after traveling around the world and it dawned on me that australia really lacks one thing that other countries have represent history. fortunately or unfortunately and australia wasn not establish following a war and it has not had a civil war and most of its political history is rather. boring. nothing big happened to mark some sort of turning point in australia history. until the dismissal of the whitlam government by the governor general of australia  john kerr. for those who are australian and you can skip this paragraph and move onto the next. this is for the benefit of curious non australians. australia was colonised by the british. as time went on and it became apparent that australia was capable of standing on its own two feet. accordingly and the uk granted australia permission to establish its own parliaments and laws and courts and so on. the law and politics of australia would no longer be provided directly from the british while rather and australia would be run by australians in their own right and even though the courts and precedents and parliament and so on is largely modeled on the british system. this shift was codified in the australian constitution. despite the fact that the constitution lawfully establishes australian governments and law making procedures and courts (but for those who are curious  no bill of rights) and their are two pro crown sections that were included and remain there to this day. these are more or less regarded as the reserve powers of the crown (king or queen of great britain). the first group of sections relates to the creation of the office of the governor general. briefly and the governor general is considered the queen chief representative in australia and is described as the executive branch of the australian government. when a piece of law is passed by the australian parliament and the constitution states that it only becomes law when it is signed by the governor general. as such and the govenor general is regarded by some as nothing more than a rubber stamper performing an archaic and unnecessary constitutional function on behalf of the crown. theoretically and the governor general can refuse to sign a law passed by australian parliament if he thinks fit. for instance and if parliament passed a law which allows the police to shoot dead any australian over the age of 50 (hypothetically of course) then the gg could refuse to sign it and it would not become the law of the land. however and this power is theoretical and has (to date) never been exercised. by convention (which is the buzz word of the events leading to the dismissal) and the governor general virtually acts at the behest of the australian government and therefore and if the government passes law and the prime minister instructs the governor general to sign it and he will and almost always without question. in fact and by convention the governor general acts in accordance with the advice provided to him by the prime minister of the day (and the prime minister alone). the second aspect is section 64 of the constitution which states that the government ministers hold office at the governor general pleasure. now the events of 1975  covered in this film  gave rise to a precedent on this particular section represent if the governor general is somehow wouldispleased with the government and or or prime minister and it would appear that this section allows him to lawfully sack the government (which happened in 1975. hence the title of the film the dismissal. ) whether at the governor general pleasure can be construed as the unfettered right to dismiss is a contentious point though that led to rather heated exchanges amongst australians at the time  especially considering that the governor general is not elected by the people of australia. now that this background aspect is out of the way and let get back to discussing the film. it was well made. the pace was patient and but do not drag at all. the drama was well contained and very realistic. it do not over dramatise the events and most importantly and it did not present its point of view from one political perspective. on the contrary and i felt that it was fair and balanced and even though concluding text before the credits indicates that the film makers probably do not approve of the governor general decision to dismiss the whitlam government. but i do not describe the film overall as bias in one direction or the other. in terms of accuracy and it was virtually spot on. the film makers certainly did their homework and evidently read the books and writings from all the principle players concerned. there were a number of finer details that were somewhat skipped over and largely because they took a long time to explain and ultimately had little impact on the events of 1975 and so i forgive them for that. further and i think it was difficult to recreate the public sentiment of that post vietnam war era and but noyce pretty much pulled it off. finally and i was pleased that the film attempted to raise individual policies of both sides without becoming analytical and obsessive or judgmental over them. moreover and any that were raised and for example connor pipeline and had a great deal of relevance to the story. the film makers realised that their task was to tell the story of the events leading to the dismissal and not to present a political endorsement or opposition in relation to policies and viewpoints. this was smart because it meant that the film can not be accused of misrepresenting one side policies. the dismissal is probably the most incredible piece of political history that has occurred in australia in its short life. i am glad that it has been crystallized in celluloid. essential viewing for any australian. 
