Parks and Recreation

I have finished Parks and Recreation just a moment ago and couldn't wait to write about it. First of all I can't believe I've waited so long to watch it. I began the series almost right before they aired the series finale and finished the entire show in weeks.

Even though comedy is my favourite genre I had lost my hope for sitcoms a long a time ago. The last quality sitcom for me was How I Met Your Mother and I maybe could be able to cherish it in my mind after it ended if they cut off that entire final season.

I followed The Office briefly and I still watch 2 Broke Girls, Mom, New Girl, Melissa & Joey, The Big Bang Theory (man I watch a lot of sitcoms) and last year after years of convincing my boyfriend had to do I've started Modern Family.

The thing about a sitcom is that when you find the right characters and the right concept everything escalates easy for a while. The first season usually is great, the second season is even better and then something snaps. This is of course is the problem of most TV shows comedy or non-comedy but it affects sitcoms probably more because of the common lack of characteristic layers. The writers start running out of content and if the show is doing okay, they prefer to go to the extremes rather than ending.

-I don't want to steer away from the main topic much but I remember few back to back episodes of HIMYM that I cried every time. That's not what sitcoms are for; come on now!-

MY favourite thing about Parks and Rec. I believe is that it wasn't a traditional sitcom. Because it's not actually a sitcom. It's a new kind of comedy that started get popular in the last decade, a mockumentary.

This is a genre that has begun with the movies in early 80s and started to give its first examples in the British TV in the beginning of the millennium. Along with US adaptation of The Office, the genre sat foot in Hollywood and started stealing hearts.

Parks and Recreation was originally planned to be a spin-off for The Office, however to spread the genre mockumentary it was decided to be released as an independent new show.

What I love about mockumentary is that it is more character based, which makes it more believable and genuine. You don't only laugh at the characters but also laugh with them which makes you connect with the character hence with the show. (Also there are no laughing sound effects. I hate laughing sound effect. Like I have to be told when to laugh.)

What is more special to me about Parks and Rec. is that (I'm totally going to ignore that most actors are from SNL and I am in love with SNL) each and every character is more special than the other. If you ask me my favourites are definitely April and Ron but there is -literally- no character that I dislike. And this doesn't happen often.

Finally I have to and just HAVE TO talk about that series finale. I hate it when the comedy shows end the series with just a regular episode and nothing special. -I like special- How the Parks and Rec. ended was probably my dream final episode; made me so happy that I can't even feel sad that it ended.

For the people who haven't seen it, as usual, no spoilers. But walking around the safe spots, we've seen where they end up years and years after the show ended. The last episode is all about that and it is perfect. -This is the point I forget all of the words I know and fail to explain. That's why if you haven't seen the show, you have to go and see it.-

But seriously, go and see it! I have waited way to long to begin it and now it has ended and... oh here comes the sadness...

Don't deprive yourself from this amazing show. If you have seen it go see it again. Then again... Social life is just an illusion anyway...

Thank you for reading my humble opinion.

iZombie

Like I didn't have enough, I've decided to add one more on my TV watch list and sat down for the first episode of CW's iZombie. It is a loosely based on DC Comics' same named comic book first published in 2010.

I found the storyline a little bit loose but I'm gonna give it to the excitement of pilot episode and since it created tiny bit of a controversy on its area with the worries of 'romanticising zombies' it can be defended as being cautious. Personally I'm not a zombie fan and I was relieved that the zombie concept is starting to be taken in a -literally- fresher approach.

The main character of the show, Liv Moore, is an overachieving ex-medical employee who obviously gets infected with the zombie virus. Discovering her appetite for human brains she moves on to work in a morgue and starts realising that as she eats the brains of the dead, she also gains their memories which she uses to help solve criminal investigations for the story's sake.

To be honest I did like the idea. It's creative and even though the zombies are very popular recently, something like this has never been done before. However, even when I defend that the cliches are not necessarily a bad thing despite what everybody says, I personally am very tired of the psychic cliche used in the crime drama series. Some excuse more creative than saying you're psychic when you have an ability you can't explain must exist.

Aside from the storyline I'm convinced with the acting which in my opinion is enough for a TV show production. The comic book effects, I've always loved. Since it is adapted from a comic book it is also relevant but I really enjoy the transition between means using this effect and I believe it makes it easier to cover up any possible holes in the storyline so it must be useful for the writers too.

I am more of a Marvel fan, you will hear this from me many more times in the future, however I've always admired that dark side of DC that I believe Marvel is shy on. They are not afraid to involve dark aspects of life, prostitution, dirty cops and such, and I think that this gives the production more of a quality along with the involvement of the reality.

