I'm one of many who enjoy Columbo episodes, and this is one of the better ones. It's charming, and entertaining. But I'm very surprised that more people are not put off, and do not agree with me, that the plot itself is seriously defective, and really makes no sense.
MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD. DO NOT READ PRIOR TO WATCHING THIS EPISODE!
Adrian conks his brother on the head, and obviously leaves him alive and bound in his wine cellar, while intending to kill him. Why in the world would anyone do this? It never occurred to me that, before leaving for a trip to New York, he would entrust his wine cellar to finish off his brother by either overheating or suffocating him, but this is apparently what the viewer is intended to believe: Adrian does make an adjustment to the air conditioner before leaving, and the brother is dead upon his return. But Adrian could not do this without knowing he was putting the welfare of his fabulously rich wine cellar at risk, which it is impossible to believe that the eccentric wine fanatic he is supposed to be would do, rather than offering a second, final conk. Columbo's "proof" of Adrian's guilt comes at a dinner, in which Columbo sneakily serves Adrian his own maderized and ruined Port, establishing with Adrian's palate that his wine had indeed been subjected to temperatures above 150 degrees. But maderized port from Adrian's cellar does not prove that Adrian killed his brother there - it is only evidence against him if that ruse causes him to act in some way that subsequently shows that guilt. Adrian's subsequent disposal of his fortune of ruined wine is supposed to offer that proof, but Adrian could not have actually learned about his ruined wine from Columbo's ruse, since he had already knowingly sacrificed his cellar to suffocate his brother, rather than simply strangling or otherwise disposing of him.
It is ironic to me, that one of the better and more enjoyable Columbo episodes makes so very little sense, in its most critical plot elements.
MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD. DO NOT READ PRIOR TO WATCHING THIS EPISODE!
Adrian conks his brother on the head, and obviously leaves him alive and bound in his wine cellar, while intending to kill him. Why in the world would anyone do this? It never occurred to me that, before leaving for a trip to New York, he would entrust his wine cellar to finish off his brother by either overheating or suffocating him, but this is apparently what the viewer is intended to believe: Adrian does make an adjustment to the air conditioner before leaving, and the brother is dead upon his return. But Adrian could not do this without knowing he was putting the welfare of his fabulously rich wine cellar at risk, which it is impossible to believe that the eccentric wine fanatic he is supposed to be would do, rather than offering a second, final conk. Columbo's "proof" of Adrian's guilt comes at a dinner, in which Columbo sneakily serves Adrian his own maderized and ruined Port, establishing with Adrian's palate that his wine had indeed been subjected to temperatures above 150 degrees. But maderized port from Adrian's cellar does not prove that Adrian killed his brother there - it is only evidence against him if that ruse causes him to act in some way that subsequently shows that guilt. Adrian's subsequent disposal of his fortune of ruined wine is supposed to offer that proof, but Adrian could not have actually learned about his ruined wine from Columbo's ruse, since he had already knowingly sacrificed his cellar to suffocate his brother, rather than simply strangling or otherwise disposing of him.
It is ironic to me, that one of the better and more enjoyable Columbo episodes makes so very little sense, in its most critical plot elements.