"Columbo" Murder in Malibu (TV Episode 1990) Poster

(TV Series)

(1990)

User Reviews

Review this title
43 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Andrew Stevens: Murderer.
rmax30482318 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Rather nicely done mystery, although it's a departure from the usual formula. Ordinarily, we see a conflict between two people that sets up the motivation, then the carefully prepared plot designed to mislead the police with frame-ups and false cues, then the entry of Columbo's raggedy police lieutenant, then several jagged bolts of constabulary intuition, and the murder's plan unravels. The murderer generally shrugs and gives up the minute he's confronted with some minor piece of evidence, as if he'd just lost a game of ping pong.

Here, the murderer is Andrew Stevens, manipulative tennis player, and the victim is his fiancée, the strikingly handsome Janet Margolin who is about to discard him because of his infidelity.

Actually, I got a little lost because I didn't get the motivation. Mostly, the motive is simple, sometimes almost entirely dispensed with, but here I kept waiting for it and it never arrived.

We never see the actual murder committed either, and the audience is kept as much in the dark about precisely how it was pulled off as poor Columbo is.

There are the attempts at the kind of humor we associate with Columbo. He's called into the morgue for a conference and leaves immediately when he spots the body of a man who blew his own head off with a shotgun. He's hoisted up into the trees on a cherry picker and shat upon by crows. He can't find an ash tray for the flakes of egg shell he's carrying, left over from his hard boiled egg.

But none of these incidents quite works. The old Columbo would have frozen silently at the entrance to the morgue, his face grim, and walked away. Here, his disgust is too spelled out. He emerges from the morgue, shakes his head, and says, "Whew" to himself. The old Columbo would never have been so demonstrative. Nor would the original Columbo have managed that cherry picker with such aplomb -- never mind the crows.

There's a big plus and an equally big minus in the performances. Much of the success of the series depended on the villains, and Andrew Stevens, handsome though he may be, isn't much of an actor. His killer isn't the unflappable type we've become accustomed to. He's more of a nervous wreck, always shouting and breathless.

The plus is a great performance by the bulky Brenda Vaccaro as Margolin's jealous sister. Vaccaro is all business. She heaves herself about deftly, ordering people to shut up or sit down, and she does it in a manner that seems perfectly natural to both the character and the actress. Yolanda Lloyd in the small part of Rosa the housekeeper makes a sinewy impression as well.

Janet Margolin doesn't get much screen time as the murder victim and it's too bad because she's almost infinitely appealing. Not only beautiful, even at forty-six, but girlish and vulnerable. You want to protect her. She died of cancer a few years after this episode.
19 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not the best the series has to offer.
Boba_Fett11382 October 2008
The movie follows the usual Columbo formula but yet it isn't as good and enjoyable to watch as most other Columbo movies. You could blame the script for this, which doesn't feature a good plot or premise, nice original settings or likable characters. The movie also has some real horrible and lame dialog at times, which of course makes it all the worse.

It's not a totally horrible movie though and for a detective crime thriller made for TV it simply is good enough and features all of the right required ingredients. Of course also the presence of the Columbo character makes a good watch.

Peter Falk is in his good old form as Lt. Columbo but the rest of the cast however isn't halve as good. Andrew Stevens is an horrible B-actor who now days earns his living from making straight-to-video, also as a producer, director, writer and production designer. It says something about how his career declined, after he in 1979 still received a Golden Globe nomination for best new male star.

It's not a movie that moves along really pleasantly. It has a sort of dragging pace but this is also mostly due to the movie its script I would say and not necessary the movie it's directing style or editing. Some movies just have a dragging script. The movie also does some attempts at humor but it doesn't always work out as well as it did for other Columbo movies.

The movie does feature some nice twists however, which makes the movie different from most other Columbo movie entries. It helps to still make this movie a good watch, despite of all of its other weaknesses.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not Bad, But Not Good Either
stubbers5 March 2010
This is the lowest I have rated a Columbo so far (haven't got to "Dagger Of The Mind" yet though!), but after twenty reviews each rating 7 or more out of 10, I have to be honest and say "Murder In Malibu" doesn't really have a lot going for it.

It's perfectly pleasant to have on in the background, but I find it very hard to sit back and concentrate on this episode without drifting off. Even though it's playing as I type, I'm struggling to describe what's going on. There's an awful lot of shouting though, that's for sure.

