That was an excellent one.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

The Hunting Ground is a really good documentary, that reveals an epidemic in America, one that is still argued about and ignored. The film is often powerful, often real, and often beyond belief. The Hunting Ground is good, but not great because it tells a crucial and relevant story, it handles its subject matter respectfully and powerfully, but it contains a few plot lines that feel detached from the story being told. That being said the film is still worth watching, especially if you're about to enter college, or have children about to enter college.The Hunting Ground tells the important story of how college's around the country are participating in an unbelievable rape culture in order to keep their images clean. The film begins with, and mostly follows Andrea Pino and Annie Clark on their journey to fight rape culture. The film is powerful, and at times scary because it often shows examples of this, that only help to showcase its message, and put the audience in perspective of what we allow to happen right under our noses.The film uses many interviews, which are at times hard to watch, but are also important for understanding the problem director, Kirby Dick, is trying to show. The film's tone is one that is tense, and unsettling, sometimes even feeling like a horror film with its use of music. The film also uses humor to help show the ignorance of our culture, for instance there is a moment in the film when a large group of college men gather together chanting "no means yes, yes means anal!" Many colleges will probably detest this film, as right or wrong the film portrays colleges as the main antagonist, however there is factual basis for why they do this.The film does have a few flaws, such as it's bias being more obvious or present than it should be. By that I mean the film would have been more powerful, and more engrossing if the audience were shown that the colleges have a reason for being the way they are, they aren't evil organizations. Also some of the interviews, as powerful and relevant as they may be, feel detached from the story of Andrea and Annie, which makes the story seem a little too unfocused. Because of this I also found myself occasionally wondering where the film was going, and when it would end.In the end Kirby's reasons for having these flaws is understandable, as he's trying to cover a topic too large for one film, especially a film that is only an hour and a half. The stories and interviews in this film are powerful, and the film ambitiously attacks a cultural epidemic that does need to be changed. Dick's message comes at a time when society is even more unstable, and changing hopefully lots of people see movies like this and are inspired to act.

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.

This is an activist film designed to promote a "culture of rape" that is created by activists, for activists. This movie pretends to be journalism, but it hides behind fantasy to avoid legal scrutiny. This movie is a sales attempt to sell an idea, "rape culture" most likely to further profit women's activist groups with more government funding. This movie is socially destructive by claiming rape is thought of as acceptable, and the rape culture it has created is a "witch hunt culture" where a mere fantasy of a false rape claim (i.e. UVA/Rollingstone False Rape claim) cause protest and hate against innocent men and i.e. UVA false rape, mattress girl).Movies like these have made feminists groups the most power political group in the USA. At the mere mention of rape, with evidence proving the rape claim was a lie, feminist groups were able to get the administration of UVA to reprimand an entire group of men and boys solely based on their gender.Movies like this are not only wrong, it's socially detective and socially irresponsible.

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).