How to Make a Killing

How to Make a Killing Movie Review

Brand: A24
Released: February 20, 2026
Updated: 55 minutes ago
3.5
Overall review score Expert score: 3.1 Customer score: 3.9
511
Review evidence points
45
Scored features
106
Total reviews
67 expert / 39 customer

Bottom Line

Choose it for Glen Powell’s charisma, a strong ensemble, slick presentation, and a few sharp twists. Skip it if you want incisive satire, airtight crime logic, deep characterization, or consistently biting black comedy.

Best for

Best for viewers who want a slick, lightly twisted crime comedy led by Glen Powell and can overlook implausible murder mechanics, broad satire, and uneven tonal shifts.

Not for

Not ideal for viewers seeking sharp Ealing-style wit, rigorous crime logic, deep characterization, or consistently tense and biting black comedy.

Verdict

How to Make a Killing works best as a glossy showcase for Glen Powell, whose charisma carries a murderer that many critics think the script never makes psychologically convincing. Margaret Qualley, Jessica Henwick, Bill Camp, Zach Woods, Topher Grace, and Ed Harris give the supporting cast plenty of spark, while the cinematography and score add polish. The harder sell is the movie around them: its death-row framing can drain suspense, its murder logic often strains plausibility, and its class satire frequently feels familiar or underdeveloped. Customer viewers are generally warmer, especially about the fun, twists, and watchability, but expert reactions repeatedly flag tonal indecision and thin characterization. The result is an entertaining dark comedy for some and a frustratingly muted remake for others.

Feature Scorecards

Summary

45 reviewed features
  • Very positive 4.5-5.0
    5 (11%)
  • Positive 3.5-4.4
    18 (40%)
  • Neutral 2.5-3.4
    18 (40%)
  • Negative 1.5-2.4
    4 (9%)

Pros

  • 4.6
    16 reviews moderate consensus
    acting performance: 4.6, 16 reviews, moderate consensus
    The cast is one of the film’s steadier strengths, with many viewers praising the ensemble even when the material around them feels uneven.
  • 4.4
    9 reviews strong consensus
    visual style: 4.4, 9 reviews, strong consensus
    The film’s slick, colorful, polished look is a regular positive, even among critics who think the style never fully coheres with the tone.
  • 4.3
    11 reviews low consensus
    cinematography: 4.3, 11 reviews, low consensus
    The polished, grainy photography is widely admired, with several critics singling out the lighting, texture, and camera work.
  • 3.9
    19 reviews low consensus
    audience appeal: 3.9, 19 reviews, low consensus
    Audience reactions lean warmer than the critic consensus, with many calling it watchable, fun, or worth seeing even when imperfect.
  • 3.8
    36 reviews low consensus
    lead performance: 3.8, 36 reviews, low consensus
    Glen Powell is the clearest consensus strength, repeatedly praised for charisma and likability even by critics who think he is miscast or too mild.
  • 3.9
    12 reviews low consensus
    genre satisfaction: 3.9, 12 reviews, low consensus
    It works best for viewers who accept it as a light dark-comedy thriller; critics wanting sharper farce or tougher suspense are often disappointed.

Cons

  • 2.0
    12 reviews moderate consensus
    realism: 2.0, 12 reviews, moderate consensus
    Plausibility is one of the sharpest recurring complaints, especially around the FBI, forensic gaps, and how easily Becket gets away with repeated murders.
  • 2.4
    15 reviews low consensus
    tonal consistency: 2.4, 15 reviews, low consensus
    Tone is one of the most repeated weaknesses, with the movie often described as caught between farce, noir, thriller, and moral drama.
  • 2.5
    22 reviews low consensus
    originality: 2.5, 22 reviews, low consensus
    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.
  • 2.5
    21 reviews low consensus
    character development: 2.5, 21 reviews, low consensus
    Character depth is a recurring weakness: Becket’s motives and several supporting players are often described as thin, rushed, or underwritten.
  • 2.7
    15 reviews low consensus
    faithfulness to source material: 2.7, 15 reviews, low consensus
    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.
  • 2.5
    4 reviews moderate consensus
    plot clarity: 2.5, 4 reviews, moderate consensus
    The confession structure helps some viewers follow the story, but others find the narration cumbersome and the timeline or logic needlessly confusing.

