactile sets and convincing practical detail, making embalming and corpse preparation feel unusually immediate. A few effects break the illusion, but the procedural material is a major grounding force.

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.

Humor is mostly accidental rather than intentional. Reviewers who laughed did so at stiff performances or awkward horror beats, not because the script successfully plays as comedy.

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.

The mythology and cause-and-effect are frequently hard to follow, especially for newcomers. A few reviewers found the reveals clear enough, but many describe unanswered questions, confusing rules, and scenes that fail to connect.

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.

The cast is one of the film’s most disputed elements. Willa Holland is frequently praised for grounding Rebecca, while several reviewers found other performances stiff, robotic, or uneven.

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.

The film has striking pockets of grim lighting, clinical close-ups, game-faithful compositions, and creepy creature imagery. Other reviewers find the palette drab or the lighting too dark, so the visual style is more admired in moments than universally.

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.

As horror, the movie is divisive and leans negative: practical gore and creepy mortuary imagery satisfy some genre fans, while many others say it simply is not scary or tense enough.

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.

Rewatch interest is split but generally positive among supporters: some expect repeat viewings to reveal missed details or reward devoted fans, while confusion made at least one reviewer’s repeat attempts feel like work.

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.

Character chemistry is inconsistent. Some reviewers liked the uneasy interplay around Rebecca and Raymond, while others felt the cast lacked connection and that this weakened the film’s emotional pull.

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

The mortuary is often photographed with immersive close-ups, shadows, tracking shots, and claustrophobic framing. A smaller group found the lighting muddy, washed out, or visually bland.

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.

The demonic rules and mortuary mythology are a major fault line. Fans sometimes enjoy the expanded lore and game callbacks, but many reviewers find the explanations simultaneously dense, incomplete, and difficult to translate into movie logic.

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.

Supporting performances are much more divisive than the lead. Paul Sparks is praised by some as perfectly eerie and detached, while others call him robotic, one-note, or unintentionally funny; smaller supporting turns fare better.

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.

For viewers seeking graphic horror, the violence is a feature rather than a flaw: mutilation, bloodletting, corpse work, and gore are described as nasty, visceral, and enthusiastically effective.

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.

Addiction, grief, guilt, self-harm, and the idea of a lifelong struggle against inner demons give the film thematic ambition. Reviewers split sharply on whether those ideas feel poignant or overly familiar and explicit.

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 core premise has potential, but the movie’s story is usually judged too cluttered, repetitive, or lore-heavy to fully work. A smaller group likes how it reshapes multiple game threads into one night and gives Rebecca more personal context.

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.

The screenplay is the film’s most consistently criticized creative component. Dense lore, repetitive explanations, awkward structure, and game-like task progression often crowd out a clean cinematic narrative.

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.

Several reviewers felt the movie stays flat or shifts awkwardly between trauma drama, game-like tasks, and supernatural horror. Its grim mood is consistent visually, but dramatic escalation often feels uneven.

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 addiction-and-possession parallel works for reviewers who connect with Rebecca’s lifelong struggle against guilt and relapse. Others find the metaphor obvious, overexplained, or too loosely attached to the plot.

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.

Overall enjoyment skews negative despite pockets of enthusiasm. Viewers who respond to the gore, mortuary setting, and game callbacks can have fun, but many found the movie boring, tedious, or forgettable.

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

Dialogue is a consistent weakness, with repeated complaints about unnatural exchanges, robotic delivery, exposition-heavy conversations, and lines that feel carried over from game logic rather than film dialogue.

Many reviewers see the movie as a familiar one-last-job epilogue or a reworking of old Peaky Blinders beats. A smaller group praises its bolder choices and fresh generational angle.

The mortuary premise itself feels fresh to some reviewers, but the finished film is repeatedly described as generic demon-possession horror built from familiar tropes. Its setting is more distinctive than its narrative moves.

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.

Jeremiah Kipp earns credit for atmosphere, clinical detail, and isolated creepy images, but opinions split on his handling of pacing, action, and narrative coherence. The craft is often stronger than the movie’s overall flow.

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.

Sound design is a major technical strength, from clinical embalming noises to oppressive institutional clangs and subtle mortuary ambience. Even mixed reviews credit it with doing heavy atmospheric work.

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 film can generate dread through isolation, shadows, and clinical routine, especially early on. Many reviewers say that tension repeatedly collapses under exposition, predictable jump scares, or overexposed monsters.

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.

Game fans are the clearest target, with several reviewers saying familiarity adds recognition and context. Newcomer appeal is much less certain because the lore can be hard to follow, though a few reviewers found it accessible without playing.

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

Editing is a recurring problem: several reviewers describe scenes as disconnected, oddly ordered, or abruptly cut between scares and exposition. A few found the construction serviceable, but the overall pattern is negative.

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.

Willa Holland is the clearest acting strength and is repeatedly credited with carrying the film through weak exposition and uneven scares. Even mixed reviews usually describe her as committed, grounded, or effective.

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

Value depends heavily on the viewer: game fans and body-horror devotees can find the faithful details worth the ticket or rental, while one severe detractor regretted even a tiny booking fee.

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.

Pacing is one of the strongest recurring complaints. Many reviewers found the 90-ish-minute film slow, uneven, repetitive, or burdened by exposition, although a few liked its concise slow-burn rhythm.

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.

Rebecca’s recovery, grief, and growing confidence give the film an emotional spine for some viewers. Others found her backstory thin, clichéd, or awkwardly connected to the demonic plot.

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.

At roughly an hour and a half, the film is objectively compact, yet many reviewers say it feels much longer because of repetition and exposition. A few thought the concise length worked in its favor.

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.

River Fields Mortuary is widely praised as a claustrophobic, detailed central location that often resembles the game closely. Even negative reviews commonly acknowledge the set work and low-budget production effort.

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 addiction-and-trauma material can hit hard when Rebecca’s guilt and recovery are foregrounded, and one reviewer found it deeply resonant. Others felt weak chemistry or clumsy integration blunted that impact.

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.

The film recreates the game’s location, rituals, creatures, and recognizable beats with considerable fidelity. Reviewers disagree on whether that loyalty is a strength or the reason game mechanics and lore feel clumsy on screen.

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.

One reviewer felt Holland could make dramatic moments land even when the script had not fully earned them, highlighting how much the emotional material depends on her performance.

One reviewer treated the film as plausible high-school sleepover horror, while another informally pegged its gore, profanity, and embalming imagery around a PG-13 level. The material is still deliberately grisly.

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.

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.

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

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.

One horror-focused review treats the foul-mouthed possession material as part of the film’s enjoyable extreme-horror texture rather than a distracting excess.

Body and creature makeup is usually praised, especially the grisly mortuary work. The main monster is more divisive, with some calling it memorable and others saying visible low-budget seams make it look costume-like.

Practical mortuary effects are the film’s most consistent triumph. Embalming, autopsy, gore, wounds, corpses, and prosthetic work are repeatedly called convincing, visceral, gross, and memorable.

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

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