In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

By the very topic of this documentary, it would be hard for it not to be thought-provoking. However, I wasn't a fan of the way it was put together. The stock footage from old black-and-white that was used throughout to illustrate different events for which there was no other footage (raids on houses, sexual dalliances etc) was somewhat off-putting. What's wrong with talking heads? Are our collective attention spans so low now that we have to be constantly bombarded with images, even if they do not directly relate to the subject?I also thought the whole thing was rushed toward the end, with everything Lewinsky-related brushed over. This could be because the filmmaker/author is a Clinton friend and/or he feels the whole event was rather tawdry and not worthy of further analysis (possibly very true). However, if you do not have a great understanding of the 'Whitewater' affair (and I didn't) then you may find some of the film rather confusing as you try to put together the various names, faces and their roles within the whole debacle (I'm still trying to put together a couple of pieces of info and people - I'm like Jerry Seinfeld at the movies - "Why did he kill that guy? I thought he was with them? Why did he kill him?")Overall, this film raised some interesting, but not entirely original, points about the way the right-wing media and conservative groups are able to demonise and manipulate politics and events to suit their own needs. However, if you watch this on DVD, I strongly recommend the extra feature, which is of Clinton giving (an apparently off-the-cuff and without notes) 30-minute speech at the premiere of the film. Although this highlights the obvious partisanship behind the movie, it also reminds you what a brilliant, analytical mind the ex-president has - something the present incumbent could never hop to match.

Another in a series of recent political documentaries that started with "Fahrenheit 911" and whose end does not seem to be in sight, "The Hunting of the President" is the least successful so far. While the film does have its moments, especially those that detail the brutalizing of Susan McDougal, the filmmakers try to squeeze too much into the short running time. Comments, images, and events flash by, especially towards the beginning, and left this viewer a bit confused. The clips from old movies, which I assume were for comic effect, could have been omitted as they only added to the clutter. Perhaps someone who has read the book would be able to follow the portrayed events better than someone who has to rely on their memory of newscasts from the period. While the film is definitely worth watching if for nothing else than as a history review, the talk given by President Clinton at the film's premiere, which is included on the DVD, is a concise and masterful lecture on political trends in American history and is more engrossing than much of the documentary. Mr. Clinton easily could pursue yet another successful career as a history professor

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.

Gene Lyons and Joe Conason's book THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT had no photos of the major players, a real shame when you have a huge cast and no way to keep the players straight . Seeing the film brings the faces of some of the story's less well-known personalities--the Dogpatch types from Arkansas (such as the bait shop owner and the Arkansas troopers), the White Supremacists, and the members of the Arkansas Project--into the light of day...Susan McDougal emerges from this film a bona fide hero, as she should. I thought I knew this area of the story well, but there are chilling details about her treatment by the Independent Counsel that are shockingly disturbing...The film doesn't try to excuse Clinton's behavior vis-a-vis Monica Lewinski; the real outrage, it suggests, is the abuse of power within the Office of the Independent Counsel. For that it makes a very strong case. A powerful film indeed.