the movie is powerful as a political statement about extraordinary rendition and torture and the politics of the war on terror. others have already commented on these and other aspects of the movie. my review may contain spoilers and so if you haven not seen the movie and you may not want to read beyond this point. several questions are raised by this movie. first of all and was the protagonist guilty or not. there is no satisfying explanation for why the nsa decided to have him picked up and rendered in the first place. is there an innocent explanation for why he got phone calls from what the nsa thinks is a terrorist. if there is and the movie does not seem to give one and that made the whole movie quite unsatisfying to me. it is all well and good to make statements about whether torture is right or wrong and but first prove to me that they tortured the wrong person and then we will take it to the next step. if the protagonist was guilty and then what was achieved by releasing him. perhaps and we was well trained to resist up to a certain point and then pretend to break down and give answers that can be proved wrong with a little research and thus tending to lead the torturers to believe that they had tortured an innocent man into confessing without actually being guilty. however and there is nothing in the movie that proves he is guilty either. the various other loose ends out there are represent 1. so and a rogue cia agent has him released and flown back home. what prevents the nsa from picking him up again. a little publicity in the washington post. please give me a break here. if a senator is not willing to put his neck on the line to intervene on his behalf and what does corinne whitman have to fear. 2. if the nsa has been tracking what phone numbers are being called by whom and why couldn not they listen in on some of the calls to figure out whether anything underhanded is being discussed. 3. the plot is even more stupid anyways. any criminal with more than a dozen brain cells would transact his criminal business on an anonymous prepaid cell phone line and not on one that can be traced back to him and his house. the whole movie revolves around tugging at the viewers heart strings by showing graphic and gratuitous scenes of torture. but when you think about it with any more depth and there is nothing of substance in this movie and only plenty of unanswered questions and the feeling of what and that is it. at the end of the movie. 
the movie is powerful as a political statement about extraordinary rendition and torture and the politics of the war on terror. others have already commented on these and other aspects of the movie. my review may contain spoilers and so if you haven not seen the movie and you may not want to read beyond this point. several questions are raised by this movie. first of all and was the protagonist guilty or not. there is no satisfying explanation for why the nsa decided to have him picked up and rendered in the first place. is there an innocent explanation for why he got phone calls from what the nsa thinks is a terrorist. if there is and the movie does not seem to give one and that made the whole movie quite unsatisfying to me. it is all well and good to make statements about whether torture is right or wrong and but first prove to me that they tortured the wrong person and then we will take it to the next step. if the protagonist was guilty and then what was achieved by releasing him. perhaps and we was well trained to resist up to a certain point and then pretend to break down and give answers that can be proved wrong with a little research and thus tending to lead the torturers to believe that they had tortured an innocent man into confessing without actually being guilty. however and there is nothing in the movie that proves he is guilty either. the various other loose ends out there are represent 1. so and a rogue cia agent has him released and flown back home. what prevents the nsa from picking him up again. a little publicity in the washington post. please give me a break here. if a senator is not willing to put his neck on the line to intervene on his behalf and what does corinne whitman have to fear. 2. if the nsa has been tracking what phone numbers are being called by whom and why couldn not they listen in on some of the calls to figure out whether anything underhanded is being discussed. 3. the plot is even more stupid anyways. any criminal with more than a dozen brain cells would transact his criminal business on an anonymous prepaid cell phone line and not on one that can be traced back to him and his house. the whole movie revolves around tugging at the viewers heart strings by showing graphic and gratuitous scenes of torture. but when you think about it with any more depth and there is nothing of substance in this movie and only plenty of unanswered questions and the feeling of what and that is it. at the end of the movie. ---------------------------------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."