Very much a "filler" episode with everyone on autopilot. I can't imagine anyone ever thinking "Murder In Malibu" is their favourite Columbo.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Poorly Acted Except For Peter Falk/Format Change Not For The Best
sbrune100328 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Echoing comments of most other commentators (except for the one who actually thought Andrew Stevens gave the performance of his career - what career?) - this is one of the weakest in the Columbo series. Stevens was very unconvincing as the villain - I was hoping he'd be taken away in handcuffs after the first few minutes just so I wouldn't have to bear witness to dramatic "skills" that rival those of most middle schoolers. Sadly, this did not happen and I had to put up with him for the duration.

Although I always watch these episodes through to the end, I found the break from tradition (the plot twists discussed by others, as well as the change in formula) rubbed me a bit against the grain. Changing the premise of the show, I discovered, was more a disappointment than a welcome sprucing up of what some may consider to be a dated concept.

In the end, Falk can hold his own against anyone he plays against, even if the other actors are not deserving of sharing the same space.

Not much to be missed if you pass on this one.
30 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
How about them undies, Mr. Trenchcoat?
punishmentpark28 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Perhaps Andrew Stevens (and some others from the cast as well) would better belong in a soap like 'As the world turns', but somehow his performance agrees with what Columbo really is: a crime show with comical touches starring an increasingly anachronistic detective for the rich and devious in L.A.. A crime soap, if you will, even if there is particular effort put into shaping an interesting plot. This plot also has its own merits, though watching a guy in a trench-coat displaying that much interest in ladies underwear... but in the end, Frank has a point^!

The soundtrack was in another review here on IMDb described as 'twee' (a word I had to look up), and up to a point I can agree that it is, but nonetheless it worked wonderfully. The settings, such as lots of L.A. roads and luxurious houses, and the red sports car are terrific 'details' that add to the experience. The twists are fun enough, even though once again certain details are quite far-fetched. I mean, would a murder clever enough to stage such a murder, not take his time putting her underwear on properly? Perhaps I am out of my element there, but still. Fun enough remain the key words. Peter Falk does a great job, as pretty much always.

A good 7 out of 10.

^ Heck yes, pun intended!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Perry Mason" did it better.
michaelprescott-005472 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
No need to critique the acting; nearly everyone seems to agree that Andrew Stevens was (ahem) not entirely satisfactory as the suspect. I wasn't exactly bowled over by Janet Margolin's performance, either, but Brenda Vaccaro was good in a difficult role that required her to shift emotional gears in a highly implausible (okay, ridiculous) way.

The episode's basic gimmick was used three decades earlier on Perry Mason (*spoilers!*) in "The Case of the Double-Entry Mind." In each show, the suspect confesses to killing the victim, only for police to learn that the victim had been killed earlier by a different method. This clears the suspect, who cannot be charged with doing violence to a dead body. Later we find out that he intentionally "killed her twice" so he could confess to the second attack and be cleared of the first. Far-fetched, but the character on Perry Mason, with his calculating "double-entry mind," made it somewhat believable.

Unfortunately, the Andrew Stevens character here just doesn't seem bright enough to come up with such an elaborate scheme.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Was there a break in shooting this episode?
gmsjepactmark27 August 2022
In Brenda Vaccaro's first scene her face is narrow and she looks slim, basically like she did in Midnight Cowboy. In the rest of her scenes her face is noticeably fuller and her body is heavy set. There must have been a break in the filming of this episode. She looks totally different for all her scenes after the first scene. I like seeing her because she is such a good actress, much better than Andrew Stevens who overacting this whole episode, but Brenda look changed very noticeably after her first scene. Always great to see Janet Margolin in any of her roles. She didn't get enough parts IMHO. Also, where is Columbo's beat up Volvo sedan? They should have had shot of it next to the red Jaguar two seat sports car that Stevens character drove around in.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Probably opened a new Columbo era
Mort-3116 October 2002
In the 1990s, the scriptwriters of Columbo started to subtly break with the common episode structures. Humorous and witty episodes like It's All in the Game or Undercover were the result. This 1990 episode was probably one of the first, where the audience was a little bit deceived because they believed to know how Columbo episodes work. Self-irony (`I've never solved a case that quickly!'), a great Brenda Vaccaro and plot twists - not only in connection with the murder! Very good work!
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Yes I give this almost a 10 it's a great episode
lbowdls23 September 2021
I hate seeing all the low scores and reviews of this episode. Also contradictory with some saying it's formula and others hating the twist well I love it for both those reasons. Classic Columbo being brilliant as usual and I love the twists in this episode that are also present in so many of these later Columbos keeps it fresh as well as keeping to a winning formula.

