The process of deciding what to watch...

It's an age old dilemma; you wanna watch a movie but you're not sure which to watch. Now compounding this is when one has a massive movie collection. It makes things, shall we say, difficult?
This is how it begins:
Step 1: Recognize the need. The need.....for movie lovin'.
Step 2: Evaluate the goals and objectives; do I want to be entertained, think, zone out, etc.
Step 3: Determine options available. Captain Corelli's Mandolin is never one.
Step 4: Apply the goals and objectives to the options available. i.e. I want to zone out, options? Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Michael Bay movies, any movie with Vin Diesel.
Step 5: Second guess whether the options are really options at all. "I mean, I wanna be entertained but The Godfather is almost too good that it borders on being a thinker and not an entertainer."
Step 6A: Repeat steps 1-4.
Step 6B: Stop being a whuss and move on.
Step 7: Determine final choices.
Step 8: Point Break is always a final choice no matter your desired goals and objectives.
Step 9: Evaluate pros and cons of final choices. This does not mean watching a PROfessional sports movie or a movie about CONmen. However, the PROfessional is considered fair game.
Step 10A: Make decision.
Step 10B: Repeat Steps 1-9 in varying orders until sleepy.
Step 10C: Get bored, play some Fallout 3.

Just what is the.....best genre?

Drama. Comedy. Crime. Action. Sci-fi. Horror. Which is better? Well, obviously there is no real answer. It depends on taste. It depends on who's hands the genre is put in. It all depends on a number of things which depend on a number of other depends, etc. and so on and so forth. Yet we can debate, can we not?
Drama would be the clear favorite. Most films have some form of drama hence making drama the genre of choice. Let's look at this a different way though. If drama is done wrong, is it not the worst genre? I mean, nothing is funnier than watching someone trying so hard and getting absolutely nothing. Think Tom Cruise in Born On The Fourth Of July. Then again, some people loved that movie.
Comedy can be the same as drama. When it's good it's very good. But when it is bad, it can be terrible. Yet one can laugh at a bad comedy cause it's just so bad it's funny. If you ever laugh at a dramatic scene, there is something very wrong.
Crime is a fan favorite. You've got some of the best films ever that are crime films: The Godfather, Goodfellas, L.A. Confidential. It can provide for great characters, great battles between good and bad, ethics, morals. It can lack great beautiful cinematography oftentimes as most take place in grimy cities.
Westerns are my person favorite. One reason is my belief that they offer everything a director could want in a film. Beautiful scenery, character potential, action, drama, dialogue, etc. One other reason, which simultaneously is a detriment towards the argument of Western supremacy, is that few have tackled the genre to it's fullest potential.
Action is another crowd pleaser. However, action at it's greatest rarely happens and oftentimes exceeds the confines of being just an action film. So therefore, action cannot be the best genre.
War, horror, thriller. All good stuff when done right. Most often horror and thrillers lack the mise-en-scene and cinematography to be great genres. War has it, and can be extremely good. However, it is a genre that can be done well most often. So in the hands of a competent director, it appears not too hard to do. Could that be an argument that is deserves to be the best genre? I think that, like most things, is debatable.
My personal favorite genre is science fiction. It does not fall into the realm of confinement. It can be anything it wants to be. Characters can be good, bad, young, extremely old, robots, etc. The scenery options are unlimited. The stories are unlimited. All of it can applied as a form of social commentary.
In conclusion, there is no best genre. You can choose any and I would not say you were wrong. However, I would attempt to convince you that I am right.

The Wrestler- A 1-2-3 for Mickey?

Growing up, as most children do, I loved wrestling. I started as a minor fan during the Hulkster and Randy Savage days and became a full-fledged fanatic when Stone Cold Steve Austin coined one of the most iconic phrases in wrestling history upon winning the King of the Ring. Let's just say I was eager to see whether Darren Aronofsky would go Oliver Stone and make as inaccurate a film as possible.
The Wrestler stars Mickey Rourke as Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a one-time wrestling superstar who has fallen on hard times. Randy used to perform to sold out arenas and now works community centers looking for the next meager pay day. Rourke shines in this role as a man broken more by his work outside the ropes than between them. Rourke helped write some of his own lines and you can tell as he appears very comfortable.
The story is told linearly, with a couple of flashbacks (which only go around 14 minutes backward in time). The look and feel of The Wrestler is very real. The way it is filmed makes the audience follow Randy more than observes him. On top of that, it's accurate. All this makes it painful to think about, but fantastic to watch. Keep your ears open for Bruce Springstein at the end, a perfect song for a tragic character.
Having now watched this, I'm disappointed it was not nominated for more awards. Especially Best Pic. That's how the game is played though. The commercially appealing stuff always gets it's place at the table, even when all it's doing is eating the bread.

Slumdog Millionaire- putting the dog, in Oscar!

