I know this has been discussed before, but I only got to see it the other day when it was shown on UK tv.

I couldn't believe it. What were they thinking? It's nothing like a proper Columbo episode. I would even argue that this should not really be considered an episode of Columbo.

They completely ignore the traditional Columbo format and all Columbo's little ticks are absent (I don't remember him saying "just one more thing" or searching for a pencil at any point).

I saw another episode recently - No Time To Die - which again significantly broke the Columbo rules. (Interestingly both are based on Ed McBain novels)

Does anyone have any information on what Peter was trying to do with Columbo at this point? They were obviously trying to do something different. Was this a new gimmick to freshen up the show?

Anyone care to make a defence of these episodes?

www.20six.co.uk/jiltedbarfly

I liked Undercover in spite of the fact that it is totally outside of the traditional Columbo format. I guess I just looked at it as less a Columbo episode and more of a movie starring Peter Falk. I'm a fan of most any crime/gangster flick. I got a kick out of the scene where the older italian lady mistakes Columbo for a member of THE Columbo family. I also enjoyed Columbo as a common criminal in the scenes with Burt Young. Definitely not your typical Columbo, but I liked it.

As for No Time To Die, I can't stand it. I've only seen it once and that was one time too many.