my mom and i went to see this film because my brother is serving in the u. s. peace corps in the same region in which it set. halfway through the film and i decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish and the title is pretentious. the subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary and but because of its poor execution and it left me far less educated about the issue than i had hoped to become. i agree with laura jane from canada (powerful message but lacks focus. ). i also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker narration free style is the opposite of that of michael moore and but i do not agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him or herself. i do agree with one user comment that a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves while however and our conclusions can not be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them. the main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) the african people who live near lake victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) the introduction of perch to lake victoria and inflicted by europeans and ruined its ecosystem. 3) the communities surrounding lake victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy. the best things i can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub saharan africa and which and unfortunately and is an anomaly among films and and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal and inevitable phenomenon. i liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. i appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the u. n. team assigned to the region was with the people. like almost all documentaries that do not have the word women in the title and this film fails to do a good job representing women voices  the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men. maybe i need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points i might have missed and but i failed to detect sauper theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to lake victoria and the unjust living conditions for africans living near the lake. furthermore and i could be wrong and but it struck me that sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary and but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable. the most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over tanzanians is that of war and not fishing. sadly and sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a decide for yourself approach. if darwin nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them a chance for a better life and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the u. s. and europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to cast light on the inability of the u. n. to carry out its mission and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to say that meager income tanzanians earn from the perch isn not worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to imply that tanzania would be much better off had europeans never come and it do not do a good job of it. 
my mom and i went to see this film because my brother is serving in the u. s. peace corps in the same region in which it set. halfway through the film and i decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish and the title is pretentious. the subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary and but because of its poor execution and it left me far less educated about the issue than i had hoped to become. i agree with laura jane from canada (powerful message but lacks focus. ). i also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker narration free style is the opposite of that of michael moore and but i do not agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him or herself. i do agree with one user comment that a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves while however and our conclusions can not be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them. the main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) the african people who live near lake victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) the introduction of perch to lake victoria and inflicted by europeans and ruined its ecosystem. 3) the communities surrounding lake victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy. the best things i can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub saharan africa and which and unfortunately and is an anomaly among films and and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal and inevitable phenomenon. i liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. i appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the u. n. team assigned to the region was with the people. like almost all documentaries that do not have the word women in the title and this film fails to do a good job representing women voices  the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men. maybe i need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points i might have missed and but i failed to detect sauper theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to lake victoria and the unjust living conditions for africans living near the lake. furthermore and i could be wrong and but it struck me that sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary and but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable. the most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over tanzanians is that of war and not fishing. sadly and sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a decide for yourself approach. if darwin nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them a chance for a better life and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the u. s. and europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to cast light on the inability of the u. n. to carry out its mission and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to say that meager income tanzanians earn from the perch isn not worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product and it do not do a good job of it. if it was meant to imply that tanzania would be much better off had europeans never come and it do not do a good job of it. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
