The Screening Room, the options you get

The Screening Room is a new movie-viewing medium founded by Sean Parker and Prem Akkaraju. The simplest way to describe it is this: movies can be rented and watched in your home the same day they are released theatrically but for a much higher price. It costs an initial one-time fee of $150 for the set-top box required, and any rental costs $50. The rental is available to you for 48 hours, but there is no clarity as to whether you are given 48 hours to watch it once or you can watch it as many times as you want within those 48 hours. With every rental, you are also given two free tickets to see the same movie at a theater of your choice.

This venture has already gained the support of Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams, Peter Jackson, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer. Fox, Sony and Universal have also shown interest. But it also has opposition from Christopher Nolan, James Cameron and Jon Landau. Theater chains could be given as much as 40% of the rental fees. But they’re also giving two free tickets with each rental.

This mostly comes down to the likeliness of moviegoers willing to pay $200 to see one movie and $50 for every movie after that. Remember, this isn’t like Amazon Video where you can just pay a rental fee to watch a movie with your credit card. It would be kind of like paying Amazon a flat $150 to join Amazon Prime for as long as you’d like and $50 every time you want to watch a movie. Except you have to wait a few months after the movies have been theatrically released.

There are multiple reasons why people would or wouldn’t use The Screening Room to watch a movie released to the public for the first time. The following are just a couple of scenarios when wanting to see a newly released movie.

One Person’s Convenience

The willingness to spend $50 for your own convenience varies by person. For whatever reason, some people may prefer to see a new movie at home on their own TV. The question is whether or not it’s worth an extra $40, roughly.

If you’re seeing a movie alone, money is arguably the biggest sacrifice you’ll make. Is it worth it to spend a flat $50 (no matinees, student, military, or senior citizen discounts) when you can spend as little as less than 10% of that, or at the most nearly a third of that to see it at a theater? Do picture and sound quality matter to you? If they do, how does your home viewing experience compare in terms of picture and sound quality to those of a movie theater?

You also might be sacrificing theater quality. Do you believe your home theater system is as good or better than the best movie theater in your area? Granted some movie theaters have shabby quality, thus the average medium-size flat screen TV could be more satisfying.

The bottom line is you’re paying for convenience. The convenience of staying home, not worrying about a show selling out, being able to eat whatever food you want, among others. You can make or break any rules a theater may or may not have. Does your reasoning justify spending so much more, in your opinion?

           

Parties/Family Outings

If you have a family of five or more who want to see a movie together, this is more likely to be the better option financially. Or your kid may want to celebrate his/her birthday by seeing a movie with his/her friends. Whether or not you alone pay for the tickets, or the parents of your kid’s friends pay for their own tickets, this still adds up to a lot.

You could also have a simple get together with friends/family. Everyone meets at the home of one person and watches the movie. This could be treated as a pay-per-view event. Everyone who attends could pay a little to the host, or the host alone could cover the entire cost. Either way, it’s very similar to meeting at a theater. Everyone pays for their own ticket or multiple tickets are bought by at least one person.

One downside is whether or not you can comfortably fit everyone into one room. If you can, you don’t have to worry about tickets being sold out or everyone sitting in the same vicinity.

Whether you choose to see a newly released movie in theaters or at home using The Screening Room, personal convenience and financial options are what will help you decide. If money is no issue for you, convenience is your best option. Someone might prefer to stay home and watch it in the confines of his/her own home. You don’t have to worry about someone else’s phone making a noise or the glare of the screen catching the corner of your eye.

The confines of your home may not be as solitary as one may hope. If your room isn’t soundproof you may have the occasional car driving by or airplane flying over. And you may have to deal with visual distractions. Whether it’s your neighbor pulling into the driveway at night with the headlights on or someone simply walking by, you may not feel as cutoff from the outside world as you would in a theater. When you’re in a movie theater, the only distractions that may catch your attention are what’s in the theater with you and what comes into it. You can’t hear other patrons in the hall talking, not to mention cars driving in the parking lot. At home, you can hear other people that may be living with you but aren’t watching the movie. Or if you live in close quarters like an apartment complex, you may have noisy neighbors.

The Screening Room provides more options for moviegoers, even in ways that may not be intended. The set-top box is said to have anti-piracy technology. While that is vague, this could also give movie pirates easier access. What’s to stop someone from renting a movie and watching it while a camera on a tripod records the movie itself? The $50 rental fee could be seen as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” fee.

A streaming service like Netflix is part of a new market with a new medium. While they mostly bring you selections of movies that can be watched on other mediums, they also bring some content that’s exclusive to their service. TV shows like “Orange is the New Black” and movies like “Beasts of No Nation.” It’s possible that The Screening Room could provide exclusive content down the road for filmmakers. It could do for Tyler Perry what Netflix did for Adam Sandler.

It was streaming services like Netflix that helped dig the grave for movie rental chains like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. No one can say for certain that The Screening Room won’t help dig the grave for movie theater chains like AMC and Landmark.

Sexism in superhero movies?

Recently, Cara Delevingne was interviewed by Empire Magazine. She plays the character Enchantress in the upcoming Warner Bros. DC Comics movie "Suicide Squad." In the interview, she was quoted as saying "Generally though, superhero movies are totally sexist." I'm not going to address whether or not superhero movies are sexist. It's her reasoning that I will address. During the interview with Empire, she continues to say "Female superheroes are normally naked or in bikinis. No one would be able to fight like that. Wonder Woman, how the hell does she fight? She would be dead in a minute."

For the most part, superheroes (men or women) are not naked or scantily clad. Other than Jon and Suzie from Sex Criminals, I can't think of any naked superheroes. But for those who are scantily clad, that doesn't affect their crimefighting. When Bruce Banner turns into the Incredible Hulk, he is wearing nothing but shorts. It wouldn't make him a better superhero if he was wearing a shirt as well. Or boots, gloves, etc. He would still be as strong and agile. In fact, if he wore more clothing like pants (instead of shorts) or a shirt, he probably wouldn't be as agile.

Look at Clark Kent. As Superman, he wears a simple skintight suit with a cape. Does the suit make him Superman? No, it doesn't. He wears the suit so others won't realize that he's also Clark Kent. Superman sometimes even fights crime wearing a t-shirt and jeans with a cape. Without his suit, he can still fly, lift heavy objects, use heat vision, have bullets deflect off him, among other things. His suit doesn't give him super strength, agility, and stamina. If anything, he might be more agile without the cape.

There's also the theory that Clark Kent is his alter ego and Kal-El is his true identity (which it actually is). But superheroes like Batman and Spider-Man wear their suits to cover up who they really are, Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker. But Clark Kent wears human clothing to cover up who he really is, Kal-El a.k.a. Superman. With a suit, Batman is still Bruce Wayne. He will always be Bruce Wayne (or Dick Grayson or Jim Gordon or whoever is wearing the suit). Batman is not always Batman. But Kal-El is always Superman. Sometimes he's Clark Kent, but he's always Superman.

Or even Wonder Woman, who Delevingne mentions. For most of her history, Wonder Woman has shown more skin while fighting crime than most superheroes. But she does wear a suit that covers up everything except her hands, neck, and head (she also wears a tiara). Her suit is for convenience purposes, like carrying her sword and lasso. With this full body suit, you see more skin from superheroes like Martian Manhunter, The Incredible Hulk, Wolverine, Supergirl, Robin, and sometimes Batman. But regardless of what she wears, Wonder Woman can still fly and possess her superpowers.

There's even Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen. He's almost always completely naked and still has his superpowers. Unless you're someone like Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark, you don't need a suit to be a superhero. If anything, most superheroes could benefit from wearing less. Not wearing a cape would increase agility and speed. People would be less likely to recognize you if you were nude. Imagine going through a Where's Waldo? book and everyone was naked. It would take a lot longer to find him. His glasses and face would be the only give away.

I would like to answer Delevingne's rhetorical question "Wonder Woman, how the hell does she fight?" She fights by simply being who she is. It doesn't matter what she wears. She will always have her powers, strength, agility, and stamina.

And the Oscar will not go to....

When the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences (AMPAS) selects nominations, they are voted on by the thousands of members that make up the AMPAS. How they nominate a movie to be a nominee of an award to begin with, I don't know. And every year, snubs are discussed. Usually, I myself am content with the nominations for the awards. And rarely is there a category where I couldn't care less about who or what wins. I almost always have a favorite in each category that I want to win.

Then there are omissions. But first, I want to clarify the difference between my definition of a "snub" and an "omission." A "snub" is a movie or person(s) that didn't get nominated for a specific category. An "omission" is a movie that didn't receive any nominations.

The Golden Globes (while still prestigious) are considered by me as the blueprints for the Academy Awards. Not just the winners, but the nominations. I don't consider the Golden Globes a crystal ball, telling me who might win or will win at the Oscars. But what to expect. Get a glimpse of. They influence people on what to see or consider seeing. Then the Oscar nominations can act as a reassurance or correction. And just because you didn't like a movie or a character doesn't mean it shouldn't win (not just because of personal preference). Popularity, box office numbers, and reviews influence the public on what is good and bad, before seeing the movie and determining for themselves. People often say that this person or that movie "deserves an Academy Award" (implying that it should win, not just be nominated). "Oscar buzz" influences the public (and maybe or maybe not the Academy). In addition to popularity, resumes come into effect for some. But a filmmaker with an immaculate resume can't produce a movie that is absolutely amazingly bad or disappointing and be nominated.

Three years ago, the AMPAS increased the number of Best Picture nominees from five to 10. Part of the reason was due to displeasure from many for "The Dark Knight," directed by Christopher Nolan, not being nominated. So while every other category has up to five nominees, Best Picture gets up to 10. There were 10 nominees in 2010, as well as 2011. But there were only nine nominees in 2012. And again in 2013, there are only nine Best Picture nominees:

-Amour
-Argo
-Beasts of the Southern Wild
-Django Unchained
-Les Miserables
-Life of Pi
-Lincoln
-Silver Linings Playbook
-Zero Dark Thirty

And there are five nominees for Best Director every year, so some directors are left out. The five nominees for Best Director all had their movie nominated for Best Picture (this hasn't always been the case). John Singleton got a directing nomination for "Boyz n the Hood," his debut feature film, but no Best Picture nomination. Singleton did not win. But the year before that, Kevin Costner won Best Director for his debut film "Dances with Wolves" (as well as Best Picture).