Of course this was only the first episode and we have a lot more to come our way, but I found the pilot more successful than I expected. I have my hopes up for this one and I would really like to see the story to develop into something really exciting.

Thank you for reading my humble opinion.

HERE'S JOHNNY! (That reference just never gets old!)

The Lazarus Effect

Jump scares, jump scares and even more jump scares... and nothing else?

I didn't have the biggest expectation for this one but I wanted a night with a good scare. And turns out they chose to use the cheapest ever trick a horror movie can. All jump scares and I'm sorry but that doesn't work on me. -I should've known when they said PG 13 though-

It's not really easy to frighten me so I'm not going to push the blame on them. So let's skip the getting scared part and talk about the general tastes you get from a work of silver screen. This is the part where the real slam begins.

But firstly, a quick confession: I chose to see this movie because of my -not so- secret admiration for Evan Peters and because I secretly want to become best friends with Sarah Bolger. I usually admire both of their acting skills and even though they didn't really disappoint me, they didn't help to make the movie more tasteful either. 

Peters' experience in horror (coming from 4 seasons of American Horror Story) and talents of comedic acting was a great asset for the production which I believe they failed to take advantage of. It was obvious that they wanted Peters as the comic relief part of the film, however being very familiar with his previous work I had the impression that the director didn't allow him to use his improvising skills and involved too much of his own feedback into the character. To be honest I was expecting more from his character and couldn't satisfy even half of my expectation. 

I personally did enjoy the performance of Olivia Wilde. I'm not that much of a fan of hers but I really admired her acting and am willing to nominate her for the best actor in the movie. Aside from Wilde's acting the only other thing I enjoyed was SFX, which I have to admit was quite successful. -They did also steal my heart with Mozart for a second too.-

I would like to talk about the scenario if there was one. The entire screenplay was a few lines formed between jump scares and was as interesting as the directions given before a roller coaster ride. The whole of the first half of the movie was very unnecessary. The real story begins with the resurrection of Wilde's character and pretty much also ends there. Not to mention the ridiculous moments that apparently the director said "I don't think anyone will notice." But hey, I did. I mean, you pierce a woman's brain with a thick metal needle and yeah, a bandaid of course should fix it! Makes so much sense.

Overall, I was not expecting to be wowed by The Lazarus Effect however, I wasn't expecting to be this disappointed either. I would usually recommend the movies I don't give a very good review too because I believe that every movie deserves a chance from different points of view but this one I'm afraid I can't even advise to give a chance. 

Thank you for reading my humble opinion.

Let's Divide 1 Book Into 2 Movies Fashion

I can hear many people saying "But there are so many things in a book that don't fit in a movie." Don't! Just don't.

I believe the beginning of this fashion was with the 7th book of the Harry Potter series 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'. Yes I am a Potterhead; no I am not saying what I'm about to say because I'm a Potterhead: The only book that deserved to become a two-part movie was The Deathly Hallows.

To begin with the whole reason the final book of the Harry Potter franchise was divided into two parts was that there really was too much important content that was necessary to be involved in the movie and using all this content would cause the film to be way too long.

If you have read the series, despite the other 6 books the final one does not beat around the bush or involve some silent moments or give place to many descriptions. The final book is all about the final big war and the characters literally don't spend much time in one place.

Now here's the deal... Yes the beginning of this fashion was with Harry Potter and I actually believe that it was a very sensible move, the rest that followed was not in aim of giving the story line what it deserved but to make more money out of the franchise.

The first follower of the "why make one movie when we can make 2" idea was of course the infamous Twilight Saga.

Just one thing, I have read all of the books and I have seen all of the films and I even liked the first book. (The first movie is a whole other thing; it was worse than horrible if there are any words to describe it with.) The first part of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn was released exactly 1 year and 1 day after the first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and right after the Harry Potter movie I can almost see the light bulb shining on the top of the Twilight  producers.

The final book of the Twilight Saga was my least favorite and the moment I heard that it was going to be separated into two parts I knew what was coming our way with part 1: Two hours of nonsense -not that the second part was good-.

I went to see it anyway and it was nothing more than what I have expected. How can just nothing and absolutely NOTHING happen in a movie? Thank God that was the final book and we were getting rid of the Twilight hysteria for good. But unfortunately the idea was already out and it was bound to have more followers. At least the next follower was a more appealing representative for my geeky tastes.

