It has a lot of virtues: The atmosphere is fresh. The black and white dreams aren't a bad idea, on the contrary; it's a new element for the show, and a creative way to solve the case. And the dialogue is marvelously meaty it fitted a Russian play. Add to that, an elegant cinematography, nice music score, clever directing, and mostly fine performance. So based on the above, this is a strong movie, with high hopes to the viewer. Hmmm, I think not. Why?! Here's my reasons:
Firstly, the sex factor was overabundant. It's the cheap and disgraceful method of the post-1970s Columbo movies, where Peter Falk was an executive producer. However, this time, it reached to a semi-nude shot; which was the most impudent shot I have ever seen in an American TV material at the moment! Well, Columbo wasn't used to be exploitative, but in this phase of the show it had to, for the sake of making money yet by the lowest ways. And there is a hint to Baywatch (1989), which began 2 months earlier by the way, indicating another age of TV; where entertainment would be united with nudity, and art would be plagued by degradation!
Speaking of which, for whoever asked about the unheard line, which the painter's wife whispered in his ear before leaving him: It's clear that she wanted to enrage him, by telling him that she has a sexual relationship with his girlfriend. And it's clear that it wasn't appropriate thing to say loudly in a 1989 TV movie. And it's clear that it was dirty as a joke, or stupid as a dramatic development, which was put there to make Columbo edgy anyhow, where anything risqué goes!
Secondly, our dear Columbo wasn't there quantitatively and qualitatively. On one hand, the relationships of the painter and his women ate up the whole time. And on the other, Falk's approach of the character had gone completely comedic in an annoying manner. Why he went to belittle the character deliberately like that? For selling the show?? Oh God, the character was more attractive as a serious guy who has his accidental comedic moments. More attractive, and more respectable too!
Anyway, this is the most Columbo movie where I felt the absence of the great Lieutenant and his lovable antics. I saw him only when he was confused while meeting the painter's women for the first time, thinking that the man has endless wives. However, for the movie's rest, Columbo that you know and love isn't here. The one in hand is someone with the same name and aspect, but not that scarily smart anymore, or even close. And he's played by some Peter Falk's look-alike, who's deprived of talent and charisma. You can delete that guy altogether, and replace him with any crime solver from the American TV back then; like J.J. Starbuck, The Commish, or B.L. Stryker, knowing that none of them won the massive success, or the long years, of Columbo. It's where Columbo, as a character and performance, became lesser than itself; and what a painful irony that this movie causes!
Thirdly, the script got couple of foolish points. For instance, how the painter's sadness over his dead ex-wife vanished in the same day of her death, to the extent of talking Columbo into drawing him because of his interesting face. That was too exaggerated, hence unbelievable. It's like her killer declares from the start: "I'm happy because she died", establishing himself as a perfect suspect. And for another, the way that killer surrendered so easily in the end was mega-provocative. And according to the movie's IMDb reviews, I'm not alone on hating this!
(Murder, a Self Portrait) has its share of virtues, and vices as well. True the vices were lesser, but they were also graver. Enough to say that there was no Columbo, no Peter Falk, with much sex and less convincing ending. So, eventually, the strong movie got weaker, and the high hopes shrunk to average, if not trite, stuff.
4 out of 11 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink