Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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

bob the moo How did we come to be here? That was a question asked during President Clinton's impeachment proceedings and this film sets out to answer it by stepping back in time to the start of his political rise. The documentary charts the many and varied attempts to undermine Bill Clinton as President and see him removed from office whether it be for murder, sex, corruption or just plain lying. Or at least that is the story it tries to tell but somehow it manages to take what should have been a fascinating thesis and turn it into a jumbled documentary that seems to think that old movie footage and comic asides are somehow going to help it build its case.It is of course wrong because the film manages to somehow take this investigation and mostly f**k it up. The delivery is terrible from start to finish. The first and biggest problem is that it assumes that you know all about the subject, the people and the players and it starts with this knowledge a given. Now I appreciate that when you deal with a subject everyday, it is easy to forget that the majority of others don't live in your world but for the makers of a documentary it is quite unforgivable a mistake to make. The fast pace of delivery also means that once you are being left behind you're done for and I was barely coping with all the new names and events that I was supposedly meant to have read up on before the film. Of course as a liberal I'm meant to think this film is brilliant just because it criticises the right (which is the only reason I can figure for this film being so highly rated on IMDb).The contributors are not all that impressive either. They all have plenty to say but the most important people are notable by their absence – understandable perhaps but damaging to a film so heavily reliant on interviews. The delivery issues didn't stop with the actual material though because I also had issue with the comic "film clips" used to illustrate points for no real reason. I can see that they were stealing the idea from Michael Moore but it doesn't sit in the middle of the mostly laugh-free material and thus only detracts from the film.Overall then an interesting subject given shoddy treatment in a pretty poor documentary. It asks much of the viewer but offers little in return and, although Democrats will lap up any opportunity to see the Right taking a kicking but this alone does not make it a documentary worth seeing – not by a long shot.

Andy (film-critic) This was a horrible film. I do not mean to come right out and say that, but it honestly is the most jumbled mess of ideas, conspiracies, and logic to ever be called a documentary. When I watch these types of films, I expect them to be similar to a college thesis paper. I want to see a riveting introduction, a powerful THESIS statement followed by some strong supportive points to back up the thesis, and finally a gut-wrenching conclusion. I want to sit in my couch and be able to pick my jaw off the floor and be in awe of the brilliance of the reporting. That was not the case with The Hunting of the President. I don't even think that filmmakers Nickolas Perry and Harry Thomason knew what they were doing. They had this idea, they had the clips and interviews done, now all they had to do was put the film together … and they failed.To begin, this film assumes (and you know what happens when you assume) that you know most of the facts about White Water and the Lewinsky trial. It assumes that you know the key players; that you were one of the thousands glued to your televisions during all of this public embarrassment. Strangely, it even assumes that you know the people behind the scenes. That you know most of the points already, this film just gives you a platform to watch them without commercials. This is way too much assuming for me. I did not keep up with the Clinton debacle that much because it was his personal business. I was more interested about what our leader had to say about issues like … terrorism and foreign policy than worry about who he was sleeping with. If Hillary was willing to forgive him, then I think the American public should do the same. But … I digress, I promised I wouldn't go too far into personal beliefs. Nonetheless, this film does a horrible job of bringing the facts out into the open, and the little facts that they do they do not go too deeply into detail because they (again) assume that we already know it. This was my first issue with this documentary.My second issue was their choice of filler. Throughout this film there were snippets of films and filmed moments to help bring some humor and levity to the thesis. While some may consider this a bandwagon jump onto what Michael Moore tries to do in his film, I saw it as something my college Professor would have called 'fluff'. These directors were avoiding, or trying to make light of a very powerful subject. If they were serious about this film, they would have either chosen to use different clips or dropped them all together. They were annoying and a waste of time … maybe it was symbolic for this film?Next, was the time. This film ran just short of 90 minutes. That is not enough time to fully develop your points and make bold statements. Through some issues we were forced to run through to cover enough ground. I continually had to check my remote to make sure that it wasn't on fast forward. For a majority of this film, I felt as if I was running through a maze with some clippers. Whenever I came to a dead end in this maze, instead of backtracking and using logic to get me through the puzzle, I would just use the clippers to make my own path. That is exactly what this film did. When it got caught in a trap, it just clipped its way out and started a different path. Nothing was coherent, substantial, or knowledgeable in this film. I wanted meat, and all I got was soup.There were only two points in this film that I found interesting. The first was everything that happened to Susan McDougal. It was sad and devastating to hear and see a woman who went through hell after doing nothing-wrong what so ever. This was one of the points that I thought the Republicans could not back out on. They wronged this woman, and owe her so much of her life.The second point that was interesting to watch was when the media decided to release the impeachment trial on Clinton ironically on the same day as Clinton was to give a speech to the UN about … well … terrorism. I think that it is only now that we see that perhaps this man knew more about our future than our current President and wanted to be proactive instead of reactive. Outside of these points, this was a pretty poor documentary even during this time when we, the film community, are being blasted by more and more political documentaries. It was obvious that they had plenty of money to spend on Morgan Freeman, I only wish they had budgeted more towards the basics of the film. Overall, a waste of time.Grade: * out of *****

jmatrixrenegade This movie is prime material for those on one or the other side of the issue, so it might be hard for its target audience (or those who would see it to refute it -- the tone of the first post leads one to infer that sort of thing occurs too). I personally thought President Clinton showed a lack of public integrity in his actions -- having an affair in the White House while an investigation is going on about his sex habits in AR, and stonewalling when it came out. I also had mixed feelings about some of his politics.Still, we are talking a matter of degree here. It is hard to look at the facts, even without a Friend of Bill being involved as here, and not see the excesses. This film does a pretty good job at touching upon some of them (I have not read the book it was based on by a Arkansas reporter and Joe Conanson). It clearly is not neutral, though the situation makes it hard to be. One thing it doesn't do is totally exonerate Clinton. Various of the talking heads noted they were upset or worse about his whole Monica fiasco. It just thought it was not worthy of impeachment and victimization of a lot of little people. Whitewater was shown to be a whole lot of smoke no fire both by a report and the ind. counsel as well. Enron it was not. Facts are shown. The movie starts off a bit fake with a lot of clips from old movies and a tone right out of a cut rate film noir movie to "sex" up the proceedings to keep our interest. It also hypes up the "conspiracy" angle a bit too much. This sort of heavyhandedness is ratcheted down some by the half way point, especially with the entrance of Susan McDougal, the heroine of the film. The portrayal is one-sided (troubling, even if she's totally innocent), but quite emotional and effective. The account of the pressure put on her to plea and her time in jail was particularly emotional. So, mixed result -- there is a pretty strong case that abuses were carried out, good evidence that a lot of the parties against Clinton were suspicious and led more by hate and distaste than the facts, and some evidence of a lot of additional shadiness. It would have helped if the film interviewed someone to dispute Susan M., and likely such a p.o.v. was in the book. Overall, tries to prove too much, but there is enough "there" there to be worth watching to remember and get a flavor of the doings in AR.