Compare Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man vs Wuthering Heights

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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

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 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.

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’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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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