A high-profile film adaptation of Richard Osman’s bestselling novel The Thursday Murder Club has prompted sharp criticism from some reviewers who say the movie wastes a top-tier cast and loses the novel’s charm, even as other outlets offered more positive assessments.
The film, directed by Chris Columbus and co-produced by Steven Spielberg, opened in cinemas for about a week before transferring to Netflix. It features an ensemble that includes Helen Mirren, Pierce Brosnan, Ben Kingsley and Celia Imrie; the screenplay was written by comedian Katy Brand and playwright Suzanne Heathcote. The novel, first published in 2020, has sold roughly 10 million copies and was widely hailed as a reinvention of the cozy-detective genre.
In a review for the Daily Mail, Christopher Stevens called the adaptation a "dreary travesty," arguing that the film squanders its cast and flattens the book’s warmth and wit. Stevens criticized casting choices and character use, saying Pierce Brosnan’s portrayal of a former trade-union activist lacks the roughness the role requires and that Celia Imrie’s Joyce — a central, comically warm presence in the novel — is reduced to an inconsequential, coarse caricature.
Stevens also faulted the film’s focus on Mirren’s character, Elizabeth, contending that the director gives her repeated, sprawling scenes that crowd out the ensemble dynamic that made the novel appealing. He singled out Ben Kingsley as underused and described several supporting turns — including cameos by Richard E. Grant and appearances by David Tennant and Geoff Bell — as uneven or tonally confused.
Not all critics agreed with Stevens’s assessment. The Times awarded the film four stars, and the review-aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes lists a 76 percent score. Supporters of the adaptation have argued that the cast’s pedigree and some moments of humor and suspense justify audience interest, particularly among viewers who had not read the book.
The screenplay’s handling of plot and tone drew particular scrutiny. Stevens argued that repeated, heavy-handed exposition and clumsy exchanges undercut comic timing and character development. He suggested scenes felt cut back from a longer version, leaving narrative gaps and prompting frequent on-screen explanations to bridge missing connective tissue.
The film’s production pedigree and ensemble prompted significant expectations. Columbus, whose filmography includes mainstream hits such as Home Alone, guided the project, while Spielberg’s role as co-producer added further industry attention. The source novel’s success — topping bestseller lists during the COVID-19 lockdowns and prompting a wave of reader enthusiasm for its premise of four septuagenarian sleuths meeting in a retirement community to discuss cold cases — raised hopes that the adaptation would translate the book’s blend of warmth, humor and mystery to the screen.
According to reviews, those hopes were not fully realized for some viewers. Stevens wrote that the film’s pacing and characterization eroded the inviting sense of community and gentle comedy that drew readers to the novel, and that attempts at darker or more surreal comedy — such as stage-managed violence or grotesque flourishes in villainous scenes — did not cohere with the material’s established tone.
Other critics and audience members have cited the film’s production values and star turns as strengths, and the Rotten Tomatoes score suggests a majority of sampled reviews leaned positive. The mixed reception underlines the challenges of adapting a best-selling novel with an ensemble cast and a distinct narrative voice: decisions about which characters to foreground, what to compress or cut for runtime, and how to balance humor with crime plotting can alter how both readers and new audiences perceive the story.
The film’s quick move from a short theatrical run to streaming places it among recent adaptations that found broader viewership via platforms rather than box office longevity. For fans of Osman’s novel, reactions have been split: some have defended the film’s charms and performances, while others — including Stevens — expressed disappointment that the on-screen version did not capture the conviviality and distinctive character voices that propelled the book to commercial success.
Producers and distributors have not released detailed box office figures tied to the theatrical window, and studio representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment on casting and editing choices. The debate over the adaptation continues to highlight tensions between faithful literary adaptations and the practical constraints of filmmaking, particularly when a beloved work carries high expectations from a built-in audience.