Watch The Hunting of the President For Free

Memorable, crazy movie

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

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

You just got to love it when history repeats itself. Much like the conspiracy (republican) that fell upon President Andrew Johnson, Clinton went through the same situation. It is funny how people try to recall what had happened back in 1998. Only a few years have pasted and people forget the history that we lived through with the trial and impeachment hearings. This documentary shows history alive. Whether you supported Clinton or not, you will accept the conspiracy to impeach / remove Bill Clinton from office. The power of the media and the power behind closed doors in Washington were equal. Politics was as dirty as ever. While the War Room opened people's eyes to how anyone can become President, The Hunt for the President has opened people's eyes to how no one is above the law. Well, maybe Kenneth Starr, wink wink.

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?

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.