The structure of the film was good in which the dynamism between character development and personification in action is evident. The underlying unsettling reality of this fiction is in the restating of a need to give truth on alternative terms, not in objective ones. On the negative, the protagonist and antagonist both lie, in varying degrees, while in a deeper level they both tell the truth--see what the do, not necessarily what they say. On the positive, both main characters state truth in dynamism. You must listen to them by their actions--both demand a return to masculine initiative opposed to diplomatic multiplicity, a return to primal reality amidst the sophistication of contemporary pseudonyms of political corruption. This is ironic, since both character polar extremes imbibe outwardly the distortion of their collective opposer, the hypocrisy of collective society's veneer of vice and virtue. The weakness in the film is in the on screen believability of the female antagonist, who for whatever reason is presented as-is and the general audience is expected to connect with her plight, because their supposed to. Unwittingly, one does, yet this personally is aquired through subjective imposition onto the character, not necessarily by virtue of screenplay. The tertiary male character presents a realistic adaption of aquiesce with a differing locality of justice--as the viewer will then determine easily from the beginning what this locus will be--quite different from the primary and secondary men in script. It is a challenging film concerning the question of "what is truth" while at the same time presenting the unsettling conclusion which makes for bittersweet realisms that engender a nobler nature.