The four Best Picture nominees this year that didn't receive a nomination for Best Director: "Argo," "Django Unchained," "Les Miserables," and "Zero Dark Thirty." Those directors are Ben Affleck, Quentin Tarantino, Tom Hooper, and Kathryn Bigelow.

Tarantino, Hooper and Bigelow each have received Best Director nominations in the past (both Oscars and Golden Globes). Bigelow and Hooper have also won an Oscar for directing. Bigelow won in 2010 for "The Hurt Locker" and Hooper won in 2011 for "The King's Speech." Tarantino, Bigelow, and Hooper each had their previous film nominated for Best Director at both the Academy Awards and Golden Globe Awards. None won at both shows. Ben Affleck was nominated for Best Director at the Golden Globes, and his film "Argo" received a nomination for Best Picture at the Academy Awards and Best Picture - Drama at the Golden Globes. The Golden Globe awards for those categories were given to Ben Affleck and "Argo."

But Ben Affleck didn't get an Oscar nomination for directing. He has a short list of directing on his resume (three feature films), but he's not a rookie like Singleton and Costner were. Benh Zeitlin got a Best Director nomination for his debut feature film "Beasts of the Southern Wild." "Argo" was more well received by critics and grossed more money than "Beasts of the Southern Wild." Affleck's previous two films "Gone Baby Gone" and "The Town" each received an Academy Award nomination for a supporting acting role. Obviously the AMPAS doesn't pay attention to the Golden Globes for influence. But winning, on top of being nominated for, the Golden Globe for Best Director should garner (no pun intended) at least an Academy Award nomination for the same category.

One omission that caught my attention was "Rust and Bone." It received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Foreign Film and Marion Cotillard was nominated for Best Actress - Drama for her performance as Stephanie. While "Rust and Bone" not getting a nomination for Best Foreign Film (which disappointed me) may go unnoticed, Cotillard's snub did not sneak by. Cotillard has only one Oscar nomination, which she won Best Actress for "La Vie en Rose" in 2008. Since then she has been in a lot of movies States-side. Prior to "La Vie en Rose" most of her work was across the pond.

Many critics were ready to give her the Best Actress Oscar for her performance in "Rust and Bone." But she didn't get the nomination. This made me tip my head in confusion. Cotillard plays Stephanie, a woman in her early to mid-thirties who works at France's version of Sea World, Marineland, as an orca trainer. An accident that wasn't her fault results in her having both legs amputated at the knee. Bound to a wheelchair, she becomes more dependent on others. She doesn't want anyone's pity while striving to be as independent as she can.

This has Oscar on his knees begging to go home with Marion Cotillard. The Academy tend to be suckers for vulnerable characters facing adversity. Tom Hanks played Andrew Beckett in "Philadelphia." Beckett is a gay man diagnosed with AIDS who is fired by his law firm. He believes he was discriminated against and fired for having AIDS. He is in turn represented by an outspoken homophobe played by Denzel Washington. Hilary Swank played Brandon Teena, a transgender who is ridiculed by his/her peers and is sexually assaulted in "Boy's Don't Cry." Both Hanks and Swank respectively won an Academy Award for their performances, both leading performances. But Cotillard will not get an Oscar for her performance in "Rust and Bone."

The recognition (or lack thereof) of "The Dark Knight Rises" wasn't necessarily conspicuous, but puzzling when known. No nominations whatsoever were given to the film for any category. The last Batman movie to not get any Oscar nominations was "Batman & Robin." "Batman Begins," the first chapter in the Dark Knight trilogy, was nominated for cinematography (Wally Pfister). The second chapter, "The Dark Knight," got eight nominations. It won two; Sound Editing went to Richard King, and Supporting Actor went to Heath Ledger posthumously. Heath Ledger won the same award at the Golden Globes, BAFTAs, SAG Awards, and Critics' Choice Award. The absence of a Best Picture nomination contributed to the increase of nominees in the category.

But its sequel, TDKR, was not recognized by the Academy for any achievement. Other trilogy finales that were recognized by the Academy include "The Godfather Part III" and "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King." Even "Alien 3" got a visual effects nomination. But TDKR got shafted. Most of the nominees would've been in the technical categories. However, Warner Bros. pushed for an acting nomination for Anne Hathaway, but failed. A Best Picture nominee was also a legitimate possibility. But probably not a Best Director nomination for Christopher Nolan.

Tom Hardy's performance as Bane was thrilling and terrifying. I would vouch for Tom Hardy getting a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Nearly his entire face was covered by a mask except for his eyes. His mouth, chin, and cheeks were covered. This prohibited him from smiling, grinning, frowning, appear in total awe, frustration, or serenity. Those are what express most human emotion on the face. But his eyes and eyebrows allowed him to channel his emotions. The fight in the sewer briefly showed this. But the speech he gave outside of Blackgate Prison was his shining moment.

