WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Cockeymofo76 Story tells of a Right-wing conspiracy out to get Bill and Hillary Clinton. There are some of issues with the movie: 1. It throws you a lot of hard to decipher information at you and some of it is bullshit, e.g. when introducing people it throws you a little mini biography; 2. Doesn't show the other side enough, or at all. There are others but those are the main issues.The movie paints this picture of a number of people out to get the president and represents evidence ranging from good to tenuous. The movie allows only mild articulation that Whitewater, Monica Lewinski and other Clinton scandals to be the result of good reporters gone bad and allows zero articulation by those on the other side. I happen to agree, somewhat, with the movie's premise but disliked the representation.If you're close minded don't even bother, you will hate it, for those with an open mind and politically opinionated. 7/10

tahirjon6 This documentary revealed in a narrative style, how shockingly powerful the campaign to destroy Bill Clinton was.The documentary ran like a thesis paper. Each statement was backed up by several facts, with at least one reputable political figure backing it up. There were also several confessions from well know republicans involved as well.The narrative style backed up by Morgan Freeman's dark voice provided yet another bonus.It truly provides an insight you've never seen. It changed my views on Clinton and how far certain political partys will go to get their way.Music- 4 Out of 5 Narration- 5 Out of 5 Proof- 5 Out of 5Overall- 9.5 Out of 10

jsteiger With the political polarization of America nearly complete, the majority of viewers of this movie don't want or need a reasoned evaluation of its contents. Those fans of Clinton and Michael Moore, who see a right-wing conspiracy around every corner, will cheer rabidly. Avid Bush supporters will dump on the film, labeling it another 'crockumentary.' So, unless you are in that tiny minority of viewers who wants an objective opinion about the movie, you should read no further. Personally, I thought that Clinton was, to some extent, the victim of a witch-hunt that ultimately hurt the country by distracting the president and clouding his judgment. So I went into this film willing (if not exactly ready) to be convinced by exciting new evidence.But this film showed no balance at all. For example, the film tries to dismiss the notion that Clinton was a serial sexual harasser by presenting only the most blatantly biased information. Take the case of Paula Jones. The film actually spends several minutes trying to dismiss Jones by attacking the motivations of her attorney! We learn that Jones's attorney, an attractive blond, has right wing leanings, AND supported an anti-abortion action but had two abortions herself! Even the grave and stern intonations of Morgan Freeman can't sell this drastic irrelevancy to a critical-minded viewer. The irony is stunning. The Clinton's pushed hard for legislation that strips many of a male defendant's rights to information access in sexual harassment proceedings. Yet here are Clinton's supporters, assassinating Jones's character by (a) attacking the motivations of her attorney and (b) piecing together selected clips that make Jones look trashy and dimwitted. The message is clear: if Clinton is the alleged harasser, then the intelligence, appearance, and social status of the alleged victim are relevant.The only relevant 'fact' presented in defense of Clinton is an allegation by David Brock that one of the state troopers supporting Jones stated her willingness to be Clinton's 'boyfriend.' One can only imagine the reaction of the producers of this film had David Brock produced testimony in support of Jones. How do you spell 'hearsay evidence by a source of doubtful credibility'?Meanwhile, the serious claims of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick were mysteriously forgotten. Willey far more credible than Jones, presented very strong evidence. The testimony of any one of these women is enough to raise doubts about Clinton. But the conjunction of testimony by Jones, Broderick, and Willey suggests very strongly that Clinton has a problem controlling himself around powerless women in hotel rooms. But you would never have a glimmer of that watching this film, which tries to suggest that Clinton may have had a problem with personal morality, but nothing more. Contrast the treatment of Clinton with that of Clarence Thomas, convicted in the minds of Democrats on the basis of evidence from a single witness of questionable credibility. (Anita Hill, at the time a mediocre assistant professor at a second rate law school, is still collecting huge speaking fees lecturing about sexual harassment and women's rights.)The film is particularly insulting in its continual use of a standard technique. Clinton appears with appropriately stirring background music (you know, the kind they play in movies when the military hero visits the Arlington cemetery). Then some marginal character is introduced. If the character supports the author's thesis, his/her credentials are overstated. If the character is one of the villains of the piece, questionable sources are immediately invoked to portray the character as (a) a yokel, (b) a scam artist, (c) sexually repressed, (d) a Republican, often all of the above.That many of the sources are totally biased or highly questionable: (1) Carville, whose wacky antics on TV make Ann Coulter look like a reasoned moderate, (2) Brock, the former Republican attack dog who mysteriously "converted" just in time for this election campaign (and some huge book sales).The 'meat' of the movie to me (and to several other reasonable reviewers) was the story of Susan McDougal, who claims that prosecutors tried to get her to lie about Clinton. Along the way, McDougal maligns her ex-husband, referring constantly to his mental instability, and claiming a mysteriously complete lack of knowledge about any of his darker dealings. McDougal gives her account with a calmness that suggests a heavy infusion of prozac. Clinton supporters see this calm, smiling demeanor as virtual proof of honesty and saintly integrity. Apparently none of these people has ever spent time talking with incarcerated female felons. Many of them affect the identical demeanor. Here is a startling fact: psychopaths make excellent liars! They are difficult to detect! My own view is that, rather than being the smoking gun in this grand conspiracy theory, McDougal is simply a loose end.

