The Get Out

The Get Out Movie Review

Released: June 26, 2026
Updated: 3 weeks ago
2.6
Overall review score
182
Review evidence points
38
Scored features
17
Expert reviews

Bottom Line

Choose it for Russell Crowe’s playful, charismatic lead turn and a few lively ensemble moments. Skip it if you want a sharp, suspenseful crime comedy; the crowded plot, thin characters, and uneven tone make the film feel forgettable.

Best for

Best for Russell Crowe fans and viewers who enjoy loose, quirky crime capers as undemanding streaming entertainment.

Not for

Skip it if you want a tightly plotted thriller, sharp dialogue, sustained suspense, deep characters, or a memorable climax.

Verdict

Russell Crowe supplies the charm, warmth, and deadpan comic timing that keep this crime caper watchable, and several supporting performances create lively moments around him. The central idea—an aging nightclub owner trying to retire from a criminal life—has real appeal, while the humane relationship with Sunny gives the story a welcome anchor. However, the screenplay overloads that premise with thin characters, forced connections, and too many competing subplots. Humor, suspense, and violence rarely settle into a coherent tone, and most critics found the pacing sluggish, the action toothless, and the climax forgettable. It works best as a casual streaming diversion for Crowe fans, not as a sharp or satisfying crime comedy.

Feature Scorecards

Summary

38 reviewed features
  • Very positive 4.5-5.0
    2 (5%)
  • Positive 3.5-4.4
    7 (18%)
  • Neutral 2.5-3.4
    8 (21%)
  • Negative 1.5-2.4
    18 (47%)
  • Very negative below 1.5
    3 (8%)

Pros

Sort
  • 4.5
    10 reviews strong consensus
    lead performance: 4.5, 10 reviews, strong consensus
    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.
  • 4.8
    3 reviews strong consensus
    soundtrack quality: 4.8, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    The closing use of the Gipsy Kings’ “Hotel California” is a consistent highlight and gives the ending a stylish final lift.
  • 4.1
    6 reviews strong consensus
    acting performance: 4.1, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    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.
  • 3.8
    6 reviews low consensus
    chemistry between characters: 3.8, 6 reviews, low consensus
    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.
  • 3.8
    5 reviews moderate consensus
    supporting cast performance: 3.8, 5 reviews, moderate consensus
    The ensemble is generally game and energetic, with several performers elevating limited roles. The writing often prevents those performances from becoming fully rounded characters.
  • 3.6
    5 reviews strong consensus
    audience appeal: 3.6, 5 reviews, strong consensus
    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.
  • 4.0
    1 review
    message quality: 4.0, 1 review
    The protagonist’s decency and reluctance toward violence give the movie a refreshingly humane streak beneath the criminal chaos.
  • 4.0
    1 review
    romance quality: 4.0, 1 review
    Manco and Sunny’s affectionate, loyal relationship is one of the movie’s most effective elements and gives the story a needed emotional anchor.
  • 3.5
    1 review
    theme depth: 3.5, 1 review
    A good-hearted view of human nature gives the film more thematic interest than its conventional crime setup initially suggests.

