i was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as frontline or fog of war (by errol morris). instead i was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime represent alberto fujimori. this movie should be called the return of fujimori. the director presumes she made a perfect movie because alienates both pro and anti fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work. the movie has few crucial facts wrong represent 1) she uses the so called landslide election of 1995 in which fujimori was re elected with 65% of the vote and as an example of the massive popular support of fujimori. but we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud. 2) the movie states that sendero luminoso (shining path) killed 60 and 000 people. in fact and the truth commission final report states that there were 69 and 280 deaths due to political violence in peru. 33% of those were caused by sl. that leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police and military and other groups. the fact that she uses the same misleading information that fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is. for any person with some education on peruvian politics and history and fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator and a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. his regime was very far from being democratic. he is still a menace to peruvians. despite these facts the director lets fujimori tell the story. not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. he always seems to have the last word. there are no journalistic cojones and just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. where is oriana fallaci when we need her. the director and when questioned after the screening and do not hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by fujimori and his charm and intelligence. yes and she has been definitely charmed by him and and you can tell by looking at this film. it obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption and murder and deception that took place. she assured the gasping audience that fujimori was really a patriot when few moments earlier and one of the leading peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that fujimori was and above all and a traitor. she went on to say that despite all the accusations not a single dollar was found on any bank account on his name and etc and etc. it was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. it was a sad moment for journalism. this film makes injustice to history. it is an insult to hundreds of dead people and disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by fujimori regime. no wonder she later confessed that all the peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. unbiased. the words oportunistic and naïve and denial come to my mind instead. 
i was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as frontline or fog of war (by errol morris). instead i was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime represent alberto fujimori. this movie should be called the return of fujimori. the director presumes she made a perfect movie because alienates both pro and anti fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work. the movie has few crucial facts wrong represent 1) she uses the so called landslide election of 1995 in which fujimori was re elected with 65% of the vote and as an example of the massive popular support of fujimori. but we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud. 2) the movie states that sendero luminoso (shining path) killed 60 and 000 people. in fact and the truth commission final report states that there were 69 and 280 deaths due to political violence in peru. 33% of those were caused by sl. that leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police and military and other groups. the fact that she uses the same misleading information that fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is. for any person with some education on peruvian politics and history and fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator and a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. his regime was very far from being democratic. he is still a menace to peruvians. despite these facts the director lets fujimori tell the story. not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. he always seems to have the last word. there are no journalistic cojones and just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. where is oriana fallaci when we need her. the director and when questioned after the screening and do not hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by fujimori and his charm and intelligence. yes and she has been definitely charmed by him and and you can tell by looking at this film. it obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption and murder and deception that took place. she assured the gasping audience that fujimori was really a patriot when few moments earlier and one of the leading peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that fujimori was and above all and a traitor. she went on to say that despite all the accusations not a single dollar was found on any bank account on his name and etc and etc. it was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. it was a sad moment for journalism. this film makes injustice to history. it is an insult to hundreds of dead people and disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by fujimori regime. no wonder she later confessed that all the peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. unbiased. the words oportunistic and naïve and denial come to my mind instead. ---------------------------------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."