The reason for omissions and snubs are not just because there are other films that some people may like more than others. Limitation is the invisible reason. With such a large amount of movies and people worthy of recognition, there's too much distribution of votes. Some Academy members may be undecided on some categories or torn between multiple choices in a category. They either can't make up their mind, take a shot in the dark, or make an uncertain vote. Had Tarantino, Bigelow, and Affleck gotten Best Director nominations instead of Benh Zeitlin, David O. Russell, and Michael Haneke, the Academy could be even more split on votes. Of all the Best Picture nominations, four of the directors have won Best Director: Spielberg, Bigelow, Lee, and Hooper. It's nearly impossible to vote for an MVP on a Dream Team. The snubs and omissions that I've talked about (and the ones that I didn't discuss) are akin to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Each person can cast only so many votes. And their votes are immensely outnumbered by worthy candidates. Normally, the one candidate that wins in the end loses votes during the voting process to one or two other worthy candidates in the category. When you have four or five worthy nominees, you have more candidates to take votes away from the eventual winner.

Top 5 Disney/Pixar Movies

5 - Toy Story. The essence of Toy Story is not just that toys come to life when people aren't around them, but that they're completely aware of the fact that they are toys to begin with. Woody doesn't believe that he's a sheriff to uphold the law. Although he is a toy with integrity.

Woody knows that making a kid happy is why he exists as a toy. He's a leader amongst the rest of Andy's toys for multiple reasons. For one, he's Andy's favorite. So he knows how to be special for Andy and make sure that he's always there for Andy when he wants to play. Another is because he cares about the well-being of the other toys. Mr. Spell's meeting on plastic corrosion awareness is essential to the health and longevity of the toys. No one likes to play with a toy whose paint is fading and Rocky Gibraltar doesn't want his muscles to deteriorate. Though they have dangers as well. The sight of Buzz Lightyear's "severed" arm is disgusting to them, even though there aren't broken bones or mangled muscle tissue.

Buzz has a background story that makes him believe he is a real space ranger and that he has a mission to complete. He doesn't believe that he's a toy because he's never been played with. He hasn't had the experience of being played with. He believes he is destined to serve Star Command because that's what he's been programmed as. He eventually realizes that Star Command is just part of a marketing ploy and learns first hand that he can't fly.

But when Buzz and Woody need the help of each other, Buzz realizes that he is in fact a toy. There is no Star Command. His laser can't stun or kill anything. Woody is then able to point out that while he isn't a space ranger on a finite mission, he is a toy that will serve a purpose for a much longer time.

4 - Toy Story 2. One of the perks of being a toy is that they last forever. An eternity. Even though their time is infinite, toys have to make the best of it.

A toy must know its purpose to help make the time worthwhile: to make a child happy. A child playing with his or her toy is just like some childhood relationships. Eventually you outgrow them and look for something new. And that's the lesson learned. Making the best of your relationships. The stronger a friendship is, the better the time together is.

Buzz reminds Woody of what he once taught him. Life's only worth living if you're being loved by a kid. Thinking that Andy won't love him for that long, he opts to go with Jessie, Bullseye, and Prospector to the museum in Tokyo. This way he'll be loved by kids forever. It isn't long until Buzz points out that being looked at and revered by countless kids in a museum isn't the life a toy should live. Jessie put it very well. When a kid is playing with a toy, even though they're not moving, the toy feels alive. And toys don't get that opportunity when they're preserved in museums.

Woody remembers how special his relationship with Andy is. And even though it's finite, it's the best thing for both kids and toys. Make the best of it while you can. Plus Woody and Buzz have each other to share the time together.

3 - Monsters, Inc. The interpretation of monsters living under the bed and in children's closets can be trite. But portraying them as average joes is original. The two main joes, James P. Sullivan, a.k.a. Sulley, and Mike Wazowski, live ordinary lives together. They work together and still have experiences that dwarf many we have. The attitudes they have differ in many ways. Mike is proud of his accomplishments that most would see as diminished. Mike is either too imperceptive to notice them (the company logo covering him in the TV commercial) or he doesn't let them bother him. While both are the answer, the former takes the cake. Mike's failure to sweet talk Roz so he won't be reprimanded for not filing his paper work is another case in point of how idiotic he can be.

The love Mike and his girlfriend Celia have for each other can be considered puppy love. Even though they don't show public displays of affection, their pet names for each other make you laugh and feel happy for them. Googly Bear (Celia's pet name for Mike) expresses his love for Schmoopsy Pooh (Mike's pet name for Celia) so much that she could do almost anything that would make some other person love her less.

But the love and care Sulley has for Boo is the heart of this movie. He's able to show her that she doesn't have to be scared of monsters. Sully will go through even the grittiest conditions like a blizzard in the Himalayas, and persevere anything and anyone to get her back home safely.

2 - Up. True love lives on long after the passing of one's soulmate. If it didn't, Carl Fredricksen's house would still be down on the ground in the city. His wife Ellie's lifelong dream is to live in a house atop of a cliff overlooking Paradise Falls, a land lost in time. The strength of Carl's and Ellie's love for each other puts Glenn Beck's love for the United States to shame.

