User Reviews

Just saw this episode for the second time last night. It wasn't bad, there weren't big plot holes or anything to really dislike, but I think the reason most reviewers say it wasn't one of the best Columbos is because it was missing the things that make the best ones so good.

Columbo's dog was briefly seen, but there was nothing funny about anything with the dog. There were no funny scenes involving any of Columbo's props. Nobody seemed confused about who the man in the raincoat was, and Columbo didn't interview any really strange people.

Another element in many Columbos is introducing us to a look at some sort of technology--video recorders, how perfume is made, computer robots, etc, from past years--and there is none of that in this episode.

We also don't get a behind-the-scenes look at movie making, running a TV network, wine producing, bull fighting, or any of the other occupations/professions of Columbo villains.

I recall one scene where Columbo opened a door in the "think tank" and saw people on the floor. But instead of going in and being introduced to their activities, he basically said, "wrong room" and left. No laughs there.

There was one slightly humorous bit, a silent one right at the end, which I won't mention here. But the most it could produce was a snicker, a sort of breaking-the-fourth-wall moment without any people on the screen.

I did like that the murderer was someone we could really dislike--stealing funds for personal use from his employer, having an affair with the boss's wife, etc. Unlike the previous episode, the killer had a real reason to kill the victim--his lifestyle and reputation were to be ruined, if not a jail sentence.

Below is the "spoiler" more-or-less The killer, Robert Foxworth, set it up that he was supposed to be putting together a display of miniature soldiers while the killing took place. He arranged it so he would be told the soldiers have arrived right before a party for the general. He excused himself to put the display together so they could present it to the general later during the party.

In reality, the soldiers had come earlier, in a box marked books, and Foxworth assembled the display earlier. The later shipment marked "military miniatures" was actually the books that were part of the gift. Taking these out and sticking them on the shelf next to the toy soldier display took almost no time. This is when Foxworth left to commit his murder.

Columbo's biggest evidence that led to arresting Foxworth was that the books supposedly sent the morning of the murder wouldn't fit inside the book box. He guessed that the box marked books contained the soldiers and the one that arrived in the evening marked "Military Miniatures" was the books.

I know Columbo has always explained some things a bit too carefully. But I agreed with Foxworth's reaction. Columbo actually explained the "Military Miniatures" means toy soldiers. Foxworth sneered "Don't patronize me, Lieutenant." What makes this so weak is that 1) Foxworth could have claimed that only most of the books were in the shipment, that he added a few others from his own collection, 2) Foxworth could not guarantee that nobody would have had a chance to see the display before the evening shipment arrived, and, most significantly, 3) there was no explanation at all to tell how the company that sent the books used a box marked as miniatures, while the company that sent the soldiers used a box marked books.

It would have been better had the boxes not been marked specifically, but Columbo checked the shipping company and found that the evening shipment was weighed at so many pounds, which couldn't possibly have been the light-weight soldiers, but that would be the right weight for the books, and vice versa.

It was reasonably entertaining, better than the average TV detective show, but definitely not among the better Columbo episodes.

This isn't a bad entry in the Columbo cannon but it isn't very good either. Neither the story or the acting held my attention and as some other posters have said Columbo isn't his usual chipper self so we don't even get to enjoy Peter Falk's performance.

Also the plot has a few holes in it. Firstly the scene where Colubo tries to reveal the identity of the married woman Frank Brailie is having an affair with. He takes the toothbrush from the bathroom cabinet as evidence and confronts the woman, but as he obtained the item without using a search warrant and with other officers present this evidence is inadmissible.

Also the ending doesn't really work. Columbo makes a lot of the box not being big enough to hold the books which is how he breaks Brailie's alibi, but up to this point nothing has been said about the two boxes and labels, so no explanation is made as to how Columbo can prove which box was delivered when and was used to house what. As with the toothbrush it relies on the accused falling for Columbo's version of events. All-in-all not very convincing.

what about the boxes? i liked the episode well enough but the later Columbo's just don't seem to have the magic the originals did. the endings don't seem as inspired. for example, in this ep, Columbo uses the boxes of books and miniatures to trap Brailie at the end yet it is never explained how Brailie managed to have the miniatures sent to him in a box marked 'McAdam Booksellers' and the books sent to him in a box marked 'Military Miniatures'. the implication is that both the booksellers and miniature manufacturers were somehow in on it which doesn't make any sense. you have to wonder about the wife too. she was otherwise a nice lady but what the heck did she see in that creep Brailie?

Even though I'm not particularly interested in any war-themed films, this Columbo episode had its moments, especially since it was also about alternative branches of war: a think tank, making money off of other, distant warring parties, the 'I Ching', a shrunken head and such. But there was a good deal of Gung-Ho and explosions, too.

All the characters here, apart from Columbo himself, were rather bland and unimpressive. Robert Foxworth seemed to be one of the those faces of the seventies that had become rather obsolete later on, but checking his IMDb resume, I have to admit I was wrong (even if I've not seen much with him in it). His character is a slippery one, and none too proud to (finally) admit that Columbo got the better of him.

The advantage of having less interesting characters, is that you'll focus more on Columbo's detective skills. Well, of course he figures things out, but the case is interesting enough and so was the whole episode. Not a classic, but doable.

6 out of 10.

The second run of Columbo episodes starting in 1989 and ending in 2003 has it's ups and downs. Generally speaking, they can't beat the originals. But still a lot of enjoyment comes from the Falk character. This episode is one the weaker ones, despite me giving it a 7/10. The problem with Grand Deceptions lies with Robert Foxworth (your typical 80s male) who is totally uninteresting as a villain (where was Robert Culp when you needed him most?) and the abysmal performance of Janet Eilber as the married woman who fancies him. As to the final clue with the boxes there is one thing that bothers me: the books don't fit in the soldiers box, but Foxworth could have easily stated that he used several soldiers boxes and simply threw most of them away.