Cons

Sort
  • 1.6
    11 reviews strong consensus
    character development: 1.6, 11 reviews, strong consensus
    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.
  • 1.6
    7 reviews strong consensus
    screenplay quality: 1.6, 7 reviews, strong consensus
    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.
  • 1.3
    3 reviews strong consensus
    emotional impact: 1.3, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    The crowded plotting leaves little room for meaningful investment, so violent turns and late twists land with limited weight.
  • 1.5
    3 reviews strong consensus
    rewatch value: 1.5, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    The film leaves little lasting impression for most critics and is often described as forgettable. One review gave its rewatchability the lowest possible mark.
  • 1.8
    6 reviews strong consensus
    plot originality: 1.8, 6 reviews, strong consensus
    The setup has workable ideas but is repeatedly described as derivative, familiar, or an imitation of better crime comedies.
  • 2.0
    10 reviews low consensus
    genre satisfaction: 2.0, 10 reviews, low consensus
    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.
  • 1.3
    2 reviews limited evidence
    plot clarity: 1.3, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    The intersecting schemes feel tangled and tenuously connected, making the story harder to follow than its basic premise should be.
  • 1.9
    7 reviews moderate consensus
    ending satisfaction: 1.9, 7 reviews, moderate consensus
    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.
  • 1.7
    3 reviews strong consensus
    realism: 1.7, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    The blackmail, robberies, and character decisions frequently strain credibility, with several plot turns feeling contrived rather than naturally escalating.
  • 2.1
    10 reviews low consensus
    pacing: 2.1, 10 reviews, low consensus
    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.
  • 1.0
    1 review
    world-building: 1.0, 1 review
    The Los Angeles crime setting lacks memorable locations and a convincing sense of place.
  • 2.1
    7 reviews moderate consensus
    tonal consistency: 2.1, 7 reviews, moderate consensus
    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.
  • 2.1
    8 reviews low consensus
    suspense: 2.1, 8 reviews, low consensus
    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.
  • 2.2
    10 reviews moderate consensus
    story quality: 2.2, 10 reviews, moderate consensus
    The central idea of an aging nightclub owner trying to leave crime behind is appealing, but the surrounding story becomes generic, excessive, and unfocused.
  • 1.5
    1 review
    drama quality: 1.5, 1 review
    The darker violence carries little emotional weight because the characters and stakes are not developed enough to make it matter.
  • 2.2
    5 reviews low consensus
    action sequences: 2.2, 5 reviews, low consensus
    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.
  • 2.2
    3 reviews strong consensus
    dialogue quality: 2.2, 3 reviews, strong consensus
    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.
  • 2.4
    6 reviews low consensus
    visual style: 2.4, 6 reviews, low consensus
    A few tracking shots and action images show real flair, but the overall presentation is more often anonymous, flat, or lacking visual panache.
  • 2.0
    1 review
    costume design: 2.0, 1 review
    Luke Evans’ flamboyant styling is memorable, but its goofiness clashes with the movie’s broader visual palette.
  • 2.0
    1 review
    editing quality: 2.0, 1 review
    The movie can feel stilted and lose momentum as it cuts among competing storylines.
  • 2.0
    1 review
    sexual content level: 2.0, 1 review
    The opening sexual scene is deliberately comic but can feel jarring and overly in-your-face.
  • 2.5
    10 reviews low consensus
    humor: 2.5, 10 reviews, low consensus
    The comedy is highly inconsistent: Crowe’s deadpan delivery and some eccentric supporting turns work, but many jokes feel dry, crass, or poorly timed.
  • 2.5
    1 review
    originality: 2.5, 1 review
    The premise has some charm, but the movie feels heavily indebted to stronger crime capers and rarely develops an identity of its own.
  • 2.5
    1 review
    runtime: 2.5, 1 review
    At roughly 102 minutes, the movie still feels overfilled because it tries to carry too many characters and ideas.
  • 2.8
    2 reviews limited evidence
    production design: 2.8, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    Reactions to the setting are split. Some locations convincingly stand in for Los Angeles, while others make the Australian shoot obvious and visually generic.
  • 2.7
    4 reviews low consensus
    directing quality: 2.7, 4 reviews, low consensus
    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.
  • 3.0
    2 reviews limited evidence
    score quality: 3.0, 2 reviews, limited evidence
    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.
  • 2.9
    5 reviews low consensus
    cinematography: 2.9, 5 reviews, low consensus
    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.
  • 3.1
    13 reviews low consensus
    entertainment value: 3.1, 13 reviews, low consensus
    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

