Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
derek_larsson
Reviews
Columbo: Identity Crisis (1975)
Enjoyable but....
The acting is excellent, and the story pacing, scenery, and supporting cast are all also very well done. The technical skill and the great acting of Patrick McGoohan (villain), and also Peter Falk (Columbo) in this episode makes this one very enjoyable and entertaining.
But like quite a few Columbo episodes (most all of which I love anyway), something is missing here in the plot, or in the writing.
We do not get a clear motive as to why Nelson Brenner (played by McGoohan) wanted the Leslie Nelson character to be murdered (and is his name "A J Henderson" or not?). We don't get a complete picture here. But it is also never explained why Columbo even suspects Nelson Brenner to begin with, rather than the foil, Lawrence Melville (who had an assault record, and was last seen following "Henderson" right before the murder).
While Brenner was photographed earlier that day with "Henderson" at a Carnival, nothing actually places him at the crime scene later that night, and we have no clear motive. So it's a leap in logic to suspect him over Melville (who was last seen with him) which is never really explained.
And despite Columbo eventually disproving the carefully planned alibi of Nelson Brenner, it would be a standard operating procedure for him to have claimed, since he was a CIA agent, that he simply had advanced knowledge about the Chinese withdrawal from the Olympics, or that he put that in the prepared speech as a hypothetical.
As others have pointed out, Brenner confesses far too easily here, and too unnecessarily over so-called "evidence" that could be easily explained away by someone with his connections, and someone in his position. But moreover, just the lack of an alibi by itself does not even prove actual guilt of anything. Don't we need more than that? So Columbo never puts together a whole case here (crime scene evidence, the motive), and all we are left with is shadows, incomplete speculations, and an improbable CIA-operative confession.
But this is just a problem with the writing, and not with the acting and with the production, both of which are marvelous. A very enjoyable episode, but one that would have been strengthened much more with just a little tighter plot, and writing.
Columbo: Forgotten Lady (1975)
Great Acting, but....
Due to the very high-quality of the entire Columbo series, the expectation level is always anticipating another 'masterpiece'.
There are many things to like in this episode including great acting, a unusual ending with a measure of human compassion, and likable characters. Peter Falk, as always is masterful.
But I had mixed feelings about this episode, because Columbo really does not ever prove that a murder, rather than a suicide, took place. He has his doubts of course due to some subtle clues (the husband last seen reading a light hearted book, taking a sleeping pill, etc.). But all that Columbo is able to ultimately do here is show that because a 1:45 minute film did not finish until 2 hours had elapsed, then this could've been caused by a break-in-the-film delay, that went unnoticed by former actress Grace Wheeler (and "star") -- because she was busy shooting her husband.
That's quite a leap here because what he has demonstrated is just hypothetical opportunity only, and there is no actual 'evidence' that ever places her in the bedroom, or which connects her to the gun used.
The delay, as someone else pointed out could've been hypothetically caused by any other routine behavior (such going to the bathroom, making mistakes trying to re-splice the film, getting a glass of water, etc.).
Columbo also speculates a motive, but only has the declining health of Wheeler to work with. Yet he knows from this for certain that her husband refused to finance her new show. But how does he know this? If she was dying anyway, then why not just let her enjoy her last months doing what she loved? No motive is proved by this, only speculation.
Yet we see not only Columbo prepared to indict her for murder on this loose bit of speculation, but also convince her loyal dance partner of her guilt as well.
This was a big stretch for me to accept, but it is a very entertaining and well-acted episode.
Columbo: Short Fuse (1972)
Writing Not Believable
This review does contain spoilers, so be forewarned.
I found what I consider to be a major problem with the main plot (below).
First, like many Columbo movies, Columbo has no real proof to work with but only speculation that seems like an uphill battle to really prove. In this episode, after a car containing victim David L. Buckner, the President of the Chemicial company, goes off a cliff, Columbo then jumps on the idea that there must have been an exploding cigar box --- presumably due to the fact that when Columbo gets called into the case, he hears a telephone recording made during the car ride (something technologically rare for the early 1970s), which captures conversation from Buckner about opening up a new cigar box. Okay.... a little bit of a reach, but at least he does know that parts of the car were burned before going over the cliff.
Now the villain, Roger Standford played by (the always weird and interesting) Roddy MacDowell, is a PhD Chemist who did wire-up a cigar box to explode, and planted it in the car with Buckner and his private investigator Quincy. But here's the problem: since this cigar box plot actually succeeded, and the car did explode and burn causing it to destruct and go down the cliff, then one would normally conclude that Roger would KNOW that the cigar box itself would not be a recoverable item from the accident, or even if it had...it would be blown away into in tatters, and most importantly already detonated.
