my mom and i go to see this film because my brother be serve in the u. s. peace corp in the same region in which it set . halfway through the film and i decide that give it failure to measure up to what it pretend to accomplish and the title be pretentious . the subject it deal with could have make for an excellent documentary and but because of it poor execution and it leave me far less educate about the issue than i have hop to become . i agree with laura jane from canada ( powerful message but lack focus . ) . i also agree with the user who comment that this filmmaker narration free style be the opposite of that of michael moore and but i do not agree that it present vary point of view and invite the viewer to decide for him or herself . i do agree with one user comment that a lesson be well learn when we draw the conclusion ourselves while however and our conclusion can not be anything but poorly found if we be present with little relevant information from which to draw them . the main point of the documentary seem to be that 1 ) the african people who live near lake victoria be very poor and suffer greatly . 2 ) the introduction of perch to lake victoria and inflict by european and ruin it ecosystem . 3 ) the community surround lake victoria be financially dependent on the perch economy . the best thing i can say about the film be that it attempt to relate the perspective of the average people in sub saharan africa and which and unfortunately and be an anomaly among film and and that it attempt to portray poverty a the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal and inevitable phenomenon . i like the irony it capture in the massive amount of fish leave the country in the face of a famine . i appreciate the portrayal of how out of touch the u. n. team assign to the region be with the people . like almost all documentary that do not have the word woman in the title and this film fail to do a good job represent woman voice the majority of the talk do in interview be that of men . maybe i need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key point i might have miss and but i fail to detect sauper theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to lake victoria and the unjust living condition for african live near the lake . furthermore and i could be wrong and but it strike me that sauper could do well to improve his interview skill . not only do the question he ask and the response he include seem to be arbitrary and but he seem to have a real knack for make interviewee awkward and uncomfortable . the most compelling development in the film be the suggestion that the exportation of perch now function to mask the importation of arm and that the real economy screw over tanzanian be that of war and not fish . sadly and sauper shy away from conduct a thorough expose of the idea ( or at least extend the interview with the reporter who seem to know what he be talk about in regard to the weapon importation ) and cop out with a decide for yourself approach . if darwin nightmare be mean to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world give them a chance for a good life and it do not do a good job of it . if it be mean to depict how the weapon manufacturing industry in the u. s. and europe be responsible for much arm conflict around the world and it do not do a good job of it . if it be mean to portray what drive people to prostitution and it do not do a good job of it . if it be mean to cast light on the inability of the u. n. to carry out it mission and it do not do a good job of it . if it be mean to say that meager income tanzanian earn from the perch isn not worth the human cost of tinker with mother nature to create a profitable product and it do not do a good job of it . if it be mean to imply that tanzania would be much good off have european never come and it do not do a good job of it .