fugue-in-k

I think the producers intend this to be a Columbo for the twenty-first century, and perhaps it will appeal more to viewers forty and under. For me, I just kept noticing the similarities and the glaring differences.

A detective who hides their brilliance with a very misleading appearance, check. Columbo looked sloppy and disorganized, Elsbeth, flaky and disorganized. Both are howcatchums rather than whodunits. The killer is only character who truly understands how brilliant the detective is, and from their first encounter, too. I know there were more I noticed, but I failed to write them down and I don't find the mysteries themselves to be that compelling or memorable.

That's the first of the differences, of course. I grant, Columbo came first, so Elsbeth is at a disadvantage in finding distinctive plots, but I remembered Columbo mysteries and many of their details over the decades between my first viewing and my later ones. I watched several Elsbeths this mornings, and they didn't really stick or have strong scenes with really good actors.

Which is the second difference. Even when a gifted actor guests (for example, Blair Underwood), the writing doesn't give them much to work with, and most of the guest stars aren't top caliber. Also, there needs to be a gifted second actor to hold up the exchange. Carrie Preston simply isn't in Peter Falk's quantum level, granted that very few actors are.

It's not a bad show, you understand. I will probably watch the rest of it, but it won't be high on my watchlist nor do I expect to rewatch it even once. I would urge viewers not to go in with high expectations, so that they can appreciate it for what it is, a kinda cute little show unlikely to ever be classed a great one.

If you haven't seen Columbo, allow me to suggest that you check it out. At least realize what the original is before you watch the modernized version.

I generally wouldn't comment on sound editing, but the poor quality was very egregious and made it hard to follow the information.

The background music was much too loud throughout. Different voice tracks (for instance, some scientists' discussion and the narrator's voiceover) would be set at the same level and played simultaneously, making it virtually impossible to distinguish the sense of either one. Also, extremely annoying to people like me who often need lip movements to augment our understanding of speech, the video and audio tracks became unsynced somewhere in the middle of the documentary.

The substance of the documentary that I could gleen was excellent. I suspect I would've given it a higher score if I could have understood more of it.

I expected to like this series. I grant the cases themselves were interesting. I had never heard of Amelia Dyer before and I've been watching true crime for decades.

Martina Cole's continuous "Wemen serial killers are bizaree especially ones that are mothers!" nonsense was so continuous and so obviously (given the theme of the series) wrong that I couldn't stand it anymore. I bailed before the end of the third episode.

There's no excuse for it. By 2008, we already knew about Aileen Wuornos, Sante Kimes, Judy Buenoano, and many others. Society was over the misconception by 2008 (I know, I was there), so why was Martina Cole underscoring it, saying it several times an episode?

I am angry that an otherwise interesting series would be ruined with such spurious idiocy. Jot down the name of the killer from each episode and find a different documentary about her. Maybe the other documentary will mention the misconception only once and in a way to indicate that it is truly foolish.

(And just in case someone is operating under another likely misconception, I am female myself!)