Fred Arm The basic theme of this documentary, `The Hunting of the President', is that Bill Clinton was the target of an opportunistic right-wing campaign to dishonor and undermine him. When the so-called conspirators were unable to destroy him through overboard exposure of the `Whitewater' fiasco, they leaped on the alternate scheme involving his sexual escapades beginning while he was governor of Arkansas and in the White House that ultimately resulted in an impeachment trial by the US Senate, which was plainly a disguised attempt to oust Mr. Clinton instead of the traditional coup d'etat.I must say that although I am sympathetic with Clinton being so maliciously hounded and persecuted; however, he was indeed substantially the philanderer they made him out to be. The facts the film presented have already exhaustively been presented during the impeachment years leaving very little novelty in the film.As a historical piece, it would offer some insight to future generations who did not experience the public hysteria. Some of the comments by David Brock, the former conservative reporter who first exposed the Paula Jones sexual harassment contentions, demonstrates that most of the media networks of so-called rich conservatives were determined to break Clinton's back any way they could.It is almost impossible to determine whether the mainstream conservatives initiated the inquisition into Clinton's financial and sexual affairs or whether they were the result of opportunistic right-wing wacko investigators who presented their evidence to the conservative media. Under either theory, the mainstream snapped it up and ran with it. The rabid conservative elements seem to be constantly on the lookout for any tidbit of information that would tend to discredit or otherwise harm any of their imagined liberal protagonists.Susan McDougal is presented as an obscure woman who was sent to prison for contempt of court because she would not cooperate with the Starr investigation, suggesting that she knew more than she let on. At the guest screening itself, Ms McDougal in person came across as sincere and unassuming, willing to tell all to a hungry liberal audience who viewed the film at the Roxy in the Mission District of San Francisco. She still professes her original stance that special prosecutor Kenneth Starr had offered her immunity or some sort of leniency if she would lie for them in their case against the Clintons. She refused then and continues to rebuff any assertion that Clinton had done something wrong. Accordingly, Starr had her cited and imprisoned for contempt of court. What she did not tell us was that she was suddenly moved to Sybil Brand Institute, Los Angeles County's jail for women, to face California criminal allegations that she stole money while working for the famous conductor, Zuben Mehta, and his wife in Los Angeles. She was subsequently acquitted with the assistance of celebrated criminal attorney, Mark Geragos.Some of the tales she spun at the theater about the cruelty and torture she observed and personally endured are highly suspect, particularly when she was an inmate at Sybil Brand county jail in Los Angeles. I cannot imagine imparting any veracity to some of her claims since Los Angeles has more hungry attorneys just chomping at the bit to sue the jail for much less heinous malfeasance on the part of the jailors than the sweet Ms McDougal related to us. It is also inconsistent and surprising for someone to relate such extraordinary tales of horror without more cynicism or bitterness.The film itself has a clear message that some unsavory and powerful right-wing Americans had the power and the desire to almost `take over the throne' so to speak. For the conservatives, they needed a Clinton to hate since they no longer had the Communists to rant at. However, the film falls short in presenting facts showing why it was so easy for the right to sway the country against Clinton. The allegations concerning Monica Lewinsky were hardly touched upon, nor was the impeachment process adequately presented. Clearly, there were many reasons the people lost faith in Clinton. So, when he actually did tell the truth, we could not or would not really believe him. Thus, when it began to become obvious that Bill was actually the victim, how could the people consider him to be an innocent one?Directed by well-known Clinton friend Harry Thomason and Nickolas Perry, the film has some unique effects such as using old film clips from classic black & white films to illuminate a point. Together with `Fahrenheit 9/11', this picture show should wake up some of those complacent people who think `the king can do no wrong'. Otherwise, the film mainly preaches to the `liberal choir' who most likely will make up the lion's share of the audience. As for the conservative audiences, I doubt that they will give it much credence. I found the movie itself a bit tedious and somewhat redundant, thus aiding my sporadic cat-napping. Otherwise, it had an important message to deliver, albeit in a container that could have been better conceived.