I have to say it's better than The Dominion of New South Mimico, but it's still short of the standard it should be. My main gripe is that they rather telegraphed who the culprits were. It was obvious on our first meeting with the character that Inspector Decker was a bad 'un.
6 Reviews
A little heavyhanded
sarahmoricebrubaker19 April 2021
I appreciated and supported the messages of racial justice and lgbtqia+ equality, and the plot elements were good to start with... but the writing was so heavy-handed with a lot of unrealistic dialogue. There was so much exposition and so many moral/social messages stuffed into mini-sermons that it no longer even remotely resembled how people talk. At points felt like a Very Special Episode of a 1980s sitcom. And I can't recall a single moment of humor anywhere in the episode.
I hope the show finds its way back. The last two episodes have been painful, in completely different ways.
I hope the show finds its way back. The last two episodes have been painful, in completely different ways.
Heavy handed? Yes! Topics not typical of 20th Century --- Of course they are
labenji-1216328 April 2021
As an AA female in my early 50s, I found this episode to be a heavy-handed and in your face on inequality regarding race and gender -- felt more like writers were trying to align current social events to make the show more relevant for today, rather than depicting social norms of the time sparingly and when appropriate for the episode.
With that being said, for other reviewers that believe that racial and gender inequality was not openly discussed and debated in the early 20th century, I mean please read your a history book or the bible. These topics have been around since the dawn of man and they were openly discussed. They may have not been openly accepted, but they were discussed in derogatory terms perhaps - but to say that such conversations and opinions would not have happened in the 1900s or even before is a falsehood. It is only in the 21st century censorship that our history books have omitted all mention of rebellion against inequality. Civil rights movement began long before the Civil War with abolitionist of all colors and genders both in the U. S. and abroad hence the end of the slave trade in France in 1794, UK 1833 and Northern States around 1804. While homosexuality was seen as a criminal offense and in the 18th century punishable by death or life long incarnation in the U. K. that did not mean that these communities were non-existing or literature not printed. Heck, most of the Greek Mythology depict homosexual images and certain 18th & 19th century writings make one wonder if the characters were gay -- and yes, its subtle but same sex relations are part of story, it's just not as "obvious" as it is today.
Thus, among police, physicians and people of Julia's pedigree and Murdoch's intellect, it is reasonable that such openminded discussions would have been commonplace. Just because Hollywood and the American Historical Society of textbooks choose to omit these issues in the 20th century, please realize our history in the U. S. picks and chooses what it wants to record. For haven sakes, I'm 53 years old and growing up in the 70s it was acceptable to play cowboys and Indians and the "Indians" were the bad guys we should kill.
While the evil of man knows no bounds, the good of man has always rose to the defense of humanity throughout history. Regardless of the times, there have always been good people pushing for social change to include tolerance - so simmer down and stop shouting that NO ONE in the 19th century spoke out against racism and sexism -- it just has taken 100s of years of small steps and far too many lives lost for us to get to move towards inclusion and equality and shame on us that we are not further along.
But at the end of the day, if I choose to watch mystery show set in the early 20th century, then I don't want it to look and feel like 21st century commentary. Let's place the above issues in the correct perspective -- like rich or not, Dr. Hart's relationship would be on the DL and Brackenreid may have had a mulatto child, but he would not publicly acknowledge her, nor would she expect him to - because he would be fired and she would be raped, beaten and left on the side of the road.
With that being said, for other reviewers that believe that racial and gender inequality was not openly discussed and debated in the early 20th century, I mean please read your a history book or the bible. These topics have been around since the dawn of man and they were openly discussed. They may have not been openly accepted, but they were discussed in derogatory terms perhaps - but to say that such conversations and opinions would not have happened in the 1900s or even before is a falsehood. It is only in the 21st century censorship that our history books have omitted all mention of rebellion against inequality. Civil rights movement began long before the Civil War with abolitionist of all colors and genders both in the U. S. and abroad hence the end of the slave trade in France in 1794, UK 1833 and Northern States around 1804. While homosexuality was seen as a criminal offense and in the 18th century punishable by death or life long incarnation in the U. K. that did not mean that these communities were non-existing or literature not printed. Heck, most of the Greek Mythology depict homosexual images and certain 18th & 19th century writings make one wonder if the characters were gay -- and yes, its subtle but same sex relations are part of story, it's just not as "obvious" as it is today.
Thus, among police, physicians and people of Julia's pedigree and Murdoch's intellect, it is reasonable that such openminded discussions would have been commonplace. Just because Hollywood and the American Historical Society of textbooks choose to omit these issues in the 20th century, please realize our history in the U. S. picks and chooses what it wants to record. For haven sakes, I'm 53 years old and growing up in the 70s it was acceptable to play cowboys and Indians and the "Indians" were the bad guys we should kill.
While the evil of man knows no bounds, the good of man has always rose to the defense of humanity throughout history. Regardless of the times, there have always been good people pushing for social change to include tolerance - so simmer down and stop shouting that NO ONE in the 19th century spoke out against racism and sexism -- it just has taken 100s of years of small steps and far too many lives lost for us to get to move towards inclusion and equality and shame on us that we are not further along.
But at the end of the day, if I choose to watch mystery show set in the early 20th century, then I don't want it to look and feel like 21st century commentary. Let's place the above issues in the correct perspective -- like rich or not, Dr. Hart's relationship would be on the DL and Brackenreid may have had a mulatto child, but he would not publicly acknowledge her, nor would she expect him to - because he would be fired and she would be raped, beaten and left on the side of the road.
Used to be a fun show
oghk200030 April 2021
This used to be a light murder mystery with some humor and fun with the history of science. It was different than anything else and lots of fun to watch.
It's becoming another version the social arguments of the day. I'm tired to death of the divisiveness and arguing of today. If Murdoch Mysteries is going to become another venue for it then I'm out.
It's becoming another version the social arguments of the day. I'm tired to death of the divisiveness and arguing of today. If Murdoch Mysteries is going to become another venue for it then I'm out.
New writer. Big change in style
LaZedBoy7 March 2021
The new writer (this is her first Murdoch episode) turned the police and a few other characters into dark, stupid and unprofessional guessers who jump to conclusions. That would have been acceptable if this was Season One Episode One, but we have been treated to many seasons of quasi competent police. So the change is unwelcome. I hope the actors, directors and producers will ride herd a bit harder on rookie writers.
Way more than a little heavy handed
ellensucole12 May 2021
Even the acting fell flat in this episode... it seems that the actors could not put their hearts into this episode. It was uneven, at times stilted, and all around uncomfortable to watch with an over abundance of stale stereotypes.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