after traveling around the world and it dawned on me that australia really lacks one thing that other countries have represent history. fortunately or unfortunately and australia wasn not establish following a war and it has not had a civil war and most of its political history is rather. boring. nothing big happened to mark some sort of turning point in australia history. until the dismissal of the whitlam government by the governor general of australia  john kerr. for those who are australian and you can skip this paragraph and move onto the next. this is for the benefit of curious non australians. australia was colonised by the british. as time went on and it became apparent that australia was capable of standing on its own two feet. accordingly and the uk granted australia permission to establish its own parliaments and laws and courts and so on. the law and politics of australia would no longer be provided directly from the british while rather and australia would be run by australians in their own right and even though the courts and precedents and parliament and so on is largely modeled on the british system. this shift was codified in the australian constitution. despite the fact that the constitution lawfully establishes australian governments and law making procedures and courts (but for those who are curious  no bill of rights) and their are two pro crown sections that were included and remain there to this day. these are more or less regarded as the reserve powers of the crown (king or queen of great britain). the first group of sections relates to the creation of the office of the governor general. briefly and the governor general is considered the queen chief representative in australia and is described as the executive branch of the australian government. when a piece of law is passed by the australian parliament and the constitution states that it only becomes law when it is signed by the governor general. as such and the govenor general is regarded by some as nothing more than a rubber stamper performing an archaic and unnecessary constitutional function on behalf of the crown. theoretically and the governor general can refuse to sign a law passed by australian parliament if he thinks fit. for instance and if parliament passed a law which allows the police to shoot dead any australian over the age of 50 (hypothetically of course) then the gg could refuse to sign it and it would not become the law of the land. however and this power is theoretical and has (to date) never been exercised. by convention (which is the buzz word of the events leading to the dismissal) and the governor general virtually acts at the behest of the australian government and therefore and if the government passes law and the prime minister instructs the governor general to sign it and he will and almost always without question. in fact and by convention the governor general acts in accordance with the advice provided to him by the prime minister of the day (and the prime minister alone). the second aspect is section 64 of the constitution which states that the government ministers hold office at the governor general pleasure. now the events of 1975  covered in this film  gave rise to a precedent on this particular section represent if the governor general is somehow wouldispleased with the government and or or prime minister and it would appear that this section allows him to lawfully sack the government (which happened in 1975. hence the title of the film the dismissal. ) whether at the governor general pleasure can be construed as the unfettered right to dismiss is a contentious point though that led to rather heated exchanges amongst australians at the time  especially considering that the governor general is not elected by the people of australia. now that this background aspect is out of the way and let get back to discussing the film. it was well made. the pace was patient and but do not drag at all. the drama was well contained and very realistic. it do not over dramatise the events and most importantly and it did not present its point of view from one political perspective. on the contrary and i felt that it was fair and balanced and even though concluding text before the credits indicates that the film makers probably do not approve of the governor general decision to dismiss the whitlam government. but i do not describe the film overall as bias in one direction or the other. in terms of accuracy and it was virtually spot on. the film makers certainly did their homework and evidently read the books and writings from all the principle players concerned. there were a number of finer details that were somewhat skipped over and largely because they took a long time to explain and ultimately had little impact on the events of 1975 and so i forgive them for that. further and i think it was difficult to recreate the public sentiment of that post vietnam war era and but noyce pretty much pulled it off. finally and i was pleased that the film attempted to raise individual policies of both sides without becoming analytical and obsessive or judgmental over them. moreover and any that were raised and for example connor pipeline and had a great deal of relevance to the story. the film makers realised that their task was to tell the story of the events leading to the dismissal and not to present a political endorsement or opposition in relation to policies and viewpoints. this was smart because it meant that the film can not be accused of misrepresenting one side policies. the dismissal is probably the most incredible piece of political history that has occurred in australia in its short life. i am glad that it has been crystallized in celluloid. essential viewing for any australian. ---------------------------------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."
