I can tell you in heartbeat why this show was canceled. The stories always seemed to be over even before they started in that each episode began with the discovery of the body or some other brief bit of action. The story that led up to the discovery of the body was omitted and later told through evidence found at the crime scene. Now this type of story has probably been done very effectively in other places, it didn't happen in this show.
Another problem was that the characters of Mr. and Mrs. Murder did not have distinct personalities. They are not only in business together but they perform the exact same job and are dressed in the exact same outfits. They did not have distinct personalities and roles. There are many examples of shows with two characters, one as the main character and the other as the sidekick. To wit, there was Holmes and Watson, Perry Mason and Della Street, Barnaby and Troy, etc. Mrs. Murder should have played the role of the clearly defined sidekick.
As a contrast, "Pie in the Sky" features a married couple, Henry and Margret Crabb. They work together in that they run a restaurant together. But they have clearly defined roles; he handled the kitchen and she handled the business side. He was also a cop which means that although Margret is somewhat involved, Henry always solved the cases.
reply
share
almystreet
9 years ago
AND...
The wife is quite a lovely, quirky character and the actress playing her has a great deal of charm and appeal and seems a gracious enough performer to act in ensemble. True also of the niece - very, very charming. But despite all that they (as indeed is the entire show) are crushed by the weight of the relentlessly scene-stealing, utterly annoying ham of a husband. It's painfully obvious and one doesn't need IMDB to figure out that the actor created the show as a vehicle for himself. I've never heard of that guy but he apparently has sufficient stature in Australia to be able to do so. It's a good bet that some poor soul at FremantleMedia paid the price for greenlighting that project.
Also, nobody, but NOBODY likes a know-it-all character so it's a tricky role to play successfully, though it certainly can be done. (Benedict Cumberbatch comes immediately to mind.) But this guy plays it like a bull in a china shop...HEY! LOOK AT ME!! Of course the actor/creator is also the head writer, which explains why the paper thin plots seemingly have no other purpose than to set up scenarios and situations wherein he can expound and pontificate. In fact so facile and self serving is the writing that in many instances he simply asks and answers his own question. The other characters' presence is reduced to mere blocking.
It's my guess that in the end viewers - including those like myself who wanted to like the show - tired from overload of a singularly unlikeable character.
reply
share
lawson14
9 years ago
He struck me as being sort of Australia's answer to Dick Van Dyke, except that he doesn't seem to be very humble.
reply
share