The Get Out Feature Scores
Explore all 38 feature scores for The Get Out, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
38 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.02 (5%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.47 (18%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.48 (21%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.418 (47%)
-
Very negative below 1.53 (8%)
Pros
Sort
-
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.
-
The closing use of the Gipsy Kings’ “Hotel California” is a consistent highlight and gives the ending a stylish final lift.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The ensemble is generally game and energetic, with several performers elevating limited roles. The writing often prevents those performances from becoming fully rounded characters.
-
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.
-
The protagonist’s decency and reluctance toward violence give the movie a refreshingly humane streak beneath the criminal chaos.
-
Manco and Sunny’s affectionate, loyal relationship is one of the movie’s most effective elements and gives the story a needed emotional anchor.
-
A good-hearted view of human nature gives the film more thematic interest than its conventional crime setup initially suggests.
Cons
Sort
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The setup has workable ideas but is repeatedly described as derivative, familiar, or an imitation of better crime comedies.
-
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.
-
The crowded plotting leaves little room for meaningful investment, so violent turns and late twists land with limited weight.
-
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.
-
The film leaves little lasting impression for most critics and is often described as forgettable. One review gave its rewatchability the lowest possible mark.
-
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.
-
The central idea of an aging nightclub owner trying to leave crime behind is appealing, but the surrounding story becomes generic, excessive, and unfocused.
-
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.
-
The intersecting schemes feel tangled and tenuously connected, making the story harder to follow than its basic premise should be.
-
The blackmail, robberies, and character decisions frequently strain credibility, with several plot turns feeling contrived rather than naturally escalating.
-
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.
-
The comedy is highly inconsistent: Crowe’s deadpan delivery and some eccentric supporting turns work, but many jokes feel dry, crass, or poorly timed.
-
A few tracking shots and action images show real flair, but the overall presentation is more often anonymous, flat, or lacking visual panache.
-
The Los Angeles crime setting lacks memorable locations and a convincing sense of place.
-
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.
-
The darker violence carries little emotional weight because the characters and stakes are not developed enough to make it matter.
-
Luke Evans’ flamboyant styling is memorable, but its goofiness clashes with the movie’s broader visual palette.
-
The movie can feel stilted and lose momentum as it cuts among competing storylines.
-
The opening sexual scene is deliberately comic but can feel jarring and overly in-your-face.
-
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.
-
The premise has some charm, but the movie feels heavily indebted to stronger crime capers and rarely develops an identity of its own.
-
At roughly 102 minutes, the movie still feels overfilled because it tries to carry too many characters and ideas.
-
Reactions to the setting are split. Some locations convincingly stand in for Los Angeles, while others make the Australian shoot obvious and visually generic.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.