No way should any episode of Columbo be marked lower than The last of the Commodore and even that one I give 5. It's ludicrous people marking this episode with 1 and 2 and the actors are great especially Brenda Vaccaro whose always brilliant.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Malibu mayhem
safenoe21 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not joking but Andrew Stevens, the actor playing the murder suspect, has a passing resemblance to David Hasselhoff. Anyway, there's lots of opprobrium towards Murder in Malibu, but I guess any Columbo is better than none at all in my humble opinion if I may.

I loved the talk show that reminded me of Oprah or Sally Jessy or Ricki Lake which brings back to the memories. Anyway, I'm enjoying watching the memories of daytime talk shows when they reigned supreme.

Brenda Vaccaro does a fairly decent job to earn her paycheck and Peter Falk is Columbo. I was hoping for more beach scenes in Murder in Malibu.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not the first
bkoganbing12 March 2017
This was a strange Columbo story about a successful romance novelist Janet Margolin who announces on an afternoon talk show host that she's about to marry Andrew Stevens professional tennis player. Part time player and full time gigolo.

But after the show Margolin finds Stevens has been, heaven forfend, unfaithful. She cuts him off and he kills her and in a rather elaborate ruse to first raise and then throw off suspicion on himself. Not something you would think of on the spur of the moment which is the main weakness of the story.

But additionally Stevens is a love 'em and leave 'em type. Margolin is not the first I'm sure to have given him his walking papers. His kind would have gone out and found someone else. Definitely not have killed someone.

Best in the cast is Margolin's overbearing protective sister Brenda Vaccaro who despises Stevens and at the same time lusts after him incredibly. Can't really blame her, she dominates when she's on.

Interesting characters, but the plot makes no real sense.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Lothario's Lust
ygwerin123 June 2020
I like and find this episode to be well on the same level with any other that I have seen. I take it as a fairly typical Columbo episode with me wrong footed, over the murderer and how and why he did it. The lecherous Wayne Jennings and love lorne and frankly desperate women, who seem incapable of resisting his dubious charms.

I particularly enjoy the comedic moments of Columbo and other detectives, related to the murder victims underwear. This is of course related to Columbo's attention to minute detail, that other lesser detectives would casually miss. Not any particular penchant for ladies lingerie.

I am a Columbo addict and can't resist watching it whenever it's on the box. The problem seems to be for viewers here this side of the pond, is that TV networks seem to have a penchant for screening episodes over again. I always think of how many episodes were actually made, and the constant repitions of what appears to be a handful of episodes.

These are programmes made for TV so the production and acting, will be on a par for that course. Apart from the odd star turn on their uppers, the majority of people who appear will be jobbing actors.

Although British TV companies do seem to show a plethora of yank shows. We probably only see a fraction of those actually made. So most of the actors certainly pass me by, and in this episode I only recognise one actor apart from Falk. Brenda Vaccaro as Jess McCurdy is the only actress, in any way familiar to me.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
RIDICULOUS!
vgingerspice12 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
All of a sudden Columbo isn't afraid of heights? In Smoke and Mirrors episode he is in the air with the kid director and is terrified Yet in this he is up in the air with the electric company employees yet is completely relaxed. Also, since when doesn't Columbo explain why he came to the conclusion that a murderer is guilty and EXPLAIN IT TO THAT PERSON? Columbo discovers the label is on the wrong side of the victims underwear. Yet doesn't tell Jennings what is wrong about the victims underwear, not explainng it at all???? That is very unlike Columbo!!!!! Also, as vocal as Jennings is, he doesn't even ask Columbo how he knows a man dressed the victim, her not dressing herself!!!!! RIDICULOUS!!!!!!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I Was Going to Disagree, But On Second Thought, I'll Agree
preacha9316 May 2007
First of all, the reason I'm giving this film 2 stars instead of 1 is because at least Peter Falk gave his usual fantastic performance as Lieutenant Columbo. He alone can get 10 stars for trying to save this otherwise utterly worthless attempt at making a movie.

I was initially all fired up at reading one poster's comment that Andrew Stevens in this movie gave "the performance of his career." To me, it was the abysmal performance by Stevens that absolutely ruined this movie, and so I was all prepared to hurl all sorts of insults at the person who made the aforementioned comment. Then I thought to myself, what else has Stevens done? So I checked and, you know, that person was absolutely right. In the 17 years since this Columbo movie was made, apparently every one of the 33 projects that Stevens has been in since then has been utter crap, so it is doubtful that anybody has even seen the rest of his career.