Slumdog Millionaire won Best Pic at the Golden Globes. Cool. Big whup. No one really cares. However, it is a good clue as to where Academy voters minds are settling. But I am not the Academy. To which I say, "I AM GREATER!"
Alright, quick rundown. Slumdog Millionaire is told in a non-linear fashion about a young man from a slum in India who is one question away from 20 million rupee prize on India's version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?". He's accused of heating and interrogated. We learn about his youth and his love for a young woman. Simple enough.
Firstly, whoever the editor is? Where is he? Stand up my friend. Clap, clap, clap. Beautiful. What a job. Truly good stuff. Where's the guy who did the music? You? Clap, clap, clap. Beauty, man. Alright, that outta the way. I loved it. It's like a feel good version of City of God. Not as good, but easily one of the elite movies this year.
Danny Boyle does a good job as usual, but unlike his recent penchant for dropping the ball in the second half (28 Days Later, Sunshine), he doesn't waiver. Ok, well watch the credits and give me your opinion on that subject later. Then watch the on-foot chase sequence near the beginning and let it re-establish your faith.
All in all, I'd say this is completely deserving as Best Pic. Not my choice (See. Doubt). If it won I wouldn't complain. Much.

Oscar Noms

Ok...this year to me feels like a year where a number of former Oscar losers would DESTROY the field. I mean, geesh, could you imagine Saving Private Ryan in this year? It'd kill. Aw well, the Oscars are becoming worse and worse for me. I knew the film industry was crooked, but when Cannes premiered Oceans 13 last year....I knew there was something up.
And what is with Milk? All I've heard is how great Sean Penn is, and yet it's getting noms in numerous categories. Wha? The Dark Knight is nominated in nearly every category, and it isn't nominated for Best Pic? Wha? Every single actor with a pivotal role in Doubt is nominated.....and it DOESN'T get nominated for Best Pic? WHA?
Oh well, at least I can always rely on Best Animated Feature to be correct. Cause there are only three movies in that category every year and only one that's ever any good.

Leonardo DiCaprio- Best performance EVER.....in his career.....

Let it be known, I am not a Leo fan. Never have, probably never will. I find him to a be terribly unconvincing over-actor, with a penchant for routinely choosing the most obviously 'difficult' roles. Let me explain. What type of roles wins an Oscar I ask you? Playing mentally or physically disabled, a character with an accent, a character who is 'troubled' deeply, etc. etc. Now let us review Leo's resume. Whats Eating Gilbert Grape, check. The Aviator, check. Blood Diamond, The Departed, Gangs of New York. And check, check, check. So obviously, he tries too hard.
Revolution Road, while getting the Oscar buzz, has not garnered a ton of praise. Everyone wants to talk about The Wrestler or Slumdog Millionaire and it's leading men. Or Kate Winslet in the Reader. Yet this could be the best acting job of Leo's life. Seriously. He plays a guy who has serious marital trouble. That's it. He isn't disturbed or from some southern American state. He's just a guy who is supremely disappointed in his life. And he excels. And excels. In fact, at one point I thought, "Oh my god, I actually like him right now. No, no, no. No way. But I do."
So bottom line is if you have liked Leo up to this point in his career, you won't like this movie. I'm just being honest. Because chances are you were impressed by his 'acting' and not his character. But it's all about character. So see it. Or don't. What do I care?

Stanley Kubrick- Best Director EVER?

For those of you who have had the pleasure of watching a Stanley Kubrick movie, be aware that you have seen more than just your average film. You're a witness to greatness. You're a witness to a man who is a master of his craft. Visit imdb.com. If you scroll down the list of films he's directed, chances are you've heard of at least one. Chances are that film you recognize is also elite.
Dr. Strangelove, The Killing, Full Metal Jacket, Barry Lyndon, A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey....need I go on? Look, how silly of me, what about Paths of Glory? Lolita? Has anyone heard of The Shining? Stanley Kubrick has the most perfect track record, it scares me to think of anyone who could exceed him. Let's put it simply: if directors were a baseball players, all other players would have to bat 0.800 lifetime to break Kubrick. If all directors were painters, someone would have to paint five Mona Lisa's and four Whistler's Mother's to outdo Kubrick. If all directors were porn stars they'd have to sleep with....you get the idea?
He's the man. He has a tremendous eye for the aesthetics of a film. Kubrick could visualize and hear a film without turning on a camera. For all of you who have not tried it, just watch one of his films. I mean watch it, don't even pay that much attention to what the story is about, just watch. Listen to the connection of sound to what's on screen. Pay attention to how shots look, not who's in them. Imagine what someone would have to do to capture a certain shot, i.e. did he have to wait until the clouds in the sky were just perfect enough to frame the character?
Do yourself a favor and accept that Kubrick is just that much better than everyone else. It'll make you a better person. Fo serious.