How to Make a Killing (2026)

Glen Powell murdering his way through a family tree to reclaim stolen wealth sounds like the pitch for a crowd-pleasing dark comedy - and largely, How to Make a Killing delivers exactly that. Director John Patton Ford (Emily the Criminal) has a gift for making economic grievance feel visceral rather than preachy, and with A24's polish and Powell's effortless charisma, this is one of the more entertaining films of early 2026. Just don't mistake its populist glee for ideological innocence.

Becket Redfellow (Glen Powell) was disowned at birth by his obscenely wealthy family - left to build a blue-collar life while his cousins and uncles burn through the Redfellow fortune. Now an adult with a plan and a smile, Becket systematically inserts himself back into the family's orbit - then begins eliminating, one by one, every obstacle standing between him and his inheritance. Narrated with darkly comic detachment by Powell himself, the film moves briskly through a family gallery of targets: the pompous grandfather (Ed Harris), the sanctimonious pastor cousin (Topher Grace), the hapless cousin (Zach Woods), and others. Childhood friend Julia Steinway (Margaret Qualley) complicates matters. So does girlfriend Ruth (Jessica Henwick), who may or may not be ahead of the game.

The film draws openly from Kind Hearts and Coronets - the 1949 British classic in which Alec Guinness played every member of the family being murdered by its heir. Ford updates the premise for modern America: old money vs. working-class grit, institutions that protect the wealthy, and the seductive appeal of simply taking what should have been yours.

Trope Analysis - VVWS Weighted Scoring

🔴 Woke Tropes

Trope	Severity (1-5)	Authenticity	Centrality	Weighted Score
Anti-wealth / anti-inheritance class critique as moral framework	3	High - embedded in premise	High	5.4
Institutions (law, church, family structure) portrayed as complicit in injustice	2	High	Moderate	2.4
Protagonist sympathized despite criminal behavior because system is worse	2	High	Moderate	1.6
WOKE TOTAL	9.4

🟢 Traditional Tropes

Trope	Severity (1-5)	Authenticity	Centrality	Weighted Score
Personal agency and cunning rewarded - protagonist solves his own problem	4	High	High	5.6
Consequences for wrongdoing - film maintains moral accountability arc	3	High	High	3.6
Romance as genuine emotional driver, not political vehicle	3	High	Moderate	2.1
Family legacy and inheritance framed as meaningful (even if contested)	2	Moderate	Moderate	1.6
Work ethic of protagonist vs. idle rich explicitly contrasted	2	High	High	1.2
TRAD TOTAL	14.1

Director Ideological Track Record

John Patton Ford is an AFI-trained writer-director whose debut, Emily the Criminal (2022), was widely - and accurately - described as "capitalism as the Big Bad." Ford is not a scold; he's a storyteller who happens to believe that economic systems crush individuals, and he builds that worldview into his genre mechanics rather than his dialogue. His films don't moralize. They demonstrate. How to Make a Killing fits neatly into this pattern: the target isn't identity politics, it's wealth hoarding. That's an important distinction for conservative viewers. Ford's critique is economic populist, not social justice. You may find yourself agreeing with his premise while disagreeing with his conclusions.

He won the Independent Spirit Award for Best First Screenplay for Emily the Criminal (2022). How to Make a Killing is only his second feature.

<!-- Mercedes-corrected: 2026-02-18 -->

Adult Viewer Insight

The film is deeply enjoyable - Powell delivers one of his most controlled, layered performances, shedding the golden-boy charm just enough to let menace breathe underneath. Margaret Qualley is used too sparingly but lands every scene she's given. Ed Harris as the patriarch is brief and magnetic. The film's class politics will read to some viewers as sharp satire and to others as wishful thinking for economic grievance. Either way, it's not preaching. The film trusts you to draw your own moral conclusions - a rarer quality than it should be.

The body count is high. The comedy is dark. The ending earns its ambiguity.