If you like Columbo, see every other of the 69 titles before watching this one. Do yourself a favor and save the worst for last.
26 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The winning formula is in place but the delivery is poor across most aspects of the film
bob the moo13 February 2006
Famous authoress Teresa Goren finally wakes up to the truth that her young lover Wayne Jennings is not so much in love with her as he is in love with her money. She tells him the wedding is off and that he'll never get a penny of her assets; this doesn't exactly please Jennings so, before Goren can tell anyone of her decision, he kills her and covers his trail, making it look like a robbery gone wrong in her house. Columbo joins the investigation and notes that the robber was able to cleanly break into the safe but still smashed glass to get through a very basic wooden door. Naturally he suspects Jennings but, with the evidence seemingly clearing him, he turns to him for help.

It may say more about me than anything else but there must be something wrong with a film where the main thing that gets my heart going is the sight of a cherry picker being used without any harnesses being worn and sadly that is the most memorable moment in this film. The plot is pretty much to formula so in theory it should have been OK, which as a fan I suppose it is but the problem is with the delivery of the story. The case is reasonably interesting but it doesn't develop that well and it does involve Columbo knowing an uncomfortable amount about woman's underwear. However the plots have never been the strongest in Columbo and it is usually the formula that carries the film – a formula that we all know but one that involves strong performances from the leads, something that is lacking here.

It isn't Falk's fault because he does his usual stuff pretty well and will please fans with a character that has given him the career that he has. No, the problem is with pretty much everybody else. Stevens is hardly of the standard of suspect that we have come to expect and he doesn't work with Falk at all well. He is bland and dull in a formula that calls for presence, chemistry or at least energy; true to script gave him a soft character but he still has to carry some of the blame. Likewise Vaccaro, Levine, Walters and others all barely do the minimum required of them and nobody really helped Falk do a job that, on this occasion, he couldn't do by himself.

Overall this is an OK Columbo because in essence the formula is in place but really it is done without any great skill or effort. The story is poorly developed and didn't engage me and, with such roundly uninspiring performances, this problem was laid bare and was not one that the film could recover from. Fans might just get something from it but there are many, many better Columbo films out there.
34 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Forget about the classical Columbo structure, this doesn't even make sense at all
muratmihcioglu18 November 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The whole premise of Columbo is that we, the audience, see first hand how and why the murder happens, in detail. The expectation is about HOW the lieutenant will solve the crime.

After the canon, as bright ideas burned out, the structure began to get changed. Okay, I'm on board with the inevitable. I even enjoy some of these later Columbos more than a few of what makes part of the canon.

But the change has to contribute meaningfully to the show. It wasn't so with this one.

Basically, the "gotcha" is a lame version of what was perfectly used in an old episode. What happens if someone other than the victim has dressed the victim? The direction of the shoe lace loops was the giveaway in that classical story. And in this one, the whole deal boils down to wearing an underwear backwards. Unlike the former, this is no proof that someone else has dressed the woman! Anyone can accidentally put on a piece of underwear backwards.

And the lack of credibility doesn't even end there: How can Columbo be so sure of the murderer's gender based solely on that? It makes no sense!

Yeah, this is one of those killers who will definitely walk free.

But I don't think the writer should walk free after such a clumsy ending. Because the inconsistency is not only there, but also with the planning of the murder.

This lousy man, this tennis player has shot the victim twice, with different pistols, to make it look like he had shot a corpse the second time? Is THAT what he thinks would help him?

So he KNOWS for a fact that forensics would not make a mistake and figure out the second bullet hit an already dead person. WHY? How can one premeditate a murder and put himself at such a high risk at the same time? How can he trust so much the forensics? And... WHY would he think that, having shot at the corpse would absolve him of further inquiry into whether he was the murderer already?

Why would anyone move on with such convolution?

If he is so smart, why doesn't he simply kill her, remove the body and throw it out into the ocean? How would that be any more risky than that stunt he's pulling throughout the episode?

The way the crime is committed doesn't match with the character and the overall attitude of the killer.

The only thing that is successfully murdered here is the narrative pattern that makes Columbo the great show it is!

