By Any Means Review: A Fascinating True Story That Never Quite Lands

Rating: 3.5/5

Some films get your attention before you even begin watching them. It might be the cast, the subject, or a premise so unusual that your curiosity immediately takes over. By Any Means had that last advantage for me. A crime thriller inspired by real events, involving an FBI investigation, civil rights-era Mississippi and a notorious Mafia hitman? That is the sort of combination that makes you want to know more.

And honestly, the story has a lot going for it. It draws on a troubling chapter of American history and builds its central conflict around an unlikely alliance between law enforcement and organised crime. It is unusual, provocative and immediately intriguing. I enjoy films that introduce me to stories I might not otherwise have encountered, especially when they leave me wondering how much of what I have seen actually happened.

My issue is that By Any Means has a premise that promises more than the finished film consistently delivers. I found it interesting, and I appreciate the ambition behind it, but I never felt it quite achieved the dramatic impact its story deserved.

A premise that immediately grabs your attention

Set against the racial tensions and violence of 1960s Mississippi, the film follows FBI agent Wayne Strider as he investigates murders connected to the civil rights struggle. His investigation brings him into contact with Gregory Scarpa, a Mafia figure whose methods and worldview are a long way from conventional law enforcement.

That unlikely partnership is the film’s biggest draw. An FBI agent is supposed to represent the law; a Mafia enforcer operates outside it. Put them together in an investigation where justice is complicated by prejudice, intimidation and entrenched power structures, and there is plenty of potential for conflict.

The historical backdrop gives the story additional weight. This is not simply a case of two men tracking down criminals. It is an investigation unfolding in an environment where the pursuit of justice can be obstructed by the very systems that are supposed to uphold it. The central question becomes not only who committed the crimes, but how far people might go when the conventional routes to justice fail.

What makes the premise especially appealing is the contrast between the central characters. They may have a common objective, but that does not mean they share the same principles or motivations. There is an inherent tension in asking an FBI agent to cooperate with a mobster, and the possibility of that arrangement going wrong is enough to keep a curious viewer interested.

For me, this is where the movie gets things right. The story feels distinctive. It has a historical foundation, an unusual central partnership and a moral dilemma that could sustain a terrific thriller. It is easy to understand why the premise would attract an audience.

The slow burn that asks for patience

Here is where my enthusiasm begins to cool.

The story is interesting, but the pacing is slow. There is a difference between a film that deliberately builds tension and one that takes so long to develop that the audience starts waiting for it to move forward. By Any Means occasionally feels caught between those two approaches.

I do not mind a slow burn. In fact, I often appreciate films that take the time to establish their world, introduce their characters properly and allow a complicated investigation to develop naturally. A story involving civil rights history, criminal networks and the FBI should not necessarily race from one revelation to the next.

But a slow-paced thriller needs to reward your patience. It needs atmosphere, sharp character writing, escalating tension or performances that make even the quieter scenes compelling. The viewer should feel that something meaningful is building beneath the surface.

I kept waiting for the story to turn its excellent premise into something more gripping. The ingredients are there, but the film does not always bring them together with the urgency or emotional force I wanted. It takes patience to settle into the narrative, and even then, I was not convinced that the eventual payoff fully justified the wait.

That is frustrating because the film does not need a more complicated premise. It needs tighter momentum and a stronger sense that every scene is moving the investigation, the characters or the underlying conflict somewhere important.

A tighter edit and a more engaging dramatic build could have made a real difference. Instead, the story sometimes relies on the strength of its subject matter to maintain interest.

Mark Wahlberg as Gregory Scarpa: not the right fit for me

I generally like Mark Wahlberg. He has made plenty of entertaining films, and I have no problem acknowledging that he can be effective in the right role. But casting is about more than liking an actor or appreciating previous performances. The real question is whether you believe him as the person he is playing.

For me, Wahlberg was not the right choice for Gregory Scarpa.

Scarpa needs to carry a certain menace and unpredictability. He is not simply a tough man who happens to have criminal connections. The role calls for a convincing sense of danger, someone whose presence can change the atmosphere of a room before he has done anything particularly dramatic.

I never quite saw Wahlberg disappear into that character. I remained conscious of the actor rather than becoming fully absorbed in the mob boss he was meant to portray. The performance did not create the lasting impression I expected from such an important figure in the story.

That is not the same as saying Wahlberg cannot act, or that every scene he appears in fails. It is a question of fit. An actor can be perfectly capable and still feel miscast in a particular role, and that is how this performance landed for me.

The problem matters because Scarpa is one half of the unlikely partnership at the heart of the film. If the character does not feel entirely convincing, the relationship built around him loses some of its power. The movie asks us to accept this dangerous, morally complicated figure as an essential part of the investigation, but I wanted a more persuasive performance to make that dynamic work.

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II: a solid effort without enough impact

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II has the other major challenge: he must give Wayne Strider enough conviction to stand opposite Scarpa while conveying the pressure of navigating an investigation shaped by racial injustice and institutional limitations.