On July 30 2012 Peter Jackson announced that The Hobbit book -which was expected in two part- we in fact going to be in three parts. One movie for each of those thick Lord of the Rings books and three movies for the relatively thinner Hobbit? That makes sense! Not only that there are three movies, each movie is almost 3 hours long.

-Is there that much content in the book?
-No.
-What should we do?
-Let's put Legolas and Tauriel and bunch of other characters that are not originally in the book.

Sure thing!

Finally the non-ending fashion was followed by no other than the Hunger Games franchise with their final book and final movie(s) The Hunger Games: Mockingjay -part 1 and 2-. To be honest the first part didn't suck as much as I expected it too. I didn't have much high hopes about it still they managed; maybe with Jennifer Lawrence's charm or Sam Claflin's I don't know. Still I have to say that it could be better off as one movie.

This thing about splitting of course has its pros on the audience side too. If you're a hardcore follower you can hold on to the ending franchise for one more year and get the opportunity to keep spending mindless money on it. However I believe that in conclusion the dividing process decreases the overall quality and on a longer run it damages the franchise itself.

As usual, thank you for reading my humble opinion.

The Theory of Everything

It's finally time to talk about a movie I wasn't thinking of seeing but then luckily changed my mind about. We all know a bit about Stephen Hawking -if not a lot- and admire his power to overcome all the horrible obstacles he had to face and of course appreciate his brilliance. I wasn't very interested in this movie at first because even though I am specially fond of biographic pieces I didn't think that it could be very interesting. In other words I was expecting it to be another heavy on the tears success story. I am very happy to say that James Marsh proved me wrong.

First of all, it's not a success story but really a love story. If in reality all those people had the good nature of the characters in the movie, despite everything I can honestly say that Hawking was a very lucky man. The support from his colleagues, from his friends, from his wife even from the man who is in love with his wife.

The love of Jane Wilde a.k.a. Jane Hawking was much expected on my side. As they say, behind every successful man there is a strong, wise and hardworking woman. Knowing that the storyline actually evolved around Jane rather than Stephen and originally the book was from Jane's own pencil it is understandable if some facts were told from her side only. However, good times or bad times we can objectively get to the conclusion that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be able to become who he is without Jane Hawking.

As usual I prefer not to get into the details of the movie, for the sake of people who haven't seen it yet but wish to. That's why I am going to talk about Eddie Redmayne's Academy Award and Golden Globe and BAFTA (deep breath) winning performance.

Very honestly there aren''t many performances that get me this excited. The last time I felt this way about a performance in a movie was Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club. Knowing that the real Stephen Hawking himself appreciated the performance as much as any of us is something that made me very happy. I wonder how he actually felt watching his life on a screen, step by step.

In my humble opinion, the most attractive thing about the movie was the exceptional performances not only by Redmayne but from Felicity Jones and Charlie Cox. I wasn't bored or distracted for a second the entire film and the possibility of that is near to impossible when we're talking about me. I would recommend this film to people who are looking for a drama that is not going to exhaust you and will make you happy eventually. Don't be intimidated by the biographic and scientific content. Once you begin a delightful couple of hours will be waiting for you.

Thank you for reading my humble opinion.

Into the Woods

AGOONNYYY!!!

Okay not that much maybe but thinking that I've been waiting for this movie for almost a year now, it really didn't turn out to be what I anticipated. 

I haven't seen the original Broadway play yet and I hear that it was a much better version. I had very high hopes especially considering that cast - which I have to state that Meryl Streep didn't disappoint one bit. 

There were parts that I really really loved especially the song "Agony", the duet of two princes which I laughed my ass off. What I loved the most about it is how they mocked the "prince charming" cliche with the perfect amount of irony. Just perfect! I've seen a lot of productions that are trying to tear down the prince charming image but this one was just on spot. I don't think that the John Mayer look-a-like prince had that great of a performance although it wasn't bad; but Chris Pine..! He gave a performance that I wouldn't expect from him in a thousand years. The lip moves, the hair flips, all of the gestures... His scenes were the highlight of the movie along with Meryl Streep and in my humble opinion that was all the movie had. 

I have a special keen on Anna Kendrick and James Corden. Their performances were good in a more general look but I'm afraid they forgot to... shine? I enjoyed Anna Kendrick's solo on the staircase of the palace, it was entertaining but it still didn't give the light it was supposed to. Also wasn't James Corden kinda supposed to be the lead? I mean he is the narrator, the story progresses mainly around his wish, it's his quest but the entire movie he is less than even a supporting actor. Of course I'm not saying that the actor is to blame. If you have to blame someone I would blame the director because the performance of Corden really wasn't bad. Surely when we combine the mistakes that were made in the directors office and the brilliance of the supporting cast it is easy that the main character won't become what he was supposed to be. 

