How To Make A Killing – The BRWC Review

Key Takeaways

• Film underdelivers on satire of wealth
• Lead actors receive minimal character development
• Violence appears bland and uncinematic
• Missed opportunity to leverage star Ed Harris
• Score 3.5/10 reflects critical consensus

Summary

John Patton Ford’s second feature *How to Make a Killing* attempts a satirical, class‑based thriller but delivers a bland, undercooked narrative. The film follows Beckett Redfellow, a low‑level salesman who murders his billionaire relatives to claim a $10 billion inheritance, yet it fails to develop characters or provide compelling violence. Critics note the movie’s generic tone, weak kills, and underutilized talent such as Ed Harris. The review assigns the film a low 3.5/10, labeling it a missed opportunity in the current “eat‑the‑rich” wave.

Pulse Analysis

The surge of "eat‑the‑rich" narratives has become a double‑edged sword for studios like A24, which thrive on edgy, low‑budget thrillers. While audiences crave sharp social commentary, the market is quickly saturating, and *How to Make a Killing* illustrates how formulaic execution can backfire. By leaning on familiar tropes—wealthy families, murderous heirs, and dark humor—without fresh insight, the film fails to differentiate itself from higher‑profile titles such as *The Menu* and *Saltburn*, eroding the genre’s novelty and diminishing box‑office appeal.

From a business perspective, the film’s lackluster reception underscores the financial risks of green‑lighting projects that prioritize concept over craftsmanship. A24’s brand equity rests on curating distinctive voices; when a release falls short, it can dilute the label’s cachet and affect downstream revenue streams, including streaming licensing and international sales. Moreover, underutilizing talent like Ed Harris represents a missed opportunity to attract broader demographics and boost ancillary earnings through star power, a tactic often employed to offset modest production budgets.

For filmmakers, the review serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of character depth and inventive violence in genre cinema. Audiences now expect nuanced satire that interrogates wealth disparities rather than merely depicting them. Investing in stronger scripts, richer character arcs, and inventive set‑pieces can transform a conventional premise into a critical and commercial success, preserving both artistic credibility and profitability in an increasingly crowded market.