OVERVIEW
When Becket was a kid, his mother made him promise he’d one day make things right. She was once an heiress, cut off from the family fortune for having him as a teenager. After she unexpectedly dies, Becket turns to the family for help, but all he gets back is a letter that says: “We understand the situation. We can’t help you at this time.” He buries the hurt and, over time, forgets the promise. Years later, an old sweetheart brings it all back with a half-joke: why not wipe out the whole family tree? Suddenly, the fortune feels within reach.
BACKGROUND
The film is loosely inspired by the 1949 British classic Kind Hearts and Coronets, and underwent multiple iterations, almost pitting Shia LaBeouf against Mel Gibson. Thankfully, that project never saw the light of day, and the lead role ultimately landed with the charming Glen Powell, who has been building a career playing a man forced to wear multiple disguises. The film is John Patton Ford’s second film, following the breakout success of the clever Emily the Criminal. This arrives after “Eat the Rich” satires have been prevalent in film and TV, raising the question of what, if anything, the film genuinely brings to the table.
THE REVIEW
The answer: Powell’s charm and a snappy rhythm. Does it surprise beyond what the title already suggests? Not really. Is it saying anything new about the rich and the poor, with a sharp modern edge like No Other Choice? Absolutely not. Are the deaths as creative, or the tension as steadily escalating, as you might hope? Also no. Still, is it a good time? You bet it is.
A lot of it is thanks to Powell, who, while not quite on Hit Man level (which will always be his ultimate role), brings effortless laughs as a character in his wheelhouse. The role benefits from his easy charisma, and asks him once again to wear funny costumes, speak in different voices, and improvise. In other words, it is way better suited than the serious, and unconvincing, angry-man mode he tried in Running Man. He also shares good chemistry with the two main female actresses, Jessica Henwick and Margaret Qualley, who also do a good job despite being limited by the script. Henwick is mostly stuck in a stock love-interest mode, but makes her character genuine, while Qualley’s role is a bit predictable. Yet, she gets to have fun as a femme fatale and commands the screen as always.
The main appeal, as expected, is watching Becket go from a first disjointed killing, on a victim who clearly had it coming, to more elaborate plans and harder executions. If you’ve seen The Talented Mr. Ripley, Saltburn, or the Broadway musical A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder, you can always predict what will happen next. There are killing montages, the FBI shows up to investigate, Topher Grace plays a corrupt priest who becomes a target, and Becket falls for one of the victim’s former partners. You could probably guess all that based on the poster and cast list alone.
That predictability is not fatal, but the film’s episodic structure, with victims introduced right as they are about to be offed, and the FBI’s general incompetence, keep it from generating the suspense it wants. It becomes a little too easy for Becket, and his mistakes rarely compound in a way that raises the pressure. The first killing, in particular, should have raised far more questions. There is also untapped potential in what the film sets up with Henwick and Bill Camp, which could have added more tragedy and depth to Becket’s arc. Ed Harris’ character feels like another missed opportunity, as the movie could have used him to sharpen its critique of the wealthy, but the film is not really interested in going there. In the end, it just wants to deliver a good time, and it does.
FINAL THOUGHTS
There are better films that execute this exact formula with more tension and invention. How to Make a Killing is not especially fresh, and it does not add much to the “eat the rich” conversation. Still, it is a good use of Powell, with passable twists and enough strong scenes to make the whole thing go down easily.