I had the idea of doing a movie review style podcast when I was discussing movies with a good friend of mine and film school graduate. I noticed in our conversations that I would always use the word “movie” when discussing a motion picture, and he would always use the word “film.”

Our discussions were always interesting (to me at least), and I thought putting us behind a microphone and recording those conversations would make a good show. While driving home from the movie theater one night, I was thinking about how to format such a show. Reflecting on my conversations with my friend, I thought, why don’t I be “Mr. Movie” and he can be “Mr. Film” and we’ll call it The Mr. Movie and Mr Film Show? He’ll never say the word “movie” unless addressing me as Mr. Movie, and I’ll never say the word “film” unless addressing him as Mr. Film.

So the idea was born. I soon shortened the title to The Movie Film Show and, luckily, the domain was available, and I bought it.

My friend did not live in Los Angeles, so doing a show with him would prove difficult. I didn’t really have my Mr. Film. The idea was tabled until, a few months ago, I reconnected with a former colleague, Chris Wolski, a film school grad, movie reviewer and freelance writer that I had hired at one point during my days at Box Office Mojo.

I knew I had found a good candidate for the Mr. Film role. I pitched him the idea and he liked it. We agreed to give it a shot.

The basic idea was to just have fun reviewing movies from our distinct perspectives—two unique takes on the same thing, a movie or film. The show would sometimes cheesy, sometimes funny and sometimes serious. But most of all it would be two guys having fun and illuminating conversations about a topic they loved.

This conversational tone is what worked best in other podcasts I’d listened to, like Leo Laporte’s This Week In Tech show on the TWiT Network, and I wanted to emulate the quality and production value of such shows.

Also, the vast array of podcasts I had sampled on the topic of movies was too long, boring, and too often digressed into the personal lives of the people on the show. Listening to a 60 minute or more podcast about a two hour movie just wasn’t practical for most people. In short, there was too much chit-chat and not enough content.

For my show, we would cut to the chase, and let our personalities come out over time and, most importantly, in the process of reviewing the movies themselves. People don’t care what kind of jeans we wear, or what restaurant we visited lately, or what celebrity we ran into at the supermarket. No, this would be a straight, tell-the-audience-like-it-is kind of show, explaining what the movie is about, what is interesting about it, and whether it was good or bad. Then, we would move on to the next review or topic, enjoying it all the while with a smile on our faces and sometimes with a tongue in our cheeks.

The idea of playing the Mr. Movie and Mr. Film characters was not just a gimmick; it would help us keep focused on the content, and avoid the pitfalls and rat holes so many other shows fall into.

And so that is the philosophy by which I am producing The Movie Film Show. The show’s basic structure is this: we start out with a fun and a little cheesy Bob Barker, The Price is Right kind of theme song (and a Saturday Night Live style of announcer), dive into the reviews, maybe do a feature or DVD pick, and then end with over the top but serious, wide sweeping epic film music. It would be only as long as absolutely necessary, and as short as possible.

This is the kind of tone and progression you get from any good romantic comedy, one that delivers laughs but also leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling in your heart, and a smile on your face. That is the kind of tone we are aiming for.

A final concept I wanted to include—and too often neglected in movies today—is the idea of the “curtain call.” Over the end music, we would play clips or outtakes from the show. This is done to highlight a point discussed on the show, to replay an interesting or insightful sound bite or just for plain goofy comedic fun (and can be easily skipped by those who aren’t interested or don’t have time to listen to it).

So that’s The Movie Film Show, and the genesis behind it. I invite you to listen and hope we achieve the goal of giving insightful reviews—regardless of whether the movies or films we review are worth seeing or not—that leave you with that warm fuzzy feeling and a smile on your face.

Enjoy the show.

Netflix has announced a “Stream Up” event in San Diego on August 26, inviting its users to “…check out some of their favorite films and maybe even make a love connection based on their cinematic tastes.” Could this mean they are getting into the dating business?

Why not? Netflix has invested millions of dollars into their movie-matching engine, helping customers find movies they’ll love. That same technology used to guess what you’ll rate a movie you haven’t seen could just as easily be applied to matchmaking.

Dating sites like Match.com and eHarmony.com have their own algorithms for helping their users find the perfect mate. Such matching algorithms require you to fill out long questionnaires about your values, interests and tastes and use that as a basis for matching you up with Mr. or Mrs. Right.

Such systems are far from perfect and, in my single days, I tried out such services with little success. But using movies as a basis for mating customers is intriguing, to say the least.

Ayn Rand defined art as “a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments…. [B]y means of a selective re-creation, [art] concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important.” (From “Art and Cognition” in The Romantic Manifesto)

The beauty of using art (and in this case, movies) is that you get at a person’s fundamental view of the world, and matching two similar approaches to life is a recipe for romantic success.

