sscheiber

Like all shows that experiment with the genre into which they were born, WKRP takes chances. This is a reunion story between Travis and singer Linda Taylor. They had a relationship before she became famous.

A critic's responsibility is to answer 3 questions: What was done? Was it done well? Was it worth doing? What was done is described elsewhere on this site. I won't belabor it.

"Was it done well?" is more complicated. The press conference scene is awkward. It conveys the necessary information and allows the re-connection between Travis and Linda, but the dialog involving Les and Sternworthy from WPIG makes Les out as a total idiot. That blatant a characterization is overblown and unnecessary, to say the least. He could ask innocuous questions like what instrument does she play, but the rest of that exchange borders on the stupid. (Or perhaps crosses that border.) In the intimate scene between Andy and Linda, the timing is off, and the incidental music is timed so poorly that it is more a distraction than an enhancement. The handling of the plot resolution is considerably more successful and enhances the rating of the episode as a whole.

Was it worth doing? This judgment makes all the difference. They tried to do something very important by revealing Andy's past and the alternate path his life could have taken if he hadn't latched on to the 14th station in a 16-station market and made a home there. We get insight into his character, and his character grows.

Daring to do something different risks mixed success. "Who is Gordon Sims" is one of the strongest episodes in the entire series. Venus's monologue at the episode's climax is riveting and very not funny and his character grows significantly as a result. "Love Returns" attempts to perform the same function for Travis. It isn't as successful as an episode, but it WAS worth doing because it accomplished what it set out to accomplish.

As I expected, the reviews of this movie are extremely binary. Some people liked it to loved it. Others hated it to one degree or other.

I unreservedly fall into the first category. It isn't a perfect movie. Few are. But it's imaginative and fresh. We begin with a world that we're familiar with. We understand the wizarding and muggle/no-mag worlds. The script can be imaginative and original without having to justify anything that happens or explain its context. The audience already expects such activities.

Certainly the plot isn't fresh. It's ground has been trodden many times before. But that's part of its charm. The world is familiar and the plot is familiar, so Rowling could take her wizarding world and make an entirely new story unconfined and unconstrained by the monumental Harry Potter history. Perhaps it was written for a slightly different audience. After all, Rowling is likely feeling very limited as a writer if all she is allowed to write is a continuation of a story that she has already told. The universe she created is diverse and complex. She should be allowed to explore it from other points of view.

I do wish that the marketing of the movie had been less reminiscent of Harry Potter. I applaud the relative lack of pyrotechnics in the movie and its more muted volume than most movies have these days. But from the advance publicity, I suspect that some people went to the movie with unrealistic expectations.

So kudos to the movie and its fresh look at the wizarding world. I applaud those efforts, and the movie gets my "thumbs-up" from me.

Agatha Christie wrote numerous novels and short stories. She wrote this one as a play. Its original title, "Clarissa Finds a Body", more closely captures its mood, its spirit, and its off-center sense of humor. gridoon2016 commented that it isn't much of a movie. That much is true. Plays must follow a different set of rules and constraints than movies do. You have to judge it on its own merit. Long ago I learned the three jobs of a critic:

To explain: 1. What was done? 2. Was it done well? 3. Was it worth doing?

The first point is easy. It's a classic Agatha Christie murder mystery, drawn directly from the genre that made her famous. Its structure is predictable the way most classic murder mysteries are predictable.

As for was it done well, its mood differs from most of its genre because it has tongue firmly planted in cheek throughout, right from the opening wine-testing sequence. Christie originally wrote the play for an actress who was tired of playing "heavies". She wanted something fun. This masterpiece definitely qualifies. Penelope Keith in the starring role brings to it that level of sarcasm and fun, infused with a bit of panic from time to time. So the plot takes a fresh look at a familiar genre.

Was it worth doing? It's a diversion. It's fresh and it's familiar -- a good combination. It's fun. It's suspenseful. And the ending should satisfy most murder-mystery buffs.

So give it a chance. But be a little patient. Plays often take a little longer than movies to set themselves up, and this one is no exception.

Incidentally, I also have a copy with the Tammie Grimes introductions. Like many program decisions, this one offers yin and yang. On the positive side, it gives you much more information about Christie and her work and about this play. On the negative side, Grimes' sides interrupt the flow of the narrative. Which version is better is entirely a matter of personal taste. But give it a chance. It's worth it.