After Ellie dies and he's about to move into a retirement home due to court orders, Carl embarks on the adventure of his life. He is soon joined by a little boy named Russell, a Wilderness Explorer who is willing to do anything to be with the person he wants.

Hindrances (some unexpected, others not surprising) start to deter Carl and his journey the same way kids prolong a drive to the family cabin by wanting to stop for fast food and needing to go to the bathroom every fifteen minutes. They meet Kevin, a bird that is the core reason of why Carl and Ellie wanted to go to Paradise Falls to begin with, the MacGuffin. And Dug, a dog who can talk with the help of a voice collar. Despite being bothered by the possible presence of a squirrel occasionally (SQUIRREL!), he is a devoted servant to Carl. He want Carl to be his new master.

The four of them encounter three other dogs with voice collars. The leader, Alpha, has a malfunctioning voice collar, leaving him with a high-pitched, squeaky voice. Can't imagine what helium would do to it. This idiosyncrasy undermines Alpha's toughness, like a paraplegic villain in a James Bond movie. The three of them are on the hunt for a snipe, the kind of bird Kevin is.

After being chased by Alpha and the other dogs, Carl and Russell meet Carl's boyhood hero, Charles Muntz. He is Dug's and Alpha's master, as Dug and the other dogs call him that. When Carl and Russell find out that Muntz sent the dogs to hunt and capture Kevin, they flee. But not without Muntz putting up a good fight and trying to stop him.

Carl and Russell try to flee Muntz with Dug and Kevin, but Kevin is almost immediately caught by Muntz. With Kevin now captive and Russell wanting to save Kevin so she can get back to her babies (yes, Kevin is a girl), Carl is stuck with a dilemma: tow his house on his own, or help Russell rescue Kevin. Carl chooses the latter, allowing him to achieve both while realizing that even though you have to let some things go, it can be for the best.

1 - WALL-E. The heart of this movie outweighs its humor. Though it's funny in a very cute way, the movie is more heart warming than ANYTHING. Passengers of the Axiom, the captain included, are so obese that they get around by using hovering lounge chairs with computers that appeal to whatever they desire, because walking isn't necessary. They prefer talking with someone via a Skype-like technology, which is a lot easier and more convenient than turning their heads to look at the actual person who's right next to them while conversing.

When WALL-E gets ejected from the Axiom and his escape pod blows up, EVE refuses to believe the worst. But he escapes with a fire extinguisher. Using the extinguisher for propulsion, he shows EVE that he has the plant, the MacGuffin. She's so delighted that a hug and kiss sends WALL-E into euphoria. EVE then invites WALL-E on a spacewalk that is reminiscent of a couple ice skating alone in Central Park at night. This is the quintessential moment of WALL-E and EVE's affection for each other.

Even though WALL-E does some foolish things involving EVE (which usually anger her), she eventually realizes that he is doing it simply because he fears something bad will happen to her and he wants to help her. EVE returns the favor when WALL-E needs help more than EVE possibly ever did.

Lack of Diversity in Films?

Lately there has been criticism about the lack of "colored people" and females in the film industry getting recognition for their work. One reason is due to the Oscar nominees for the acting categories. When the media, such as the Huffington Post and CNN, mention "colored people," I don't know if that's limited to just black actors or includes actors of other ethnicities such as Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, etc.

I want to make clear that when I say "colored people," no matter how politically correct or incorrect that may sound, I am referring to anyone whose ethnicity and/or heritage is Asian, Hispanic, African, or anywhere that isn't the United States. I personally don't like the term because there are people both black and white people, all over the world within close proximities of each other. And what about a black man and a white woman or a white man and a black woman having a kid? If the kid appears to be very white, can that kid still be considered a "colored person" because one of the parents is "colored?"

If you want to call "colored people" the minority, throw in caucasian people as well. And consider throwing out some Asians, particularly Chinese. China's population according to the 2010 census is 1,338,612,968. India's population according to indiastat.com is 1,194,334,330 and rising as I write this on January 29, 2011. Also according to indiastat.com, the world's population is 6.975017 billion and rising as well. China's population represents roughly 1/6 of the world's population. And with India included, the two most populated countries represent a little over a quarter of the world's population. So anyone but Chinese people should be considered a minority regarding the world's population. But if you want to be more broad, for example Kenyan African-Americans or Somalian African-Americans instead of just African-Americans, anyone who isn't of Asian ethnicity is a minority in this world. And the Academy recognizes talent from all over the world, not just people born in the United States. So on a global level, which is what the Academy looks at when it comes to nominating people, anyone who isn't Asian or part Asian is a minority.

The United States is the third most populated country, with a population of 308,745,538 according to the 2010 census. And given that the United States is a melting pot, ethnicities are merging and getting lost like tears in rain. Whereas in India where pre-arranged marriages are still common, Indians are marrying Indians, and thus giving birth to more Indians. That is uniformity. They are not marrying Swedish people, or French people. Or Germans or Aussies or Mexicans. They are staying out of the melting pot. At least those with pre-arranged marriages.

Anyways. First, I want to address the media's mention of "colored people" and lack of recognition. Since the Academy Award nominations were announced on January 25, it has been noted that all the nominees for all four acting categories are white. I want to point out that this isn't entirely true.

Spanish actor Javier Bardem received a nomination for his performance in "Biutiful." CNN acknowledges this, but claims that since he is a Spaniard, he is therefore European, which is true. But a colored person is a colored person regardless of where they're from. A black person is still black whether he or she is from Chicago, Illinois or London, England or Lagos, Nigeria. Is a white person who is born in Johannesburg, South Africa and immigrates to New York City more African-American than a black New York native whose parents and grandparents are also New York natives and have all lived in New York their entire lives?

Colored people in the film industry do get recognition. Plenty have been nominated for acting categories. They include (but not limited to): Whoopi Goldberg**, Denzel Washington**, Laurence Fishburne, Samuel L. Jackson, Morgan Freeman**, Cuba Gooding Jr.*, Michael Clarke Duncan, Queen Latifah, Djimon Hounsou***, Don Cheadle, Jamie Foxx **, Terrence Howard, Will Smith***, Forest Whitaker*, Eddie Murphy, Jennifer Hudson*, Ruby Dee, Gabourney Sidibe, and Mo'Nique*. (Note: * indicates they won. ** indicates they have been nominated multiple times and won at least once. *** indicates they have been nominated multiple times but never won.) And that's just African American nominees dating back the past 20 years. How about Mexican actress Salma Hayek being nominated for "Frida" or Japanese actor Ken Watanabe for "The Last Samurai?"

Sidney Poitier became the first African-American to win a leading role acting category for his performance in "Lilies of the Field" in 1963. Not for another 38 years in 2001 would another African-American win an Oscar for acting in a leading role.

In fact, in 2001 two African-Americans won. Denzel Washington won Best Actor for his performance in "Training Day" and Halle Berry won Best Actress for her performance in "Monsters Ball." Also nominated that year for Best Actor was Will Smith for "Ali." Denzel Washington beat out Sean Penn for his performance in "I Am Sam." And the Academy seems to absolutely love performances involving characters overcoming adversity. Enter Tom Hanks in "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump," Jamie Foxx in "Ray," Sean Penn in "Milk," and Daniel Day-Lewis in "My Left Foot."

Is there a lack of movies with "colored people" in leading or supporting roles? Morgan Freeman starred in "Red," Denzel Washington starred in "The Book of Eli" and "Unstoppable," Ken Watanabe in "Inception," Don Cheadle and Samuel L. Jackson in "Iron Man 2," and "Brooklyn's Finest" which not only starred Don Cheadle and Wesley Snipes, but was directed by Antoine Fuqua, an African-American as well. Of all these, "Brooklyn's Finest" seems to be the most respectable film. Note that Antoine Fuqua directed Denzel Washington to receive his Best Actor Oscar for his performance in "Training Day."

Who could forget "Death at a Funeral" with Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence? Or "Lottery Ticket" with Bow Wow and Ice Cube? And not to mention your Tyler Perry movies. In 2010 he gave us "Why Did I Get Married Too?" as well as "For Colored Girls." Rocky Seker, a film curator who runs the blog "Invisible Woman.....Black Cinema at Large" says, "The stories that we would like to tell usually don't get greenlit. We're just not taken seriously. It's all a moneymaking issue." Now while each of the movies I've mentioned in this paragraph did make a profit, they don't appeal to larger demographics. It seems that they are able to get the budget to make movies and get them wide distribution. It's the subject matter that doesn't attract larger audiences. But if movies like "Are We There Yet?" with Ice Cube are ripped apart by critics, how can they be taken seriously?

Top 5 Hitmen/Bounty Hunters

5 - Mr. Goodkat (Lucky Number Slevin). Bruce Willis tends to do well when it comes to being scary, even if he's not supposed to. Though Mr. Goodkat isn't scary, he is great at getting the job done. He thinks much farther ahead of everyone else. Take the scene at The Fairy's apartment. He hears the bodyguards behind the wall. He presses the button on The Fairy's necklace and stands there looking at the wall waiting with his two pistols drawn.


4 - Anton Chigurh (No Country For Old Men). Javier Bardem was scary as Chigurh. No doubt about it. His deep voice and expressionless face contributed to that. And his weaponry consists of a shotgun with a silencer and a cattle stun gun. The sound of the silenced shotgun when it shoots is disturbing. And every time the stun gun is shot, whether it's through a lock or an old man's forehead, it makes your heart jump. And even when he gets shot, he's a bad ass when he fixes the wound himself. He doesn't want to buy all the supplies. So he creates a diversion by lighting a piece of cloth hanging out of a car's gas tank in front of a pharmacy. When it blows, no one cares about anything but the explosion because they're either scared and trying to get somewhere safe, or curious and want to see the car after it's blown up.


3 - Vincent (Collateral). Tom Cruise's best performance. He is so smooth, like a snake. He just smoothly moves around attacking his prey, going unnoticed. His smoothness is exceeded by his slyness. He definitely benefits from having Max with him. When they're at Club Fever, all the cops and FBI believe Max to be Vincent. Vincent knows this because he had Max pose as him to get the information on his targets that Max eliminated. So what does Vincent do? He has Max approach target number four while he stays back and watches. But he's not just watching Max. He's checking around the club for security and bodyguards. He then takes them out one by one before taking out target number four, albeit after his cover is blown.

He can get out of nearly any situation. The two muggers in the alley. Both of them have guns, though only one has one already in his hand. Vincent first swats the gun out of one guy's hand and shoots him. But his gun is barely drawn from the holster. A hip shot. He then raises the gun, arms fully extended, and shoots the second guy.


2 - Colonel Mortimer (For a Few Dollars More). Yes, he's better than Clint Eastwood. Lee Van Cleef stole the show for me. His first target tries to escape on his horse. But Mortimer takes out his rifle and shoots the horse from a couple hundred feet with no scope. He doesn't shoot the guy. He shoots the horse. The guy has no getaway now. He then pulls out his magnum, attaches a stock to it (a handgun with a stock) and shoots the guy from a couple hundred feet away right in the forehead. No scope.

When Mortimer first confronts Eastwood, the two have a strange exchange. It starts out with stepping on each other's toes, literally. Then after slapping Mortimer to the ground, Eastwood pulls a quick shot on Mortimer's hat laying on the ground. He keeps shooting the hat until it's out of range for his gun. Then after Mortimer puts his hat back on, he pulls out his magnum, this time without the attachable stock. Again, from a couple hundred feet away, he shoots Eastwood's hat off his head and shoots it a couple more times, keeping it from falling to the ground.


1 - Leon (Leon the Professional). Leon is by the far the hardest man to bring down. Let's start with the opening scene. Everyone has a machine gun. Leon doesn't even use a gun! He pulls a guy over a ledge down a stairwell. He wraps a noose around another guy and hangs him. The main guy then accidentally shoots his own men behind a metal sheet wall.

But Leon's ultimate performance comes near the end. The SWAT team has Natalie Portman, and uses her to get to Leon. But Leon doesn't fall for any of it. Hanging from the ceiling, he takes out at least five SWAT officers without even being shot! He does get shot eventually, but continues to take out more SWAT officers.

Top 5 Comic Book/Graphic Novel Movies

5 - Iron Man. The suit is by far the best part about him, for obvious reasons. It's got a heads-up display that includes an altimeter and thermometer which can be used to improve flight performance. Even the "prototype" he creates while captive in the Middle East kicks ass with its flamethrowers. The prototype is even more intimidating. And the ability to fly and hover doesn't hurt.

4 - 300. No superheroes. Just an army of 300 Spartan soldiers. The ultimate alliance of any group of people. When they work together, which is always, they make an impenetrable force. When King Leonidas fights the Uber Immortal, it's not David vs. Goliath. It's David vs. Behemoth. The Uber Immortal takes a sword through the biceps, slashes to the lower legs, and a knife to the eye. And they are all mere annoyances to him. Keep in mind that the movie never intends to be historically accurate. It is based on Frank Miller's historical fiction writing.

3 - Batman Begins. This was the best Batman movie to date. Tim Burton's original was great, but having Tim Burton portray Batman is like Stanley Kubrick directing a James Bond movie. For the first time, Batman's origins are told accurately. It wasn't the Joker who killed his parents as portrayed in Tim Burton's film. It was Joe Chill, as Christopher Nolan accurately portrays it. The score and cinematography are key essentials in making this a movie that is not great, but excellent. Michael Caine's performance as Alfred is so enlightening, he appears to be more of a friend to Bruce Wayne than a butler. I also thought it was great to have not-as-popular villains like Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul.

2 - Sin City. This is the most accurately made comic book/graphic novel film ever made. You are practically watching the graphic novels on screen. The dialogue is almost verbatim, and the panels from the graphic novels were used as storyboard. There are numerous times when you could freeze the scene, and find that exact image in the graphic novel. Same angle, same characters and objects in the same locations in the same physical locations they appear at. There are four stories total that are told: "The Customer is Always Right," "The Hard Goodbye," "The Big Fat Kill," and "That Yellow Bastard." They are told individually instead of being interwoven together. "The Customer is Always Right" is the most accurate story. The dialogue, including the narration, is verbatim, and the shots are identical to the panels. Director Robert Rodriguez filmed this segment in order to convince Frank Miller that he was dedicated to making it as accurate as possible. Rodriguez wanted the movie to be so accurate, he had Miller co-direct with him. The cinematography is essential to making the movie fit the mood: dark, dirty, and sinful.

1 - The Dark Knight. Like I said before, "Batman Begins" was the best Batman movie ever. Until this came out. This starts out very fast. The robbery of the bank with the intro of the Joker with the beautiful musical score by Hans Zimmer. With a handful of scenes filmed in IMAX, including the bank robbery and semi-truck chase, the picture quality is so beautiful it leaves you speechless. While filming the chase scene with the semi-truck, one of the IMAX cameras was destroyed, leaving only three IMAX camera left in the world. Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was so extraordinary. He won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, as well as 31, count them, 31 other awards, including the Golden Globe, BAFTA, Screen Actor's Guild, and Critic's Choice posthumously. It was so extraordinary, that any scene without the Joker almost seems boring. There just isn't enough that can be said about how great Heath Ledger was as the Joker and how pivotal is was in making this movie into a mega-blockbuster. They even had Jerry Robinson, who co-created the Joker with Batman creator Bob Kane, work as a consultant of the film.