  • Cinematographer
    4.5
    1 review
    Brendan Galvin: 4.5, 1 review
    Galvin’s moving camera and tracking shots give several scenes welcome fluidity and visual energy.
  • Composer
    4.5
    1 review
    Bryan Senti: 4.5, 1 review
    Senti’s playful compositions strongly shape the movie’s unserious identity, though the broader score approach is divisive in dramatic scenes.
  • Marco Kapak
    4.2
    17 reviews
    Russell Crowe: 4.2, 17 reviews
    Crowe 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.
  • Sunny
    3.9
    4 reviews
    Teresa Palmer: 3.9, 4 reviews
    Palmer 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.
  • Carrie
    3.4
    9 reviews
    Nina Dobrev: 3.4, 9 reviews
    Dobrev’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.
  • Jeff
    3.1
    10 reviews
    Aaron Paul: 3.1, 10 reviews
    Paul’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 Carver
    2.9
    7 reviews
    Luke Evans: 2.9, 7 reviews
    Evans brings playful, chameleonic energy to Joe, but the character is often described as underwritten, sporadic, or two-dimensional.
  • Director
    2.5
    5 reviews
    Derrick Borte: 2.5, 5 reviews
    Borte 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.
  • Writer
    2.0
    2 reviews
    Daniel Forte: 2.0, 2 reviews
    Forte’s co-written screenplay is criticized for tonal confusion and for clashing with the film’s comic presentation.

Compared With Category Average

Compared with other Movies, this product is above average in soundtrack quality, romance quality, near average in lead performance, acting performance, below average in world-building, emotional impact, rewatch value.

Comparison summary

38 compared features
  • Above average 0.4+ pts higher
    2 (5%)
  • Same as average within 0.3 pts
    7 (18%)
  • Below average 0.4+ pts lower
    29 (76%)

Largest category differences

Attribute This product Category average Difference
world-building 1.0 3.9 -2.9
emotional impact 1.3 3.9 -2.6
rewatch value 1.5 3.7 -2.2
genre satisfaction 2.0 4.0 -2.0
costume design 2.0 4.2 -2.2
drama quality 1.5 3.6 -2.1
visual style 2.4 4.1 -1.7
realism 1.7 3.4 -1.8

Consider This Instead

If you want better emotional impact

Choose The Invite. It scores 4.8 vs 1.3 for emotional impact, with a 4.5 overall score.

Compare

If you want better drama quality

Choose Night Nurse. It scores 5.0 vs 1.5 for drama quality, with a 3.4 overall score.

Compare

If you want better plot clarity

Choose Girls Like Girls. It scores 5.0 vs 1.3 for plot clarity, with a 4.0 overall score.

Compare

Compared in Reviews

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

Kraven the Hunter

  • Similar: Russell Crowe's comic performance Crowe's exaggerated comic energy is compared with his work in Kraven the Hunter.

Point Break

  • Alternative: Paul and Dobrev's crime pairing Paul and Dobrev's oddball partnership is pitched as material for a more entertaining Point Break-style movie.

Sexy Beast

  • Similar: Russell Crowe's performance style Crowe's performance is described as blending qualities associated with The Big Lebowski and Sexy Beast.

FAQ

Is Russell Crowe good in The Get Out?

Yes. He is the clearest consensus strength, bringing charisma, warmth, deadpan humor, and enough presence to keep weak material watchable.

Is The Get Out actually funny?

It has scattered laughs, especially from Crowe and some eccentric supporting turns, but the comedy is inconsistent and often clashes with the darker violence.

Is the movie suspenseful?

Usually not. Most critics found the danger toothless, the action low on tension, and the plot complications more exhausting than thrilling.

Does the complicated plot pay off?

Only occasionally. A few enjoyed seeing the pieces connect, but most found the climax flat, predictable, or less satisfying than the setup promised.

Who is The Get Out best for?

It is best for Russell Crowe fans and viewers seeking a casual, undemanding streaming crime comedy rather than a tightly constructed thriller.

Sample Expert Reviews We Analyzed

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

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