The only reason I'm giving this a 6 and not a 4 is because Peter Falk is still in character, the changes provide colorful entertainment at certain scenes, just like the occasional need to dispose of the egg shells does.

Also, I enjoyed the music. It had character and was different than Columbo's usual tunes, signaling us that the pattern was gonna be breaking bad with this one.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Marvelous Acting
aromatic-223 June 2001
Andrew Stevens gives the performance of his career as Janet Margolin's two-timing fiance'. Brenda Vacarro is marvelous as Margolin's sister. This one plays with the formula a bit because we do not see the actual murder of Margolin, just the events before or after so we must wonder with Columbo whether he actually committed the murder or just thought about it, then got framed. And, a few plot twists work very well. This is an "A" entry in the series.
7 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You guys need to lighten up and have a bit of fun !
jib-715-59184617 June 2013
Of course it was awful! "Last Salute to the Commodore" was awful, too. Ah come on. As the series wound down, most of the shows weren't up to what we all knew and loved of the original series.

But "Murder in Malibu"? The DVD arrived from Amazon and three weeks later we had already watched it at least six times... including two nights in a row. Where else can you get to see a detective movie that you can't stop laughing through? It was like watching The Three Stooges.

The first time we watch this and Andrew showed Brenda the trunk full of flowers; we were on the floor laughing so hard we were crying.

When he showed her the ring with that boyish smile... My wife had to called EMS; I needed oxygen! I couldn't breath.

Look at the highlights you missed while you were shaking your head in disappointment!

* Andrew Stevens, showing less talent than Zorak on "Space Ghost, Coast to Coast". * Andrew Stevens hitting on everyone but Columbo, I think. * The coroner that loves his job. * Falk's aversion to the morgue. * A trunk full of flowers. * A flock of crows showering the cast with little white presents. * The mannequin with an attitude.

I agree though; the highlight of the movie was either when "Wayne" fainted, when the accountant, while talking to Columbo said "Oh, shut up Helen" or the icing on the cake: Stevens hitting on Vacaro.

At the end, Brenda was right though. The dress did make her look like a French Poodle.
31 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Two great beauties in ep being Margolin and Vaccaro
bnelso-237937 January 2019
Although the episode makes Margolin's out to be the way more beautiful one If Vaccaro had just been thinner she indeed would have been just as beautiful. Appalling the way Vacarro is wrongly made out to be so undesirable. Although I am and have been fond of both women for years Vaccaro indeed makes the episode both with way more screen time and her personality was considered a match for Peter Falk's so this is a dream of an ep.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not among the better episodes...in fact, it's pretty bad.
planktonrules20 January 2020
"Murder in Malubu" is among the worst episodes of "Columbo"...and it's a shame because I like the shows. But the writing was just terrible and the story made little sense.

Theresa Goren is a very successful romance writer. However, despite her many accomplishments, she is a sucker for Wayne (Andrew Stevens)...a compulsive womanizer who really knows how to use and seduce women. When Goren is found murdered, Lt. Columbo is on the case and soon it becomes apparent that the woman was shot twice--and the second time they know that Wayne did it. But she was already dead....so who killed her the first time?

The plot to this one is way too complicated and the murderer's plan just seemed ridiculous. Add to that some characters who really make no sense at all (Brenda Vaccaro's character) and you have an episode that really leaves the viewer cold and disappointed. In addition to being nonsensical, the episode also lacked the usual charm and fun (an odd word for murder mysteries, I know) you'd expect.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Padded but watchable Columbo yarn
The Welsh Raging Bull2 January 2003
Jackson Gillis wrote some of the best scripts for the 70's Columbo series and he's on hand here to modify the old Columbo formula in this 1990 production.

The admission by producers with these "new" Columbo adventures is that the detective's well-known and well-received characterisation is no longer singled-handedly able to support an ordinary, Murry mystery script. This TV movie is a case in point - we are never quite sure who the murderer is until the end, something that completely goes against Columbo tradition...