The setting is a paramilitary training camp run by a think tank that has a great deal of money invested in "special projects" overseas. The entire business is owned and run by the honorable and humane General Jack Padget. He's an old man now, retired, and suffering from some kind of disability, maybe a disease that might properly be called Padget's disease. (That's a complicated pun but not really a bad one, but it's not worth explaining.) He's married to a much younger woman. They love one another but, well, young women have needs and there's a guy around to satisfy them. The guy is Colonel Robert Foxworth, who manages the day-to-day affairs of the institute. Foxworth is a genuine skank. He's not only bedding the general's beautiful wife but skimming beaucoup dough off the top of some secret international transactions, including selling guns to countries whose leaders are of questionable character.

The general has been pressing Foxworth to turn over the books on the special projects but Foxworth is recalcitrant, so the general hires a Master Sergeant to poke into thing. He pokes too far and Foxworth eliminates him after constructing an elaborate alibi. Of course, when Columbo shows up, much later in the story, he unravels all the knots and ties up all the loose ends with his usual mystical powers. The case against Colonel Foxworth, it seemed to me, was about as weak as they come. And I know the law, too. I don't know how many episodes of Law and Order I've watched. But, as usual, the weakness of the case is shrugged off by the heavy, who always looks downhearted and asks something like, "When did you begin to suspect me?" But, man, this is a slow slog. Foxworth's machinations aren't really interesting and as a villain he's far from entertaining. Nice performance from Stephen Elliott as the general, though, in a rather complex role. And Janet Eilber as the general's devoted but horny wife can't act, but she doesn't have to. She's tall, willowy, graceful, and has a long neck inviting a viewer's incisors. She was a prima ballerina with the Martha Graham Dance Company. One would have loved watching all those abdominal contractions.

Overall, a routine entry, a little on the dullish side.

I don't know why some have taken pot-shots at Janet Eilber's acting ability. I thought she gave a nice emotional performance of a wife whose cheating on her husband but who obviously still love him.

In the first 2 acts, it's all smart and effective. Scriptwriter Sy Salkowitz shows auspicious spirit. The crime is nearly perfect; which excites you about "How Columbo is going to solve that one"?? For a rare time in a Columbo episode, the subplot - concerning the general's wife - is catchy and in harmony. The think tank details are many and very special. And the recruits' interrogation montage was nice relief. Robert Foxworth as Col. Frank Brailie is so charismatic, and it's fun to watch him as an evil guy, after years of being the forever righteous Chase Gioberti in Falcon Crest (1980) consecutive seasons. Stephen Elliott as the sad old general does a flawless job. John Cacavas' music is diligent and distinct. And the directing of the old pro Sam Wanamaker, in his last work, is classy and a bit artistic; look at the lighting in many scenes to figure that out (the confessing wife scene is one for sure).

Then, in the third act, things go directly downhill, and - regrettably - by the very hands of Mr. Salkowitz. Columbo steals an evident / the toothbrush; OK, I don't have a problem with that. He doesn't have to be Dudley Do-Right. Shakespeare said in The Merchant of Venice: "Do a great right by doing a little wrong". And our foxy lieutenant has done it before in old episodes. Though I didn't buy that he had the wife's fingerprint earlier to match it with the one which he found on the toothbrush. Moreover, I hate it when coincidences lead to the mystery's solution. It's bad writing that takes away the lead character's brains and pains, along with savoring them. This time, there must be that anonymous fat officer who appears suddenly in the funeral to uncover some hidden info; funny scene yes, but weak clue. And there must be that most idiotic secretary in history to give Columbo - by chance - the original file which condemns the murderer!

And for more going down, OH MY GOD, the final scene. The whole matter of the books' box, and the military miniatures' box, was utterly confusing. With all the explanations in the world, it's toilsome to understand. And if you get it, then you'll clearly see how a flimsy proof that is. I believe even the actors themselves felt that it was unconvincing, rather embarrassing. Indisputably, it's in my list for the worst Columbo climaxes, if not the worst at all! Let alone that Columbo admited that he first suspected Brailie as the killer when he wiped the mud off the floor despite his "arrogance". So, up to that moment, from what situation Columbo knew that the character was arrogant?? We, as viewers, didn't even come across that, not before this moment or after it, and not while Brailie was dealing with Columbo or with others! Notice the fortune cookies dialogue that went on and on between the 2 of them in the end as well, to witness that "forced" was something to hold with your own hands in that act!!

Peter Falk is witty, and was - back then - still guaranteed as Columbo. For instance, in later episodes, like Ashes to Ashes (1998), the only available Columbo was a ghost of him. However, something wasn't there. The passion, the seriousness, or the desire to do something unique. I don't know exactly. As for the writing, the "I can't find this or that", or "By the light, sir" routine became weary. Salkowitz stuffed one scene for later proofs or spoofs, whereas Columbo chatters endlessly, for almost 10 minutes, about the victim's future plans, the dirt and leaves issue, the Mali connection, the Indian shrunken head, and the fortune-telling Chinese sticks. Well, Columbo is enjoyably annoying with the murderers, not necessarily with us! So this round, when the episode's makers intended a magical moment in favor of their lead, and put a miniature of him among the victorious soldiers in the last shot; you might feel too much or campy!

Grand Deceptions feels Grand for 2 thirds, and turns into real Deceptions in the third. It gave me hope that it wouldn't be like most of the pre-1970s episodes, to smash that hope eventually. It's disappointing when you watch something bad. Yet, it's awfully disappointing when you watch something good turns into bad. This applies to the episode, and - kind of - the show too.