I thought that this episode defined - IN STONE - the "Columbo" story formula.

Columbo himself, I thought, was (in some scenes) too stiff and brusque. I think his character evolved from there, but it was a very good second-coming. Some have posted here that his character was already evolved. Some have posted that his later evolution became a parody of himself.

But don't forget this episode had a previous life. See the other areas of this site for the complete birth of Columbo.

I agree though that Gene Barry's DR. Fleming was as good as any subsequent murderer in the series.

In my mind it defined - IN STONE - the archetypical "Columbo" villain.

The only thing about this episode that I consider to be a bit of a weakness is the ending--a cheap trick that should have been as obvious to Fleming as it is to the viewer.

Yeah, Barry was memorable, but a fresh-n-sassy Falk was outstanding inhis debut, even though it wasn't the one we would get to know later on. He even had new Hush Puppies on his feet.

That's why I laughed when I found out that Bing Crosby (of all people) was the original choice for the role. It might have made an interesting made-for-TV diversion, but he would never have turned it into a hit series -- his head was too BIG for it anyway.

While I agree that Peter Falk's acting style in
"Prescription Murder" is somewhat more brusque
than he was later, already in the second pilot
"Ransom for a Dead Man" he had his persona of
"modest and mildly eccentric" down pat. Note
how the murderers both explicity state this
to Columbo and they point out that is how
he gets to the murderers in the end. In the episodes after the pilots it is not
stated openly like that. That is why the "arrogant
and goofy" Columbo, who appeared starting with
"Last Salute to the Commodore" doesn't appeal to me,
it ruins the whole basis of his character.

I agree that the ending of "Prescription Murder" is
weak, just as the endings of the first regular episode
(Murder by the Book) or the ever popular "Any Port in a Storm" are weak, but since the stories
are more than just "plot-driven", but rather "character-driven" they can still be very entertaining.

damian said...

"I WILL ALWAYS LOVE COLUMBO BECUASE HIS BIRTHDAY IS ON THE 16TH OF SEPTEMBER AND MINE IS ON THE 17TH OF SEPTEMBER "

don't worry damian, i have you on my list of birthdays of columboites!!

I agree that there are certain weaknesses to the endings of "Murder by the Book" and "Any Old Port in a Storm," but in my opinion those endings contain a little more ingenuity than the ending to "Prescription: Murder." Not only is "Prescription"'s ending unconvincing, there is also nothing about it that is particularly clever.

The spoiled wine setup and the notion that Ken had to rely on his partner's talents even in order to murder him are somewhat clever and interesting. Simply getting an accomplice to talk is not clever or interesting.

I recently re-watched Prescription: Murder and, of course, the weakest thing about it is indeed that Ray falls into a trap that a little kid should have seen coming. Another thing I noticed was that the sequence where Ray messes up the apartment to make the crime look like a burglary just seems to go on and on. Compare that with the similar bit in Murder by the Book, where we get the idea in a few seconds. Or any of the other phony break-ins that got staged over the years, for that matter. I did like the music that played while Ray was doing the dirty work, though. And, for being the first Columbo, P:M will always have a special place in the canon.