Three survivors talk about what they endured as comfort women, and how that has continued to impact them and their lives, to this day. The reviewer describes the women using graphic detail, which is an interesting and anomalous phrase. After all, would not one expect to find descriptions of rape to be graphic and disturbing? However, the euphemistic phrasing that is employed to justify human rights violations like this one, such as calling the women "comfort women" rather than "sex slaves" softens the impact of what has been done, even years after the fact. Therefore, while it is clear that the reviewer has previously studied these events, it is equally clear that the reviewer did not ever really consider the impact that being forced into prostitution for an enemy army would have on a person. The reviewer did criticize the director's use...

For example, the movie features interviews with soldiers who used comfort women as well as with comfort women. However, the reviewer criticizes the director for changing background music when interviewing the former soldiers, feeling that it was an artificial way to help highlight the differences between the victims and the victimizers. He felt that the strength of the information contained in the documentary was powerful enough to stand on its own without the use of such manipulative devices. He credits the documentary's director with attempting to provide a balanced perspective, by allowing former soldiers to speak about the practice, as well as Japanese professors. However, the review itself suggests that both the documentary's director and the reviewer were biased towards the soldiers, ignoring the possibility that these soldiers, mostly very young men, were unaware of the circumstances that led to these women being present at the comfort stations. Considering that possibility would have led to a more interesting review of the film, without minimizing the horror of what those women were forced to endure.