ajshaw-85038 I was upset that this's was just badly written and acted but having read he reviews on here o see people seem to think that this is portraying history accurately!? Perhaps in an age of morons artistic licence has gone too far?

bwallarab The ratings and reviews would lead one to believe that "Murdoch Mysteries" was among the finest series on television today. I have watched several episodes from different seasons, trying to find some redeeming features and have come to the conclusion that either there is an active campaign to artificially boost the ratings of this poor production or this series suggests a backlash against the complex, highly sophisticated, high production value television available elsewhere. Whatever the reason, "Murdoch Mysteries" is shockingly under par in writing, acting, and production values, especially glaring in this new "golden age" of television. At it's best "Murdoch Mysteries" is blandly charming in it's local dinner theater quality. One can sit through an episode or two while visiting one's aging parents easily enough. Written and produced to be easily grasped the average 10 year old, this is probably ideally suited for families looking for something safe to watch with pre-teens. But please, let's save the 10/10 ratings for series that truly deserve it. This is a 6/10 series at best and there is nothing wrong with that.

dagallop When pitching something against the likes of Poirot, you have to be good to even get noticed. This not only gets noticed but exceeds expectations significantly.When David Suchet formed the Poirot character he did an absolutely superb job of bringing Hercule Poirot to life, and then he maintained that level of excellence throughout the entire run of shows. Yannick Bisson has achieved the same greatness and produces a flawless rendition of Murdoch, again throughout the run (happily - so far! i.e. it isn't over yet). The supporting cast is far from 'supporting' in both shows. Where Hugh Fraser sustained the somewhat demur character of Captain Hastings, Thomas Craig has done so as the sometimes narrow minded Inspector Brackenreid. Although Poirot lacked female 'power houses' such as Helene Joy, it did have its fair share of 'second ladies'. Murdoch has an abundance of lady leads and plays the combination very well, although at times the convoluted plots lose a lot in trying to string intricate webs around the relationships associated with them. The Hurdoch-Ogden saga was so extrapolated that by the time they finally pulled it together it had spanned some 50 episodes! Ahem.. Although I personally dislike intensely the 'cliff hanger' approach, Murdoch only added this much later on. That isn't to say that I have seemingly gained an admiration for this tactic, but more so a disappointment that they feel it is needed to maintain the viewing figures! FYI: if the show is good, you don't need that! If you start doing it this late on (series 8 really), you yourself are starting to doubt the attraction to the show!In conclusion; this show is a must see for anyone that likes the crime drama, with the relationship angle firmly entrenched from time to time. Also those who like the period dramas, although some of the tenuous links to future inventions, inventors and events are just that; tenuous! It should also appeal to anyone that simply likes a 'comfortable show', it has neither bad language or unnecessary violence, reflects some of the ideologies that were forming at the time and above all is well acted. I would however, being of British extraction, like to point out that some of the Inspectors colloquialisms are actually considered 'foul language' when spoken in the Motherland!

ihatespike I love detective mysteries, and in particular I enjoy ones set in the Victorian era, so I admit with reluctance that Murdoch Mysteries almost makes me want to swear off both era and genre altogether. Almost. The main character is inarguably the smartest, most effective policeman in his station (regardless of how utterly cliché and guessable a great deal of the "mysteries" are), and yet he simply allows himself to be berated by his hot-headed, moronic boss and every other plot-device naysayer the writers can't seem to do without. This makes every episode's story flow painfully stuttered for no good reason, and also introduces a lot of aggravating, stereotypical suspects. The "idiot-driven plot" is par for the course with this show, sometimes getting so bad it becomes not so much a mystery as a game of monkey-in-the-middle, wherein the detective struggles to wrap up the case simply because everyone around him is obtusely and purposelessly unhelpful. CSI Miami's Horatio Caine would never stand for such hem-hawing idiocy, and Sherlock Holmes would deftly manipulate his way past them. John Murdoch simply looks politely perplexed and does nothing, which means we can only suffer in silence as it happens again and again. In addition to the clichés, generic plots, meek main character, and moronic background characters, we are also subject to never- ending soapboxing, and by insultingly anachronistic philosophies of the progressive persuasion. A good writer MAY be able to weave modern social issues into historical fiction in an intelligent, thoughtful way. The writers of this show approach such touchy material with the grace, talent and intelligence of a lobotomized democratic hippo on rollerskates in a China shop. Each subject is dealt with in such a crass, illogical, ham-fisted way, it makes me sincerely embarrassed for progressives. People back then simply did not speak or think the way they do in this show. Hell, I hardly see it now! It's insultingly dishonest, and I sincerely doubt it will change anyone's mindset. On top of that it makes for annoying, patronizing television. So there you have it: a nice premise, some nice characters, some nice costumes, some fun plots, idiotic writing, adequate-at-best acting, clichés galore, insufferable preachiness, often poor pacing, and a deficient level of suspense. Watch if you're bored.