Best movie of this year hands down!

Please don't spend money on this.

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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.

This film has some major problems. One,it explains almost nothing. Even if you paid close attention in the '90s to the "deep-in-the-weeds" details of Whitewater and the pre-Monica sexual allegations against Clinton---this movie not only assumes you understood this stuff to begin with, but that you remember it too. Mistake. If you are looking for a movie that will shed some light on these subjects, this isn't it.Second,the director constantly interrupts the storyline with flashes to clips of "gangsters" or "train crashes" which I assume are supposed to imply the dastardliness of the "hunters of the president". The impact is distracting to the viewer and trivializes the subject at hand. If a class of sophomores somewhere were asks to dramatize this subject, I have the feeling this is what they would come up with.Weak effort.

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.

I rate this documentary as a "9" on a scale where "Bowling for Columbine" is a "10" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" is an "8." The film makers show in detail how a group of right-wingers manipulated the system in order to bring-down an American President. It further shows the abuse of power by a Republican Congress and a vicious "independent" counsel.It further shows an American newsmedia obliging in its coverage. The true heroine of the story was Susan McDougal who went to prison rather than commit perjury.Lest we forget that Ken Starr released the video of Clinton's deposition on the same day the President addressed the UN on terrorism. How much more could we have done about terrorism if the President was not distracted by the baseless attacks?