Because we’re talking about one’s reaction to art, you get at issues of one’s personality that are nearly impossible to quantify in a typical questionnaire—issues such as sense of humor, one’s implicit sense of life and implicit philosophy. Matching people by their taste in movies skips the step of need to make explicit one’s philosophy and sense of life on a system like Match.com, which many have difficulty articulating even their own minds.

Taste in movies can’t measure things like physical attraction (which is important in any romantic relationship, and what profile pictures are for). But like all dating and matching services, these are tools, a mere starting off point to help narrow the playing field and increase one’s chances of finding their soul mate.

Whether Netflix decides to enter the dating business is to be seen. But their movie matching engine is an untapped asset in the field of relationship matching. If they don’t pursue creating such a service (or license their technology for someone else to do it), I hope someone else will create such a service. I would definitely use it—if I wasn’t already married.

Foursquare made popular the concept of the “check in,” where individuals “check in” to locations as they travel about town, earning points and badges while they do it.  It is both social networking and social gaming, and it’s fun.

On this front, I’ve recently become addicted to Barcode Hero for the iPhone, a new app from Kima Labs and founded by a couple of friends of mine, Blake Scholl and Jason Crawford.  These are smart guys and the first version of their app is all the proof you’ll need to see they are seasoned pros.

Barcode Hero brings a new innovation to the “check in” world, applying it—not to places—but to things.  You can scan anything that has a standard barcode with your iPhone camera, whether it be things you own in your home to items at the store, and share it with your friends.  From Best Buy to the supermarket, Barcode Hero will likely have it in their database, and you earn points for scanning items, marking them as “owned” or writing reviews or comments on the items you’ve scanned and share them with your friends.

If you have the most points in a given category, you will be deemed the “King” or “Queen” of that category.  Since I started using the app very early on, I quickly became the “King” of sheet music, DVDs, books, Objectivism (from scanning all my Ayn Rand related literature), among many others.  I’ve been dethroned in several of these categories since, a good sign the app is rapidly acquiring new users.

In addition to this, you can follow your friends like on any social network, and see what they’re scanning and buying.  It’s also much more useful than Foursquare, as when you scan something you can instantly see where you can purchase the product online from a variety of major online vendors.

It does require an iPhone, though a Droid version is planned, according to their Web site, as well as a Facebook account to log in (hopefully they will allow non-Facebook users to use the app in the future as well).  Also lacking is a fully integrated Web presence, but I’m sure this is on the way.  The few bugs I found at launch have been quickly remedied, and it feels like a solid and mature app.

Unlike many other social media apps, this one has a clear practical application: scan a bar code and instantly connect you to online vendors for the best deal.  That means it has a solid business model out of the gate, a very promising sign for this new startup.

I wish Blake, Jason and all those involved with Kima Labs much success and am happy to see such a solid concept so well executed in the growing social media space.  It’s a winner.

Failure is a buzz word in today’s fast and frenzied Internet startup world.  Many are focusing on it, saying not to be intimidated by it.  While the intention is good, the growing focus on failure is a false hope that cannot bring success by itself.

True, the fear of failure can be paralyzing.  Perfectionists often don’t get anything done because they cannot accept even the possibility of failure, leaving them paralyzed at the starting line and left in the dust by the rest of the world who embraces their mistakes, learns from them, and moves toward the finish line as a result.

During my short stint as a stand-up comic, I wrote a joke on perfectionism:  “I have the best joke on perfectionism that you’ve ever heard,” I would say, “but it isn’t ready to tell yet.”

In this light, yes, you should not be afraid to fail and be willing to “embrace” it if you do.  But one does not achieve success by failing.  Failure is, well, just that.

Failing may give you the opportunity to learn, yes, and it may uncover important information that allows you to move forward—often information that you would have never learned if you hadn’t tried in the first place.

That doesn’t mean you should seek it out.  When Michael Jordan takes a jump shot, he is not aiming to miss.  If he does miss, while it may be an opportunity to learn, it did not score him any points.

But isn’t the opportunity to learn from failure the point?  Yes, in a way, but it also misses the wider principle.  Failure itself is just one way to learn and grow.  Consider that success gives you that very same opportunity and for the very same reason.

Just like failure, with success you must always perform a postmortem on your actions, your project, your business, whatever, and discover the reasons behind your results.  They are both learning opportunities and success’ sweet smell isn’t as potent unless you know the cause behind it.

This is important to remember at the start of any project, task or business proposition.  Focusing on failure is a sure way to get sidetracked and land yourself in a rut, leaving you wondering when the heck all that success is going to come.  If failure is your focus, it never will.

Instead, set your sights on the target—settling for nothing less than full understanding of your results—and shoot to win.