Hello everyone and welcome to a brand new movie review! For this one, I am going to be looking at a recent star studded mystery that dropped on Netflix this year entitled The Thursday Murder Club. It is based off of the book of the same name by Richard Osman, a book that has received very positive notices and has thus far spawned 3 sequels. I myself have become a newfound fan of this series, having read the first two books. I think they are very entertaining and clever murder mysteries that have a wonderful ensemble of characters at the center. Now, we have this movie adaptation, which on paper seems very promising. The basic premise is one that has a lot of potential and I think Chris Columbus, at his best, can excel at making these kinds of adventures (think the first two Harry Potters, Mrs. Doubtfire, Home Alone, etc.). Plus, it has been a while since I’ve read the source material a movie is based on before watching the movie, so I was definitely interested in seeing how I would view this from that angle. With that said, how did this mystery shape out? Let’s jump right in and see what foul play is a foot with this Club!
The film follows the misadventures of a group of elderly people who live at Coopers Chase Retirement Home comprised of the mysterious Elizabeth, former trade union leader, Ron, and psychiatrist, Ibrahim. Together, they form a group known as The Thursday Murder Club, as they meet together every week to discuss various cold cases and figure out what actually happened. They are now joined by a new member to the home, named Joyce, who is also a former nurse (something they find very useful, given their interests). They soon get involved in a little conflict involving plans to redevelop Coopers Chase into luxury flats, with owner, Ian Ventham, wanting to move forward with those plans while, fellow owner and partner, Tony Curran, does not want to even bother with it. Soon, Curran is found murdered, igniting the intrigue of our titular club as they set out to tackle this case.
Usually when it comes to book adaptations, I’ve always been of the mind of judging them as their own thing and not letting my feelings towards the source material impact that mentality. However, I also think that it is interesting and fair to see what differences are made and whether the material was enhanced or lessened in any way by comparison. In the case of The Thursday Murder Club, I think it is a decent enough adaptation that, at the same time, can’t help but pale when compared to the source material in key aspects. There are many reasons to love Osman’s work on the books, and among them is the way in which certain plot elements or character dynamics would unfold, as he ends up bucking some trends in regards to what one would expect from a mystery story like this. This cuts out a lot of material for the sake of having a feature length runtime and not only do I think that makes things less impactful, but also makes the proceedings feel a lot more conventional here as it plays out how I likely would’ve expected the book to play out while reading it (only there, I was pleasantly surprised).
Now, even though the central mystery isn’t perfectly done in the book (takes a backseat to the comedy and character stuff for most of it and has a bit too many red herrings that end up blurring together), I felt like it was less engaging here as there is barely a “who dunnit?” angle presented with actual suspects being sparser and I can’t say I felt much urgency in this regard, save for maybe one or two climactic beats. Even if I hadn’t read the book, these are still pretty substantial issues present. That being said, I still do think the movie manages to work, if only cause it manages to capture the tone of the book well. The comedy is very amusing with plenty of witty dialogue that makes the character interactions engaging to watch and it is fun seeing certain bits from the novel play out cinematically with much energy from Columbus’s direction. I think he is able to balance that humor with the more serious moments well and I like how the film doesn’t hold back from some of the sadder aspects of the story and what it has to say regarding growing older and how one looks at life and the challenges that can come from it, but also the joys one can find as well. Plus, even though some aspects of the plot play out a bit more “as expected” in a vacuum these beats are still well executed and make sense within the context of the story. The heart is also still there and I can’t say I was bored while watching it.
If there’s one thing that is adapted well, it’s that visually I do think this is able to bring to life the novel’s settings and elements in a way that is quite accurate. The actual Coopers Chase location is appropriately big and ornate, filled to the brim with various nooks and crannies that make it a visually fun locale (appreciated that they kept the llama zoo in there). The colorful cinematography also pops out in a way that fits the nature of the story, but when things are a bit more intense/serious, it cools down a bit with the darker hues adding to those scenes nicely. As mentioned, Columbus makes sure to give the comedic scenes the right amount of energy, but also the needed intensity to scenes that manage to put me on the edge of my seat. Do I wish the movie played around a bit more in terms of making things a bit more cinematic? A bit, as I think Columbus doesn’t quite take as much advantage of the film medium as he could’ve in order to make scenes more effective as the way shots are edited together and composed are really nothing to write home about. That being said, he still gets the job done and it is a well crafted picture on the whole.
