Critics’ reviews

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2024)

17 reviews from 17 publications. Critics’ score 75: 14 positive, 2 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Mr. & Mrs. Smith

75
Positive
14
Mixed
2
Negative
1

Most critics like it, and fourteen of the seventeen reviews are plainly positive. The praise clusters on the two leads: Donald Glover and Maya Erskine’s chemistry is singled out almost everywhere, with several critics noting how easily they shift between romcom warmth and something colder underneath. The second point of agreement is structural. Critics welcome the decision to put the marriage ahead of the spying, using episodic missions as a frame for a relationship that gets room to grow, and more than one calls it an improvement on the film’s premise.

The reservations are mostly about pacing: an uneven first half, missions that feel conventional, time jumps that skip over stretches of the romance. NME finds it colder and more generic than its stars’ earlier work. Vulture praises Hiro Murai’s direction while faulting the plotting. The spread is narrow, running from fair to warm, with one real dissent: The Hollywood Reporter finds the central romance unconvincing and reserves its praise for guest turns from Parker Posey and Wagner Moura.

The Guardian
1 February 2024 · Lucy Mangan
90*

Mangan finds the series a glorious, witty treat that makes its romance feel essential. She especially praises the easy chemistry and complementary performances of Donald Glover and Maya Erskine.

Read the full review →
The i Paper
2 February 2024 · Emily Watkins
85*

Watkins finds the series brave, bracing and ultimately successful in balancing action with emotional nuance. She especially praises the chemistry between Donald Glover and Maya Erskine, and the way their relationship gives the missions human stakes.

Read the full review →
Variety
1 February 2024 · Alison Herman
85*

Herman finds this version of Mr. & Mrs. Smith a convincing, substantially improved reinvention. She singles out its relationship-focused storytelling, which gives the central couple time to develop beyond the spy missions.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
1 February 2024 · B+ · Saloni Gajjar
83

The critic finds the series heartfelt and effective once its relationship drama comes into focus, despite an uneven first half. She praises Maya Erskine’s performance and the leads’ chemistry.

Read the full review →
Evening Standard
1 February 2024 · ★★★★ · Maddy Mussen
80

Mussen calls the series a total delight, with enough substance and chemistry to invite an immediate rewatch. She particularly praises Donald Glover’s creative touch and the show’s funny, compelling take on a fake marriage built around spy missions.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 February 2024 · Olly Richards
78*

Richards finds the series dark, smart, and difficult to categorise, with its peculiar tone becoming part of its appeal. He praises Donald Glover and Maya Erskine’s performances, especially their mix of romcom charisma and underlying menace.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
2 February 2024 · B · Ben Travers
77

Travers finds the series compelling despite conventional patches and a sputtering pace. He praises its emotionally strong marriage allegory and the leads’ growing intimacy.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
1 February 2024 · James Hibbs
70*

The review describes the series as a lot of fun, despite being less surreal than expected. It singles out the episodic approach as a winning choice.

Read the full review →
Vulture
2 February 2024 · Kathryn VanArendonk
65*

VanArendonk finds the series uneven in its plotting but refreshing in its relationship-focused, episodic approach. She praises Hiro Murai’s direction for balancing polished visuals with frantic instability.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
1 February 2024 · Angie Han
35*

The critic finds the series’ romance unconvincing, leaving its clever spy-romcom concept out of sync. The standout praise goes to lively guest performances, especially Parker Posey and Wagner Moura.

Read the full review →
Paste
1 February 2024 · 8.1/10 · Michael Savio
81

Savio finds the series a lively, well-balanced action-romance that improves on the film’s premise, with only minor pacing issues and a sense that its comedy could go further. He praises the leads’ relatable chemistry and singles out the action, especially a mid-season car chase and shootout in an Italian village.

Read the full review →
Collider
1 February 2024 · 8/10 · Emily Bernard
80

Bernard gives the series a strongly positive review, praising its focus on character over elaborate spy-world building. She particularly singles out Donald Glover and Maya Erskine’s chemistry and grounded performances.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
1 February 2024 · ★★★★ · Rendy Jones
80

The critic finds the series a fun, well-written and entertaining update, especially suited to viewers familiar with Donald Glover’s recent work. They praise the chemistry between Glover and Maya Erskine, while faulting the time jumps for skipping over parts of the couple’s romance.

Read the full review →
Digital Spy
1 February 2024 · Rebecca Cook
80*

The review finds the series hugely entertaining and a fresh take on the property. It praises the humor, chemistry, and guest stars, while noting it lacks some of the original film’s enemies-to-lovers fun.

Read the full review →
Consequence
1 February 2024 · Liz Shannon Miller
75*

The critic finds the series compelling, praising its grounded action and engaging take on relationship drama. She particularly highlights Donald Glover’s newly revealed potential as a romantic lead.

Read the full review →
NME
31 January 2024 · ★★★☆☆ · Alex Flood
73*

The reviewer finds the series enjoyable but too cold and generic compared with its stars’ earlier work. They praise the genuine rapport between Glover and Erskine, especially during quieter moments together.

Read the full review →
The Ringer
13 February 2024 · Charles Holmes and Joanna Robinson
64*

The episode discusses the series, but the available description does not reveal the hosts’ overall verdict. It mentions discussion of what worked and did not work, without identifying a specific point of praise or complaint.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate