Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Gruveyman2 (comment below)you are a complete idiot...blinded by ignorance by the very city you have allegiance to. Its that whiny arrogance, that you are ironically claiming the film exudes about SF, that makes you seem like such the typical LA A**hole! The only reason you felt the film was so self congratulatory about SF is because you are jealous. Of course you don't know it because you are so LA jaded. First of all the film was completely factual about a beautiful city; what has been filmed there and what has been filmed by some of its more famous locals. It says nothing bad about LA; and these accomplished directors choose to live in a beautiful city over LA. They recognize that they went to film school in LA and are obviously proud of that fact. They recognize that SF is close to LA which is a benefit. The only negative thing that was said that relates to LA, was about the studio executives. The same studio executives that hated these guys movies when they first saw them, but then those same movies went on to be huge world-wide grossing films. So why wouldn't they have animosity towards the studio executive establishment and studio system? These are the only people they are trying to "disassociate from" and for good reasons! Don't be so sensitive! How can you say that Francis Ford Coppola is the "so called" San Francisco director? How is he not to be considered that? And who directed The Godfather? Coppola did. It was his vision that told the story on the screen that won it a best picture award. So what who gave him the job? He admits it in the documentary that he didn't even want to do the movie....so what's your point? And so what if Sophia wants to live in LA? And that proves your point how? And tell me how they are not truly independent when they are funding a lot of their own movies. Movies that are now considered classics. And, when they made movies from studio funding, one, it was LA that came to them and said we want you to make these pictures and two, they used the money that they made from doing these pictures to fund their own. They said exactly that in the film.

"Your bitchy and self congratulatory whining would take on an air of greater self respect and credence if you never set foot on the ground you so claim to be superior to in this film."

How the hell can "bitchy-ness" and "self-congratulation" suddenly have an "air" of self respect and credence....if they never go to LA again? What a stupid and senseless comment! You inserted some big words in there....and just don't know how to use them! And, by the way, they never claimed nor implied they were superior to LA! So what if they are giving a guy from New York an award in LA....again what the hell is your point? So if they go to LA or New York they are hypocrites by simply preferring to live in SF? You make no sense.

San Francisco is proud of itself and its heritage and the people who make it what it is today. This film just focused on one aspect...film-making. For you to take the time and type up such nasty comments about the city (not the movie! But the city and its people) only proves what it is we Northern Californians hate about people from LA! THIS IS A GREAT DOCUMENTARY...VERY INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE FROM THE BAY AREA...BUT I RECOMMEND IT TO ANYONE.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Rajinikanth becomes born again after getting a magical power which he can use seven times.

There are several problems with this movie that are obvious to the casual audience: the 50ish Rajinikanth is still at home with his parents; the father of the girl next door thinks that he is a compelling "boy" ('vaseekaramaana paiyan'); Rajinikanth suddenly interrupts the movie with his sermons, the worst being how women of yesteryears got their exercise through household work--yet we are to believe that he is not a theist; even though he was well read, he wastes six of his seven powers on a stupid kite; I can go on, but you get the picture.

There are god-men, there are gods, and there is Rajinikanth. The directory has difficulty fitting Rajinikanth into one of these categories. Initially, Rajinikanth is just Rajinikanth doing what Tamil heroes do--stand up to villains and, in spite of being the oldest, getting courted by the prettiest girl in the movie. Rajinikanth does this well and some of Rajinikanth's trademark styles are actually enjoyable--"baba count" is a novelty. What makes this movie unbearable is that those few initial minutes are just a preface to an worst book to be ever written. Even that preface is punctuated with some comedy which are forced and obvious.

The director doesn't explain the purpose of the hero; we see that the hero is facing several hurdles (from politicians, as usual) but we can't really root for the hero because we don't know what the hero's ultimate goal is. At the end, when everyone wants him to be the leader, the hero gives another one of his sermons and walks away to become a hermit. The director offers no solution to the problem in the climax scene.

A. R. Rehman's score is really interesting. Either he shows patches of brilliance or he didn't bother to invest himself fully into this movie--who can blame him. There is one scene where Rajinikanth steps into the van of one of the crooks and then throws the knife and starts his baba count. The music is very apt for the moment and acts as a catalyst adding further tension. The songs are all mediocre, no one would bother with the songs from this movie after a few years.

Unfortunately, 1 is the lowest rank you can assign in IMDb. This movie has all the elements that justify its rightful place at the nether of IMDb's ranking.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
I'm a big fan of fan of film noir, and this film by Otto Preminger easily stands as one of the best that I've seen! Preminger has reunited two of his stars from the hit 'Laura' - Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, for an entirely different sort of crime film. Laura was based around love, and this film is based around hate; as we watch police detective Mark Dixon, a copper already suffering scrutiny from his superiors for his heavy handed tactics, accidentally kill a suspect and try to pin the murder on a known criminal; a man by the name of Tommy Scalisi. The plot is brilliantly worked, and Preminger excellently balances several plot points; but it all comes back down to the main moral implication surrounding our main character. The fact that the film is set in the criminal underground means that the plot is given an excellent base to work from, and director Otto Preminger expertly captures the sleazier side of life by showing the main characters gambling, beating one another (and their women), shooting and more - and this also helps to offset the film from the earlier 'Laura', which was very much set in upper class society.

The role of Mark Dixon gives Dana Andrews one of the most interesting parts of his career. Here, we have a character that is difficult to like as he's so cold - but the fact that we can understand his motives ensures that he's easy to sympathise with, and that allows the audience the ability to plug into his plight. The character development is well timed, and as we've follows this character and his motivations throughout the film; everything makes sense by the end. His co-star is the beautiful Gene Tierney, who isn't given as much to do in this film as she was in Laura; a film that made Tierney its linchpin. She does well with what she's got, however, and the lead duo's chemistry is excellent and Tierney helps to complete every scene she's in. I can't say that this is a better film than the earlier Laura; that's a hard act to follow, but this film certainly fits into the film noir formula better than Preminger's earlier film. The film also makes a good comparison piece for Laura; as just about everything in this film is opposite to the 1944 movie, yet it's all strangely familiar. Highly recommended to all!