Cast & Creators

  • Julia Steinway
    4.3
    16 reviews moderate consensus
    Margaret Qualley: 4.3, 16 reviews, moderate consensus
    Qualley brings sharp femme-fatale energy and often gives the film a jolt of personality. Several critics wish the script gave her more room, with some calling the role underwritten despite her presence.
  • Noah Redfellow
    4.4
    11 reviews strong consensus
    Zach Woods: 4.4, 11 reviews, strong consensus
    Woods is a frequent comic standout, with several reviewers singling him out as one of the funniest parts of the movie. His eccentric energy lands even for critics who find the broader comedy weak.
  • Steven Redfellow
    4.1
    10 reviews strong consensus
    Topher Grace: 4.1, 10 reviews, strong consensus
    Grace’s brief megachurch-pastor turn is often called funny, juicy, or scene-stealing. One reviewer found the character intensely annoying, and several wished the role had more room to develop.
  • Ruth
    4.1
    9 reviews moderate consensus
    Jessica Henwick: 4.1, 9 reviews, moderate consensus
    Henwick is repeatedly praised for warmth, groundedness, and an endearing presence as Ruth. The main drawback is the thinness of the role and romance, which can leave her with too little to do.
  • Warren
    4.3
    6 reviews strong consensus
    Bill Camp: 4.3, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    Camp gives the ensemble humanity, gravitas, and some of its most enjoyable comic character work. Even when his screen time is limited, reviewers tend to see him as a stabilizing presence.
  • Whitelaw
    4.1
    7 reviews strong consensus
    Ed Harris: 4.1, 7 reviews, strong consensus
    Harris brings menace and weight to a small role, with reviewers praising how much impact he gets from limited screen time. Some still see the part as underused or constrained by the script.

Compared With Category Average

Compared with other Movies, this product is above average in sexual content level, runtime, language level, near average in pacing, ending satisfaction, below average in soundtrack quality, realism, faithfulness to source material.

Comparison summary

45 compared features
  • Above average 0.4+ pts higher
    11 (24%)
  • Same as average within 0.3 pts
    17 (38%)
  • Below average 0.4+ pts lower
    17 (38%)

Largest category differences

Attribute This product Category average Difference
soundtrack quality 2.0 4.0 -2.0
sexual content level 5.0 3.0 +2.0
runtime 4.3 2.7 +1.6
realism 2.0 3.3 -1.3
faithfulness to source material 2.7 3.9 -1.2
language level 4.5 3.0 +1.5
message quality 2.7 3.7 -1.0
tonal consistency 2.4 3.4 -1.0

Consider This Instead

If you want better tonal consistency

Choose Girls Like Girls. It scores 5.0 vs 2.4 for tonal consistency, with a 4.0 overall score.

Compare

If you want better originality

Choose Night Nurse. It scores 4.7 vs 2.5 for originality, with a 3.4 overall score.

Compare

If you want better plot originality

Choose The Invite. It scores 5.0 vs 3.0 for plot originality, with a 4.5 overall score.

Compare

Compared in Reviews

Products reviewers directly compared with this model, grouped into quick takeaways.

Kind Hearts and Coronets

  • Compared: remake relationship The reviewer describes the film as essentially a remake of Kind Hearts and Coronets.
  • Better: overall quality versus the source classic The reviewer says the remake falls far below Kind Hearts and Coronets.

No Other Choice

  • Better: capitalist satire and similar premise The reviewer calls No Other Choice a similar but much stronger film.
  • Better: dark class-revenge comedy The reviewer considers No Other Choice substantially stronger.

Hit Man

  • Better: Glen Powell disguise-driven crime performance The reviewer says Powell’s disguise work was handled better in Hit Man.

FAQ

Is Glen Powell good in How to Make a Killing?

Mostly yes. His charisma and likability are the clearest performance strengths, though some critics find him too mild or superficial to fully sell Becket’s darker side.

Is How to Make a Killing actually funny?

It depends on the viewer. Several reviews praise specific jokes and supporting performances, while many critics say the film never becomes consistently funny enough for its black-comedy premise.

How does it compare with Kind Hearts and Coronets?

The film closely reworks the earlier story in a modern American setting. A few critics appreciate the update, but many regard it as less sharp, less distinctive, and less effective than its inspiration.

Is the movie suspenseful?

Only intermittently. The death-row framing and predictable structure reduce tension for many critics, although later twists and the third-act escalation work better for some viewers.

Does the ending work?

The ending is divisive. Some viewers praise the twists and coda, while others find the resolution contrived, hollow, or unsatisfying.

Is it worth watching?

It is a better fit for viewers drawn to Glen Powell, dark crime comedy, and polished style than for those wanting airtight plotting or incisive satire. Customer reactions are generally warmer than the expert response.

Sample Expert Reviews We Analyzed

These are a few of the reviews included in our analysis.

Video Reviews

Article Reviews

dcfilmdom.com

Writer/director John Patton Ford clearly wants How to Make a Killing live in ambiguity, and his ability to hold us in this uncomfortable...

Review score
3.9

Top Movies to Consider

#1 Remake
4.8

Best for a profound, formally inventive meditation on grief, memory, and the ethics of filming family. Skip it if intensely personal addiction material, a 114-minute runtime, or occasional repetition will...

Pros: plot originality, ending satisfaction

Cons: runtime, pacing

#3 Mary Oliver: Saved by the Beauty of the World
4.7

Best for a tender, accessible portrait that lets Oliver’s poetry, friends, and archival voice carry the experience. Skip it if you want a brisk, deeply investigative biography; the calm rhythm...

Pros: romance quality, faithfulness to source material

Cons: none

#4 The Invite
4.5

Best for razor-sharp adult comedy, exceptional ensemble work, and a surprisingly moving marriage story. Skip it if talk-heavy chamber pieces, explicit relationship discussions, or an occasionally intrusive string score wear...

Pros: plot originality, lead performance

Cons: runtime, score quality