Pretty Good

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

The impressively assembled documentary feature "The Hunting of the President" traces the decade long attempt by several key figures on the "right" side of the proverbial aisle to discredit the candidacy and then the presidency of former U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton. The film is based on the bestseller by the same name by Joe Canason and Gene Lyons, so this companion piece plays out like a flashy abridged version of many of the events depicted in that exposé. The film follows the many ways that the character and credibility of Clinton was chiseled at again and again by these figures from his position as Arkansas governor through his impeachment trials as President, as well as the quickly developed conservative media that began to sell lies as history. Some of the uncovered distortions presented here do feel like low level conspiracy theories, or at the very least something out of the Amy Fisher story. Like all politically charged documentaries this one does take sides, but given so many ethical quandaries it's hard not to agree with its stance. Morgan Freeman, the new go-to guy for documentary narration, adds a certain dignity to the film whose movie-of-the-week narrative often becomes stylistically irritating. In the end like him or hate him, love him or leave him, Clinton is not the tragic figure in "The Hunting of the President". That space is left open for the likes of Susan McDougal who was imprisoned for two years for refusing to commit a crime. The story behind that is something well worth watching.

I liked the documentary - particularly Clinton's speech which is contained in the 'Extras' on the DVD where he outlines the historical context of the film. Following the Whitewater/Lewinsky scandal from a distance (i.e. in Australia) you felt that there had to be something in it but I underestimated how well the Press, and therefore public opinion, could be manipulated in a post-Watergate world. I will now seek out the book or perhaps Clinton's autobiography in order to fill in some of the blanks. A well constructed piece which allows the main players to tell it for themselves and avoids preaching at the audience a la Mike Moore style. You don't have to dislike Clinton to be disgusted by what was done to Susan McDougall.

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

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.