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 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.

As long time listener to audio podcasts such as Leo Laporte’s TWiT network (Windows Weekly is among my favorites) and Creative Screenwriting Magazine, I can say I love listening to podcasts. There are many great shows that I have sampled, and I’ve found that I much prefer listened to audio podcasts instead of video.

The first reason is obvious: audio shows do not require your full attention. One can listen to a show while driving in the car, doing menial chores or eating lunch and allowing you to stimulate your brain while doing routine or mundane tasks.

Given its nature, video shows generally work best in shorter format. You have to be at a screen and it requires one’s full attention. That’s not to say that long-format shows cannot work. I have enjoyed Kevin Pollack’s Chat Show, Jason Calacanis’ This Week in Startups and Stupid for Movies from time-to-time, but I find it difficult to stick with them because of the screen requirement and, given their hour plus length and without an audio-only alternatives (which some of them have), they are more difficult to fit into one’s schedule of content consumption.

Also, because video requires much more production time and expense, they are consequently more limiting in terms of who has the resources to produce them. This leaves the door open for some smart entrepreneurs to bootstrap a good idea and get it off the ground with little investment in the audio realm. It also means that content producers must focus more on that what of the content instead of the how and, in the end, that generally compels podcasters to make sure they’re creating intellectually stimulating content.

This is certainly not always the case, nor does it rule out the possibility of a video show accomplishing the task of stimulating the mind. However, in general, audio shows tend to be more about ideas as such and allow for more in-depth analysis of a subject as they can be more liberal in their production length.

Such low overhead in producing audio podcasts has its negative side. While the door is open for successful shows to exist on extremely niche topics, this also means there is a lot of bad content out there one has to sift through. But generally, when you find a good one, they are extremely rewarding and enjoyable.

I do not want to say that video shows are unworthy of attention. They can be more lucrative for content producers as they command much higher advertising rates. That’s not to be discounted. The potentiality for higher profits nets bigger investment in such content, and people will make take time to watch a show if it’s good enough (see my article: Eight Reasons to Quit Cable TV as a first point of instruction for how to clear some room for any video podcasts you might be inclined to watch).

But, for the reasons discussed here, I think people tend to be more loyal to the audio shows they do consume. They’re easier to fit into one’s busy schedule and audiences therefore have more time to get to know a show’s personality and style. As a result—and content permitting—there is higher potential to become more invested in these types of shows.

A recent article in Home Media Magazine headlined that “$1 DVD Rentals Could Cost Industry $1 Billion,” according to an industry report. The report argues that lower revenue as a result of lower prices will lead to less movie production activity, hurting the economy as a whole.

What about the customer in all of this? Let’s re-write the article’s headline from his point of view: “$1 DVD Rentals Could Save Customers $1 Billion.”

As a customer, this sounds like a good idea to me—and I can put that extra $1 billion (or however much of it is my portion) into other areas of my life that are more productive for me.

The report reeks of union protectionism and overpaid workers whining about a pay cut, as well as brick and mortar rental stores who can’t compete with cheaper and more convenient alternatives, such as Netflix and Redbox. It evades the fact that producers set the price at which they’re willing to sell their products. They sell their products to the likes of Netflix and Redbox, and they set the price for doing so. If they feel they’re not being paid enough, they are free to raise prices (and customers are free to not buy it as well). All this amounts to is a complaint that the market is not paying them enough to make movies that audiences aren’t willing to see (i.e., pay enough to see).

If it’s not profitable to make movies for some producers, fine. Those people may have to find other ways to make a living and be productive. Even if it means less movies are made, as the report argues, so what?

Let’s face it: when it comes to entertainment, quantity is the not the problem. Netflix and others throw buckets of money at research and development, trying connect you to movies that you actually want to see.

If jobs are lost as result of less revenue, those left standing and making movies will be the ones who can make a profit doing it, and ultimately that means those skilled at producing content that audiences want to consume will prevail. It means better movies for you and me, and less crap to filter through.

This report is really a sign of progress, increased efficiency and productivity based on innovation and technological progress, not a negative. So enjoy your $1 DVD rentals and Netflix subscriptions, and enjoy them guilt free.

If your Netflix queue is well over 100 movies, it could take a year or longer before that just-added title arrives in your mailbox. This creates the problem of having to remember the reason you wanted to watch something. How many times have you opened that red envelope only to discover a movie you’ve never heard of and have no interest in seeing? It’s time to put and end to these situations.

Adding an option where you can attach a note to each item in your queue would remind you why you put it there in the first place. When you get that e-mail telling you such-and-such a movie has just been mailed, it will include your note. You could write anything you want in there, such as:

“Don said this was good, call him after and discuss fight sequence.”

—Following up with friends is always a value.

“Movie torturous, hilarious with Rifftrax.”
—Don’t forget about it later when it finally arrives.

“Wife wanted this one.”

—Time to schedule a night in and prepare the snacks.

“Jessica Biel. 1 hour, 3 minutes, 15 seconds.”
—Are you beginning to see the value here?

Hopefully Netflix will add Facebook and Twitter integration soon, too. The notes feature would work well here. I might tweet: “Just added ‘Talk of the Town’ to my #Netflix queue as part of my legal-themed movies marathon.” Please, Netflix, allow us to attach little notes to the movies in our queues. It will make using your service that much more valuable, useful and rewarding.

The truth of the matter is that, while concessions are a large portion of their earnings, ticket sales are still a larger source of revenue and profit for a movie theater. Myth busted.