Then there is Meryl Streep. The whole story gains some color with her performance. She is my nominee if you ask me to name a queen for the entire universe. The overall performance was nothing less than divine. The entire movie I watched her with golden stars in my eyes and her finally song was the perfect ending to a perfect performance. 

I can say that I have a bit mixed feelings about Into The Woods but what really finished me off was that ending. Not the end ending but lets say the last 10-15 minutes.

I don't particularly enjoy dark settings and the lack of light in the productions. I prefer bright colors and lots of light - much like a kinder garden student I guess. The ending of the movie was visually way too dark for me and the story at the end did nothing to help. If it was my decision to make I would end it after the big wedding -still thinking that if it did end there we wouldn't see Streep's amazing performance with "Last Midnight" and that "moment" with the prince charming and the bakers wife. That "family" formed at the end was like... "You've lost it all? Here; a baby that will probably end up being a liar and a cheat and a thief -as stated multiple times during the movie-, a teenage boy who is extremely unstable, a teenage girl who looks 12 but acts 30 but sometimes is like 5, and an ex-maid ex-princess who wants to go back to being a maid now girl. But hey they can all sing!" 

What I'm trying to say is that Into the Woods really didn't turn out to be what I expected and not in a good way. If you are looking for a light, cute, a bit funny a bit sad movie, then this one is your choice. But if you miss it don't beat yourself up. It's not worth it. 

Thank you for reading my humble opinion.

But seriously even if you're not gonna watch the movie watch this: I haven't laughed this much at something in a long time...

The Imitation Game

How outraged I am once more!

Last night I have finally had the chance to see another star of the 2015 Oscars, The Imitation Game and once more I was unable to comprehend how could The Academy reward Birdman as the best picture of the year within a list of this many amazing nominees.

I saw the Oscars award ceremony before I saw The Imitation Game and I was touched by the speech of Graham Moore who won the Best Adapted Screenplay.

His acceptance speech want as:

"I tried to commit suicide at 16 and now I'm standing here, I would like for this moment to be for that kid out there who feels like she doesn't fit in anywhere. You do. Stay weird. Stay different, and then when it's your turn and you are standing on this stage pass the same message along."

This was a beautiful message and seeing him with his eyes full of tears as he was saying these words was as touching as it could get. However I understood the even deeper message within those words after I saw the movie.

The Imitation Game is about the life and works of the British mathematics prodigy Alan Turing, who helped solve the code of German encryption machine Enigma during the World War II. With the techniques he devised to breaking German ciphers and the electromechanical machine that could fin the setting to the Enigma machine, Turing is believed to have shorten the war about two years. Turing was prosecuted in 1952 to homosexual acts and he accepted the oestrogen injections treatment as an alternative to prison sentence.

Turing's biographers Andrew Hodges and David Leavitt have suggested that Turing was re-enacting a scene from the 1937 Walt Disney film Snow White, which was his favourite fairy tale, both noting that he took "an especially keen pleasure in the scene where the Wicked Queen immerses her apple in the poisonous brew."

So going back to the movie, what really captured me was the strong messages given the entire time. The first part of the film is focused on the matter of prejudice against women and homosexuals with the mixture of perfect amount of comedic moments. The second part of the film is a little a heavier in context. By heavier I don't mean that it is hard to watch or boring. Just the opposite; the entire story is intertwined in a way that couldn't possibly give you a dull moment. Not a single scene was wasted on irrelevancy. The heaviness I am referring to the side of the war this movie shows you which not many prefer to depict.

We all have seen many war themed movies, especially about World War II, and we have been moved by the tragedy of the families, the deaths, the fights,the blood... What is different here is that The Imitation Game is not about the soldiers that are fighting with their blood; it's a about maybe the cruelest part of the war: the decision making.

Many people decide to put their countries above all else and go to fight and shed others' and their own blood. But who decides who should be sacrificed and who should be saved? Who gives the order to allow the enemy kill their own to achieve something else? In my opinion, the cruelest part of the war is people playing God. And among all those great movies that demonstrate the horrors of the war, I have never seen one that is this successful to demonstrate the cruelty of prioritising and gambling on peoples lives.

In my humble opinion, there has never been a movie that deserved the Best Adapted Screenplay award as much as The Imitation Game and Graham Moore. Even though I am a Whiplash fanatic, I could even root for The Imitation game to receive the Best Motion Picture of the Year.

Thank you for reading my humble opinion.