He does what he can with the role, and I would not call his performance a disaster. The character’s position creates an interesting tension between following the rules and confronting a situation in which the rules may not be enough.

Yet I came away feeling much the same way I did about Wahlberg’s performance: neither lead left the lasting impression the material needed.

Strider should be an engaging centre for the audience. His position gives us a way into the investigation, and his partnership with Scarpa should force him to confront difficult questions about justice, morality and the compromises required to make progress. I wanted to feel more of that internal conflict and see it translate into a stronger screen presence.

Instead, the performance felt serviceable rather than especially impactful. The character and circumstances are interesting, but the emotional connection never became as strong as it could have been.

The real disappointment is the combination of the two performances. The film has built its identity around an unlikely pairing, but I did not feel that either actor fully elevated the relationship. Their contrasting backgrounds and methods provide plenty of material for tension, debate and mutual distrust. I wanted that dynamic to be one of the movie’s strongest assets.

For me, it remained an opportunity only partially realised.

The historical foundation gives the film its weight

One thing I appreciate is the decision to draw on a troubling chapter of history. The civil rights movement, racial violence and the struggle to investigate crimes in an environment shaped by prejudice give the narrative stakes beyond the usual crime-thriller mechanics.

The real-world background also makes the story more unsettling. The idea that an investigation might require cooperation with someone from the criminal underworld is provocative enough, but the circumstances surrounding the case make that alliance especially uncomfortable. It raises questions about what justice means when conventional routes are compromised and whether the methods used to achieve it can ever be separated from their moral consequences.

There is an important distinction between the historical case and its dramatic adaptation, though. The film uses fictionalised elements to shape events for the screen, including a composite FBI character. It should not be treated as a documentary or a perfectly literal account of every event.

That does not diminish the premise. If anything, it makes the historical context worth exploring beyond the film itself. A compelling movie can introduce an audience to real history without every scene or character representing the historical record exactly.

Direction and atmosphere: a missed opportunity

Elegance Bratton has an intriguing foundation to work with. The period setting, the collision between law enforcement and organised crime, and the broader social conflict give the film a clear identity. The world it depicts is capable of supporting a tense, morally complicated thriller.

What I wanted was a more consistent connection between that atmosphere and the dramatic momentum. Period detail and a strong premise can create the right conditions for a memorable film, but they cannot replace the feeling that the story is steadily tightening its grip on the audience.

The direction needed to make the investigation feel more urgent without sacrificing the historical context. It needed to bring out more of the friction between Strider and Scarpa, while allowing the wider conflict to remain central rather than becoming merely a backdrop for the crime story.

The result is a film that remains interesting to think about, even when it is not always as compelling to watch as I hoped. There are enough strong ideas here to sustain your curiosity, but the overall experience feels less forceful than it should.

That is ultimately what separates a good one-time watch from a thriller I would enthusiastically recommend to everyone. By Any Means has the raw material for the latter, but I do not think it fully gets there.

Who should watch By Any Means?

If you enjoy true-story-inspired crime thrillers, investigations rooted in American history and stories built around unlikely alliances, this film has enough going for it to merit a look.

It is particularly suited to viewers who are drawn to unusual premises and are willing to be patient while a story takes its time. The historical context may also encourage you to explore the real events that inspired the film.

However, if you want a relentlessly paced thriller with unforgettable lead performances and a payoff that leaves you thinking about it for days, I would temper your expectations. The premise may immediately catch your attention, but the execution is more uneven than I wanted.

Where to watch By Any Means

Digital rental or purchase options in the United States include the following listings. Availability and pricing vary by country and may change, so check the listing for your region before renting or buying.

• Amazon Prime Video — search for By Any Means and check regional availability.
• Apple TV — search the movie catalogue for the current listing.
• Paramount Movies — official movie page.

These are digital availability leads, not a guarantee that the title is included with a subscription in every country.

Final verdict: a good thriller, but not a must-watch

I went into By Any Means with the kind of curiosity that an unusual true-story premise can generate. The story has real potential: an FBI investigation, a notorious Mafia figure, a civil rights-era setting and an alliance that challenges conventional ideas about justice. That combination is unusual enough to make you want to know what happens.

And yet, when the film ended, I felt that its potential was greater than its impact.

The slow pacing requires patience, and while Mark Wahlberg and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II do their best with the material, neither performance landed for me in the way the central partnership demanded. The historical foundation is compelling, but the film does not consistently translate that foundation into the gripping, memorable thriller it could have been.

I still consider it a good thriller and a worthwhile one-time watch. Its story is distinctive, and its premise is precisely the kind of thing that attracts a curious viewer. I simply wish the execution had been stronger and the performances had given the narrative more weight.

My rating: 3.5/5.

Would I recommend it? Yes, if you enjoy historical crime thrillers and are intrigued by the story. Would I call it a must-watch? Not really. There are enough interesting ideas to make the time worthwhile, but not enough lasting impact to make it essential viewing.

Sometimes a fascinating story is only the beginning. By Any Means has that beginning; I just wish it had done more with it.