Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Angela Channing" data-source="post: 283341" data-attributes="member: 33">That was superb and comprehensive review of the episode and it&#039;s hard to disagree with any of it. I kind of remember liking this episode but felt the gimmicks and the padding scenes brought the whole thing down. I&#039;m guessing you wear glasses. I never used to notice anything about glasses until I was prescribed my first pair around 5 years ago and now I&#039;m often looking at other people&#039;s eyewear thinking do they suit them or not (Keir Stamer&#039;s glasses are awful, by the way) or how would they look on me. However, I&#039;m impressed that you&#039;ve taken it to another level that you can identify the make and model of other people&#039;s spectacles. Yes, they seemed to regularly return to the theme of murders or victims who are either writers or connected with the film or TV industry, probably because they the scripts were written by writers who were connected with the film or TV industry. It&#039;s not the last time they do this although I don&#039;t think they use the Universal back lot again but I could be wrong as I&#039;ve forgotten the details of many of the new episodes (deliberately in some cases). I really liked the character, and Fisher Stevens&#039; performance, for the reason you gave: he was a different type of Columbo killer. Younger than most murderers on the show and he had a child like innocent appearance which contrasted nicely with him being determined killer. Yes, she was great. I love when some of these small roles are so well cast with an actor who makes the most of their screen time to create an interesting, believable and memorable character.Spot on! Whenever I see a scene like this I always refer to it as being &quot;parenchyma&quot; which are plant cells whose only function is to serve as packing material in plants. If there was ever a good example of parenchyma in an episode of Columbo this is it. It was mildly amusing for 10 seconds but boy did they try to milk the humour out of this set up even though the joke wasn&#039;t funny enough to warrant the amount of time they spent on it.If anyone thought the prop gun that revealed the word &quot;bang&quot; at the end of Columbo Goes To The Guillotine was a contrived, stagey ending to that episode, that was nothing compared with what they did here. Modern TV likes to be very visual and contain a lot of action rather than being dialogue heavy but this takes it too far and even worse, it trivialises the whole show, taking it away from the the kind of series that fans became attached to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Angela Channing, post: 283341, member: 33"] That was superb and comprehensive review of the episode and it's hard to disagree with any of it. I kind of remember liking this episode but felt the gimmicks and the padding scenes brought the whole thing down. I'm guessing you wear glasses. I never used to notice anything about glasses until I was prescribed my first pair around 5 years ago and now I'm often looking at other people's eyewear thinking do they suit them or not (Keir Stamer's glasses are awful, by the way) or how would they look on me. However, I'm impressed that you've taken it to another level that you can identify the make and model of other people's spectacles. Yes, they seemed to regularly return to the theme of murders or victims who are either writers or connected with the film or TV industry, probably because they the scripts were written by writers who were connected with the film or TV industry. It's not the last time they do this although I don't think they use the Universal back lot again but I could be wrong as I've forgotten the details of many of the new episodes (deliberately in some cases). I really liked the character, and Fisher Stevens' performance, for the reason you gave: he was a different type of Columbo killer. Younger than most murderers on the show and he had a child like innocent appearance which contrasted nicely with him being determined killer. Yes, she was great. I love when some of these small roles are so well cast with an actor who makes the most of their screen time to create an interesting, believable and memorable character. Spot on! Whenever I see a scene like this I always refer to it as being "parenchyma" which are plant cells whose only function is to serve as packing material in plants. If there was ever a good example of parenchyma in an episode of Columbo this is it. It was mildly amusing for 10 seconds but boy did they try to milk the humour out of this set up even though the joke wasn't funny enough to warrant the amount of time they spent on it. If anyone thought the prop gun that revealed the word "bang" at the end of [I]Columbo Goes To The Guillotine[/I] was a contrived, stagey ending to that episode, that was nothing compared with what they did here. Modern TV likes to be very visual and contain a lot of action rather than being dialogue heavy but this takes it too far and even worse, it trivialises the whole show, taking it away from the the kind of series that fans became attached to. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?