When it comes to the casting, I also think this is an area where the film mostly succeeds at. When it comes the main team, Helen Mirren was the absolute perfect choice to play Elizabeth. She nails down the character’s dry wit and collected intellect to a tee and is able to make for a commanding presence whose confidence is unlike any other. She delivers her lines with ease and I think she is also very successful in portraying the character’s more intimate/humanistic side when needed. Mirren shows that there’s more to this character than just her intelligence and it is very fun seeing her mind at work trying to figure out what is going on. One angle that I thought was expanded upon very well was her relationship with her husband, Stephen, played wonderfully by Jonathan Pryce, who suffers from dementia. There’s more of that shown her and I thought those provided a great deal of emotional oomph that does an excellent job in making Elizabeth into a fully rounded character. Mirren and Pryce also just have great chemistry that is packs so much warmth and I like how it touches upon the struggles with getting older, but the bonds that formed that will never break with that as well.
The rest of the group doesn’t quite get as much focus, but still have their moment. Ben Kingsley was also perfectly cast as Ibrahim, providing much of the more successful comedy bits related to the character’s eccentricity and it is another case of the character coming to life exactly how I would’ve imagined. Celia Imrie is also quite good as Joyce, the newest member who quite enjoys having this new bit of excitement in her life (maybe a bit too much) and Imrie brings the needed spunk. However, she is possibly the one who gets short shifted the most as she doesn’t get nearly as much focus as in the books and mostly just kind of exists for most of the movie save for when her nursing abilities are needed. Then there’s Pierce Brosnan as Ron who is… fine, but not a particularly great choice for this character. Don’t get me wrong, I love Brosnan as an actor and I always enjoy seeing him pop up in things (i.e. this year’s incredible spy thriller, Black Bag), but I never saw him as the type to play this character. I enjoyed Ron’s cranky and fiery, yet quietly caring personality that made him into this big personality that made him leap off the page perfectly. Brosnan tries at times to capture this and he does it fine (if only cause he has a natural sense of charsima), but I can imagine someone else doing a better job (personally, I think Peter Capaldi would’ve been a solid fit).
When it comes to the supporting cast, despite some key book differences I think they fill things out quite nicely. Naomie Ackie makes for a good Donn de Freitas, the police constable who ends up working with the Club, capturing her simmering enthusiasm hidden under a serious exterior, for finally getting a real case to work with. Same goes for Daniel Mays as her supervisor, Chris Hudson, who tows a fine line between being a capable authority figure and one with his bumbles. However (apologize for being a broken record), their characters, especially the latter, don’t really have the same level of depth or development. Donna isn’t quite as prominent here while Chris is just the standard police chief type character who disapproves of everything the Club does, whereas there’s more to him and his relationship with Donna on the page. However, for the purposes of making a movie that can’t go through every detail, I can understand keeping things basic here. That being said, I thought Henry Lloyd-Hughes made for a terrific Bogdan, a Polish handyman who works for Cooper’s Chase, and I did not completely mind the changes that were made to his character. His stoic demeanor comes across perfectly and I like some of the added depth his character his given that gives Lloyd-Hughes the chance to chew a bit more on the material.
David Tennant’s portrayal of the corrupt co-owner of Cooper’s Chase, Ian Ventham, is also a notable difference as he is less a confident businessman who is selfish and greedy but tries to be charismatic this a more outwardly unpleasant guy who seems desperate for more money. But, it works and Tennant is able to give in a good turn that makes this guy an unsympathetic individual where one can understand the other character’s distaste in him. Tom Ellis is also quite good as Ron’s former boxer son, Jason, with the complications of him wanting to move on from that life, yet having a father who loves him for that, being something that honestly could’ve been furthered a bit. There are various other book characters whose screentime is condensed considerably, with major suspects getting almost nothing of not here to do which makes the mystery feel limited. That being said, I still do think certain reveals work if only cause the actors are able to sell the emotion successfully (I.E. Richard E. Grant showing up and having a grand old time in a pivotal) and even though they are more standard ways of writing the story, the writers still make them work fairly well.
In conclusion, I enjoyed The Thursday Murder Club as a fun mystery film that entertains, even with my issues with source fidelity. Beyond it playing like a safer take on the book’s story, I do think it suffers from the mystery not being fully developed, a lack of much urgency, and certain characters not getting as much to do as others. However, it is consistently funny, it balances the tone quite nicely, quite a bit of the emotion hits, it has a nice vibe at its best, the characters are fun to be around, and I enjoyed the performances. If your a fan of the book, then there is a good chance that you’ll have the same frustrations I had with it, but for those in the mood for a light, fun, mystery with good actors partaking in hijinks, then this is a nice one to put on. It might not have reached what the story’s full potential could be like the books, but it still manages to work well on its own terms. That being said, I would highly recommend the book and I think its sequel, The Man Who Died Twice is even better. Maybe if we could cinematic follow up to this movie based on that novel, the same could happen here as well.
Rating: B
Please leave your thoughts down below in the comments and see you guys later!
Review Time 