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.

MovieCriticMarvelfan I cant believe some people have actually fallen for the lies and garbage this movie presents, not only is it absurd but funny.The movies tries to portray Clinton as a victim of a witchhunt by the Republicans, yet it fails miserably.For one thing the movies tries to go back and forth with the testimony of criminals: Susan McDougal, Joe McDougal (who was convicted of money laundering and other stuff) try to come on and plead their cases as to how they were coerced to life for Clinton, yet their testimony is largely UNCREDIBLE.Second, Clinton lied on the witness stand, under oath about the Lewinsky affair "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" said the liar in 1998.It stands out there's as one of the most funniest political lies ever seen next to George Bush's "read my lip" message.Third, Clinton had a history of sexual harassing attractive women from Paul Jones, to Gennifer Flowers, yet the producer and director of the film "spin it" so that you don't know the whole story.For instance, Clinton admitted wrongdoing and settled out of court with Jones and the alleged affair with Flowers was proved true and of course with all know about the evidence showing he had oral sex with Monica (the semen stained blue dress).Yet this 50 yr old man calling himself our President goes on TV and lies to cover up his own rear fat end.Its shameful.Another thing as well, one critic said Kenneth Star aired Clinton's testimony on the same day Clinton addressed the UN on terrorism, yet in reality Clinton never tackled the subject, few people know that Clinton heard about Osama Bin Laden in 1992 yet did nothing.Clinton was spineless when it came to terrorism just as he was spineless in being truthful to the American people.oH YEAH and last year he took 10 million dollars to air his dirty laundry in the crappy book, "My life".Doesn't sound like a victim does it? No.No wonder this movie got a limited release.Avoid it.

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 *****

jsteiger 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.