are mentioned in the film, questioning that "If the movie is about my father's path from impoverished immigrant to trade union leader, where do my brothers and I fit in?". She finished the letter by saying that she "loved the film" and that she agrees "with President Obama: Lula is the man!". On March 15, 2010, Brazilian magazine Veja made a list of the top 10 worst Brazilian films of all time, and Lula, Son of Brazil was featured in ninth place. The list's author, Pollyane Lima e Silva, stated: "The director, Fábio Barreto, went on to say that his intention was not to be faithful to reality, but was, instead, 'to do a melodrama'. And he was successful, since many scenes shown in the film never happened, and others were exaggerated so that Lula could seem like a hero". It currently holds a 33% "Rotten" rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Political criticism The film has been criticized by the Brazilian press for being released in an electoral year, while Lula was trying to elect his successor Dilma Rousseff. The release date would represent a deliberate attempt to influence the outcome of the election, in order to help Lula's candidate. Rousseff admitted in an interview that the film could influence the outcome of the election. But she added that "there is no possible way to measure the effect of this". The DVD release date, scheduled for May 2010, has also been criticized, as the electoral debate would be warming up. In November 2009, it was revealed that Rede Globo bought the exclusive television rights for the film, but decided to broadcast it only after the elections. The biggest criticism, however, is that the film ignores less flattering aspects of Lula's career. According to O Globo'''s Ricardo Noblat, the film represents an attempt to eliminate all of Lula' failures, making him look like the almost perfect protagonist, showing him in an overly romanticized and heroic role. This would also have electoral purposes, according to him. The film was also criticized by opposition politicians, the press and by many Brazilians because many of the companies that invested in the film (such as the heavy construction firms Odebrecht and Camargo Correa, as well as electric utilities) depend on government concessions and have major contracts with the federal government.The New York Times Barrionuevo also said that the film may have an impact in the presidential