Top 5 "Superior" Sequels

This list consists of movie sequels that are not only good sequels overall, but better than the movie that preceded it. If the third movie in a series is listed, that doesn't necessarily mean it's better than the first movie, just the second one, which preceded it.

5 - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Not only was this better than "Episode II: Attack of the Clones," but better than "Episode II: Attack of the Clones" and "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" combined. I didn't think that Episodes I & II were that bad, but Episode III was great. It started out fast with the search and rescue of Chancellor Palpatine and ended with two great light saber fights, Yoda vs. Palpatine and Anakin vs. Obi-Wan, with the latter being the best possibly of every light saber fight there ever was.

4 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I liked this more than "Raiders of the Ark" also. "Temple of Doom" didn't even have a MacGuffin. In this, it was the Holy Grail and in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" it was the Ark of the Covenant. Sean Connery as Dr. Jones Sr. was great, as well as having Sallah, who wasn't in "Temple of Doom." I guess I missed the Nazis in "Temple of Doom." It was honestly nice seeing the Nazis again.

3 - For a Few Dollars More. I even liked this more than "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Clint Eastwood teams with Lee Van Cleef as Col. Mortimer to hunt down Indio and his gang. Plain and simple. Though they don't know about each other for a little bit. And their first encounter with each other is very memorable.

2 - Terminator 2: Judgment Day. This was significantly better than the first. Arnold Schwarzenegger as the protector makes you feel he's more evenly matched with the T-1000 than Kyle Reese was with the first terminator. Sarah and John Connor decided they could prevent judgment day from happening by eliminating Cyberdyne, something they could do while avoiding the T-1000. The climax beginning at Cyberdyne alone was better than the first terminator movie.

1 - The Dark Knight. "Batman Begins" was great. The best Batman movie ever. Until this came out. Starts out very fast with the bank robbery. They actually flipped the semi. No wires or special effects. Heath Ledger as the Joker is more than words can say. Whenever there was a scene without the Joker, it was usually boring. That's how great Heath Ledger was.

Top 5 Ensemble Movie Casts

5 - Saving Private Ryan. Who's in it? Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, Matt Damon, Ed Burns, Barry Pepper, Adam Goldberg, Vin Diesel, Giovanni Ribisi, Ted Danson, Paul Giamatti, Dennis Farina, and some other not-so-big name actors including Bryan Cranston. Some are only cameos (including Ted Danson and Paul Giamatti). And Matt Damon, who is the title character, doesn't appear until a little past the half-way mark, which may not sound too bad. But to be exact, he appears at the one hour and forty-six minute mark in a movie that is two hours and fifty minutes long. My reasons for why this movie isn't ranked higher is that nearly half of the big name appearances are cameos, and some of the ones that aren't cameos are killed at some point.

4 - Ocean's Eleven (2001 remake). George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, Scott Caan, Casey Affleck, Elliott Gould, Carl Reiner, Eddie Jemison, and Shaobo Qin make up the crew. Julia Roberts and Andy Garcia play the supporting roles. And cameos include Lennox Lewis, Wayne Newton, Siegfried and Roy appear as themselves as fight spectators, Topher Grace, Joshua Jackson make appearances at the beginning in Rusty's poker class.

3 - Pulp Fiction. John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Maria de Medeiros, Ving Rhames, Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Christopher Walken, and Bruce Willis are the top billed actors. Cameo appearances include director Quentin Tarantino, Kathy Griffin, Steve Buscemi, Julia Sweeney, and Alexis Arquette. Travolta, Jackson, and Thurman received Oscar nominations for their performances, though none of them won.

2 - Sin City. Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, Bruce Willis, Benicio Del Toro, Elijah Wood, Jessica Alba, Brittany Murphy, Josh Hartnett, Powers Boothe, Rosario Dawson, Rutger Hauer, Michael Clarke Duncan, Carla Gugino, Jaime King, Marley Shelton, and Nick Stahl star in the movie comprised of four individual stories with some intertwining. Frank Miller, the author of the graphic novels which are the bases for the movie, makes a cameo as a priest. With this many big name actors appearing, you would think that at least some are cameos. Not so. While some appearances are brief, they are pivotal characters.

1 - The Royal Tenenbaums. Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Luke Wilson, Bill Murray, Danny Glover, and Gwyneth Paltrow all play pivotal roles that are seen throughout the entire movie, unlike the four previously mentioned movies. Alec Baldwin even narrates. Though there aren't as many big name actors as the other four movies, they are all bigger than some actors in the other four (Nick Stahl in Sin City and some of the "Ocean's Eleven" crew members like Shaobo Qin and Eddie Jemison), and they all appear in the movie for the majority of it, unlike Christopher Walken in "Pulp Fiction" or Matt Damon in "Saving Private Ryan."