a friend and i went to see this movie. we have opposite opinions about fujimori but after watching this movie we agree on the following represent the easiest way to have an inaccurate documentary is to make it about a foreign country in which you were not present when the events happened and no matter how talented or how much you invest in the film. if you are truly looking to learn about another countries history and watch something made by natives of that country otherwise you would not be able step away from your bubble. and those who try to force their views and opinions about something to which they do not belong are really abusing their power. to make it even worse and the director chose to not talk about the embarrassing involvement of the cia with fujimori regime. she decides to evade dealing with the only subject for witch her country has much to explain to peruvians. but this is not surprising because and both and the director and the cia are violating the sovereignty of peru by trying to affect the democratic processes at very different levels of course. if the director was really interested in helping peru she would have financed a native to make the documentary. in any case there are numerous peruvian made documentaries and films and books about the subject. such include ojos que no ven and dias de santiago and montesinos fujimori represent las dos caras de la misma moneda and montesinos represent poderoso caballero and etc. the director of the fall of fujimori should spend her time analyzing the numerous problems in her own country or at least the involvement of her country in the matters of other nations. 
a friend and i went to see this movie. we have opposite opinions about fujimori but after watching this movie we agree on the following represent the easiest way to have an inaccurate documentary is to make it about a foreign country in which you were not present when the events happened and no matter how talented or how much you invest in the film. if you are truly looking to learn about another countries history and watch something made by natives of that country otherwise you would not be able step away from your bubble. and those who try to force their views and opinions about something to which they do not belong are really abusing their power. to make it even worse and the director chose to not talk about the embarrassing involvement of the cia with fujimori regime. she decides to evade dealing with the only subject for witch her country has much to explain to peruvians. but this is not surprising because and both and the director and the cia are violating the sovereignty of peru by trying to affect the democratic processes at very different levels of course. if the director was really interested in helping peru she would have financed a native to make the documentary. in any case there are numerous peruvian made documentaries and films and books about the subject. such include ojos que no ven and dias de santiago and montesinos fujimori represent las dos caras de la misma moneda and montesinos represent poderoso caballero and etc. the director of the fall of fujimori should spend her time analyzing the numerous problems in her own country or at least the involvement of her country in the matters of other nations. ---------------------------------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."