It's too long for what it finally reveals and some of the acting is soap-opera style at best, but the character of Columbo remains charming to this day (something that Peter Falk deserves a lot of credit for). Watchable, but there are better "new" Columbo adventures around and it it still hard to bear largely second-rate stars acting as the murderers when some of the top actors/actresses graced the Columbo series in the 70's.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Is there a worse actor than Andrew Stevens?
bochoa835620 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
There are very few shows that don't have at least a couple throwaways. Episodes so, so bad that you still watch out of habit, maybe even rewatch in hope of formulating a more positive opinion, even if you have to pinch your nose to get through the stench while viewing. This epitomizes that category as far as Columbo episodes. The script and effort by all involved seems either uncharacteristixlly half hearted, or completely over the top. It's ceimgingly cliched, snappily conceived, and the acting is dreadful, led by one of my most despised actors ever, Andrew Stevens. The problem with this episode and his contribution here is, I can't figure out the angle that's used here. Stevens' hammy, over the top approach is his trademark,'and typical of the era of his performances. "Columbo" has used that in the past as a tribute to certain ages of Hollywood, and made something out of it. Anne Baxter and "Requium For a Falling Star," comes immediately to mind. And how it's ustilzed makes for an extremely entertaining episode. Even if you watch it now, it's a time capsule of an era in every way possible, particularly the acting, But hat doesn't detract from that show's appeal. Here, there are times when Columbo's response to Andrews character appears to be a tongue on cheek acknowledgement to Stevens' cliched, hamminess ("I've never seen a guy fall apart so fast!; "He fainted?"), that it almost looks as if it's treating this like a fish out of water episode. Other times, Stevens' presence is so dominating and suffocating of those around him, that it's like listening to someone chewing on a ballon for a couple hours, and you just want it to end. And you wonder if it wasn't just another case of the producers salute to an actor from a bygone era gone bad.by the time this episode was ending, I wasn't satisfied unless I got to see Stevens character actually hanged, electrocuted, or shot by a firing squad. I mostly always skip this episode, or immediately erase it if automatically recorded. There's only a handful of episodes like that ("Candidate for Crime" comes immediately to mind). But sometimes you gotta watch them again to remember just how bad they really were.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Ties with No Time to Die as the worst of the series...
TheLittleSongbird28 March 2012
I actually feel sad saying this. As I said in my review of Grand Deceptions, it is not as if Columbo is a bad series. We're talking about about one of the best shows of its kind here. I also acknowledged that while none of the newer episodes are as good as the pre- 1989 episodes, there are a few that are worthy of them. Murder in Malibu is not one of them. As underwhelmed as I was by Grand Deceptions and Dead Weight, I actually can only think of three Columbo episodes presently that are close to unwatchable, Last Salute to the Commodore, No Time to Die and this. The only redeeming qualities are the locations and Peter Falk's performance, now there's an actor who gives everything he can no matter how badly written the script is(and I agree that Columbo is to creepy at times here). The editing is good, if a little too slick and lacking in the atmosphere that I have seen conveyed so brilliantly in other episodes. The music also feels twee with nothing really standing out. Three things really made Murder in Malibu such a disappointment. The script is very pedestrian, with any attempts at humour feeling as though the writers were trying too hard to make it convince, and in the end it doesn't. The story didn't engage me at all, by all means the idea was interesting but at the end of the day it constantly felt underdeveloped and padded. Andrew Stevens gives an awful performance, by all means the character is bland but I don't think that is excusing Stevens giving (in my view) the single worst guest villain performance of the series, managing to do the impossible, making a bland character even duller. Brenda Vacarro fares better and tries hard, but it feels that she overdoes it with mannerisms and an acting style that is more at home in a soap opera than a murder mystery series. All in all, one of the worst of the series, if it wasn't for Falk Murder in Malibu would've fared worse. 3/10 Bethany Cox
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Skip it...
clong-315866 December 2020
Just about the worst acting I have ever seen...

Good lord, this episode is really bad! They should have gone all in and really over-acted and turned it into a comedy!
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Almost Unwatchable
gerard-2115 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Definitely one of the worst Columbo episodes of all time. This is the kind of 1989+ episodes that turned people off to that era (even though there were many gems as well).

A lot of the blame rests with Andrew Stevens who might be the weakest Columbo villain of all time. His acts like a nervous, fidgety child, plus his motivation was never clear or compelling. And the whole change in the formula where we never saw the actual murder take place and weren't sure who the murderer was until the end doesn't work, just like in another of the worst Columbo Episodes, "Last Salute to the Commodore".

Brenda Vaccaro was good, but only serves to highlight the poor choice of Stevens for the villain.. I think it would have worked better had she been the murderer and tried to frame a whiny and weaselly Stevens for it. And while Falk is fine as usual, we do see too much of an overt attempt at comic relief with the character, such as the bit with the egg shells.

All in all this episode was very disconcerting due to the break with the usual formula plus a totally ineffectual villain.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed