You won't be disappointed!

That was an excellent one.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1-in-5- college-study-raped_n_7293068.htmlI've read 40-50 reviews that state the statistics in this documentary are wrong. Please go to the link I provided above. Huffington Post released an article a few weeks after Hunting Grounds premiered stating the statistics were "inflate". Well, a few months later they had to do this follow up article because low and behold, the statistics WERE (& are) CORRECT. Im glad this documentary is getting people to talk about rape & sexual assault. I was raped by my brothers best friend when I was 13 & he was 18. When i reported it to the police their first question was "What did you do to turn him on?"...Sadly, I am now 28 & if I was to ever get raped again I wouldn't report it. The police treating me like it was my fault was like getting raped all over again. I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemy... The police wouldn't even talk about charging him with statutory rape, like I said I was 13 years old and he was 2 weeks away from his 19th birthday, so even if I had been okay and wanted to have sex I wasn't old enough to consent. Legally it was rape no matter what. IM SO GLAD, this doc sheds light on a problem that desperately needs to be fixed.

This is, without a doubt, one of the most irresponsible documentaries ever made. The so-called experts who are largely referenced could be considered naive at best, and outright discredited at worst. David Lisak is perhaps the most irresponsible inclusion in this film, as his discredited theories about rapists have become commonly held beliefs which have likely endangered numerous women. The filmmakers abuse statistics in a reckless manner, padding rape statistics by including sexual assault offenses such as attempting to hold a person's hand on a date as if they were one and the same as rape. Even with these padded statistics using long term accrued numbers, quick calculator work will tell you that the filmmakers are referring to a problem with an estimated victimization rate of one per thousands of students. Why couldn't they have found statistics to support their thesis about a campus rape "epidemic"? Why use statistics that undermine their own argument? The entire pretense of the film is horrifyingly flawed... young women are twice as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted off-campus as they are on campus. Like most crimes, people too poor to attend college are at significantly higher risk. The worst sin this movie commits is choosing to focus on subjects who outright lie to the camera. How are we to take this "epidemic" seriously, if it has been well documented that one of the main subjects in the film is a well known false accuser? The film is a long series of unsubstantiated personal anecdotes, and demonstrably false generalizations. Let me make something clear. Rape is a serious issue. But this terrible advocacy piece will endanger more potential victims with false information, and will be used as ammunition by rape denialists, with its terrible excuse for research and substantial screen time treating a false accusation as real.

This will probably be the longest review of a movie I will ever write. There have been a very few documentaries that made me so mad I could not go to sleep. "The Hunting Ground" is one of them. It is a documentary made by two female students who were both raped in their freshman year at colleges. It demonstrated very well how the majority of students who are raped are labeled the "bad guy." It also demonstrates that the MAJORITY of universities will simply crucify a female if she tries to allege rape by one of their golden boys, i.e. the athlete. I'll get to that aspect in much more detail in just a minute. The longer I watched, the madder I became. What really floored me is the majority of universities who have the WORST reputation for this disgusting behavior come from the IVY LEAGUE. Harvard and Dartmouth are two examples. I went through the other reviews because I wanted to gauge what people thought about this type of behavior which has apparently been going on for a while and in most cases is encouraged by local fraternities. A reviewer who called himself Unclegerald-2004 labeled this documentary a "feminist marketing tool," and gave it 1 star. Scott-840-526147 decried "political trash," and gave it 1 star. UFLawGrad1989 heavily bashed the two girls involved (especially with regard to the Jameis Winston case) because they alleged things they couldn't possibly prove by a preponderance of the evidence. He gave it 2 stars. Overall, it would seem the majority of MALES, did not care for this.When you can prove to me ANY college or university that allows a fraternity to stand outside a women's dorm shouting, "No means Yes; Yes means anal" and does NOTHING about this behavior has the best interest of females at heart, you're full of crap. I will not go into the evidence about Jameis Winston except to say to the UFLawGrad, I'm sorry you're now probably working at Denny's.This should be REQUIRED viewing for any female. I encourage parents to sit down with their daughters AND sons, watch this, and then have a nice long discussion. It may save someone an awful lot of pain. This film is not rated and contains adult language. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

It would be in my school's best interest if the accusations against Jameis Winston were compelling. However, a detailed review of the evidence (also completed by Ex-Florida Supreme Court Judge Harding in FSU's Code of Conduct hearing) is not convincing of any crime. It does not even approach "by a preponderance of the evidence" (51%+) in my assessment. The documentary examines a very real issue in the USA - sexual assault. However, college campuses are not any more of a "hunting ground" than the rest of America according to government provided statistics. In fairness, these statistics are difficult to pin down.In a well done documentary, pertinent details are provided and a relatively full context is represented. Perhaps by trying to appeal too much to emotion and playing loose with facts & accuracy, this "documentary" fails badly. It blatantly misinforms at least with regard to the Winston case.For those not familiar with the body of evidence, I will provide some highlights. The accuser, EK, gave two different accounts of how she ended up with Jameis at his place. 1) Drugged (but by a short Latin looking guy) and 2) Hit over the head. Both of these have been given in testimony (the second one by her friend to the police as that is what EK had told her friend). Examinations and toxicology reports indicated no drugs and no head trauma. In point of fact, EK was able to apparently ride on the back of JW's scooter for some distance, speak clearly when being examined (she was pressed to go get checked by her friends) and make repeated texts to friends (including asking for answers to a test the next day). The physical evidence (light knee marks) confirms the account of JW and his two eye witnesses - consensual oral sex. Her own friends confirm that Winston did not provide any shots (the presumed vehicle for the drugs... that did not exist), the deceitful hit-on-the-head story and her ability to go willingly into a taxi-cab. In my view, the documentary should have offered these facts rather than just playing dramatic music and focusing on her bias narrative. These facts certainly have factored into the TPD/D.A.'s decision not to pursue criminal charges, the ratification of this decision at the State law enforcement level and the school's COC hearing.The Tallahassee Police Department actually did investigate this promptly but could have done more sooner. In fairness, once they were told she had been hit on the head (and it clearly wasn't the case) then drugged (which seemed unlikely - then backed up by two separate "negative" toxicology reports) they were right to be skeptical of her. Then she did not cooperate for many months. The Xmas holiday season pulled her (and all students) away from the school for many weeks after the encounter which also logistically did nobody any favors.On a side note, the accuser's lawyer is a UF grad (frustratingly so for the alumni of UF Law) and she is not distinguishing herself in her approach/strategy to bringing charges... nor in her accuracy of statements.I fear that specific case - and with a civil trial forthcoming which will expose these inconsistencies more clearly - will ultimately hinder the overall message of the others in the film (who may or may not have legitimate sexual assault stories).