So when Columbo traps Roger, by showing him a "recovered cigar box" at the end of the movie, it is not believable to me that Roger would ever fall for that setup so easily, and freak out like he does -- and where he then incriminates himself in front of Columbo.
He's a chemist. He knew the box worked, and that the car was blown-up. Roger, like Columbo, had also heard the telephone recording where Buckner was starting to open up the box during the ride. Consequently, even if the police thought it was just an accident, Roger knew the truth. Therefore, he would also know that any "slightly burned" yet in-tact, whole cigar box presented by Columbo, which Columbo claimed to have been recovered, had to be a fake or planted box -- and not the actual cigar box that really blew-up the car. He would've have also known that even if the cigar box somehow survived the explosion in tact (impossible?), that it could not also detonate a second time.
But Columbo traps his man here anyway, with a planted cigar box that he claims survived the accident, and then Roger freaks-out thinking that it is going to explode on the tram ride (with Columbo) as he opens it, and then incriminates himself.
I found that not believable.
The odds of the car having a completely separate and naturally-occurring accident right at the same time as the lethal cigar box was opened in the car is: 1,000,000,0000,0000 to 1.
So someone who was a conniving PhD genius in Chemistry would also be smart enough to know that the cigar box had to have worked, and that once the real cigar box had indeed worked as planned --- then even if it were "recovered", it would not detonate again, and so this 'recovered' box had to be just a police gimmick, which was completely harmless.
So the writing/plot is simply not believable here.
But the acting performances are fine.
Columbo: A Matter of Honor (1976)
Does it really add up?
Warning: Contains spoilers
I love Columbo, and Peter Falk is wonderful in this episode.
But, like some other episodes in the series, the evidence doesn't quite seem convincing enough to me.
What looks to be a Bullfighting accident, is not believed by Columbo for the following reasons:
. A broken piece of a lance, not normally used by a Matador. . The fact that the victim had a bag with clothes packed (never explained). . A small needle mark in the victim, but which had no trace of drugs. . The fact that the Matador's Car was washed, prior to the Victim saying he was going to stay at the ranch. . The fact that cape was not wet, which meant there was no strong wind.
From just this, Columbo then knows that the Matador stayed at the ranch with the victim, drugged the victim, and then set him up to be killed by a Bull, and he had reason to do so simply because the previous day the Matador froze in front of the Bull - when the victim's son was injured and the lance was broken.
Wow! That's a big leap in logic to conclude all of that from just a few bits of unremarkable "evidence".
There is no hard proof that could stand up in a Court of Law that any of this happened...unless there was a voluntary confession.
For me it would be more statisfying, if they wrote the script so that he really cornered the guy on something. Instead I always end up wondering what murderer would actually confess to a murder on "evidence" like that, which is really just a series of speculations?
Columbo: A Deadly State of Mind (1975)
Problems with the writing
Warning: This Review Contains Spoilers...
I thought the acting performances were outstanding. The movie was well-directed and the pacing was good. But I had some major problems with the writing itself.
The so-called "damning evidence" against the psychiatrist Dr. Collier amounts to only:
1) A cigarette lighter flint found at the beach house, which supposedly places -him- (?) at the crime scene.
2) A foreign tire print on the driveway, which is consistent with the psychiatrist's car (but also consistent with other cars too).
That's it.
That's the only real "evidence" we see Columbo have against Collier. Nothing about motives, or why a buglary would be impossible and have to be ruled-out, or why Dr. Collier must be the guy that did the act of murder.
Then, we just have the final piece of evidence at the end, when the psychiatrist is identified by witness who saw him drive away on that day. But that witness is a blind man, so what kind of an ID is that in the first place (what did he really "see") ? So Columbo tricks the psychiatrist by presenting the witness in the form of someone who can really see (the real witness's brother). Dr. Collier then supposedly incriminates himself by complaining that the man now identifying him was a blind man, something he wouldn't know unless the blind man and he did really cross paths.
But what was really proved here? Dr. Collier could always just say that he mistakenly thought Columbo's false witness was a blind man, by the mannerism of how he was acting, and by his sunglasses.
There is still no real connection of the murder to Dr. Collier. The very most that could be established here was that he was at the beach house on that day.
But even that fact alone would not preclude the possibility of some other burglarer, enemies, or intruders being responsible for the actual murder.
This episode does not deal with motives at all. For someone to be guilty, you need to show motive, means, and opportunity. Opportunity was only thinly and circumstantially established. Motive was not dealt with at all. And the big self-incrimination finale was a stretch, that only dealt with the opportunity issue anyway.
In real life, I don't think you could convict something with "evidence" this light. Overall my rating is good entertainment, but not very convincing.