Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Monkeywess This is an astonishing documentary that will wring your heart while it bends your mind

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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.

zkonedog This CNN series takes a look at some of the key presidential races from years past and dissects them from the start of the campaign until the finish. While some of the visuals are a bit hokey and awkward, for the most part this is a great little election history lesson.The races covered in the six episodes include:-Kennedy vs. Nixon; Bush vs. Dukakis; Dewey vs. Truman; Jackson vs. Adams; Clinton vs. BushIn each of these episodes, I learned things about those races that I hadn't previously known, so I was engaged the entire way through. CN makes great use of engaging graphics and energetic interviews to make sure nothing ever gets dull.The only disappointing thing about this series (and the reason I dropped it down to 4-stars instead of 5) is that CNN awkwardly casts somewhat look-alike actors to portray each President in dramatic representation. I understand why they did this (it seems like it would be more exciting for the casual viewer to get moving images rather than static pictures), but instead it is just weird. As such, the first, second, and final episodes listed above work the best, as they are the newest and can feature actual video of the candidates. In the older ones, there is too much of the play-acting for my tastes.Overall, though, I looked forward to "Race for the White House" each week it was airing and each time got swept up in the race being examined. I'd love to see CNN feature some different races in the future…I would tune into all of them!

Charles Herold (cherold) I've watched a few of these now, and they're all quite fascinating. The series is a bit too gimmicky, with way too many unnecessary reenactments of even the littlest things (you can't have a random person talk about what it was like to be at a convention without an actor being shown sitting in a convention seat), but it's still quite interesting.They are full of interesting tidbits. For example, they suggest that in 1960 the Republicans weren't yet the party African Americans hated and Nixon could have won them over with some help from the White House. It was also interesting to see that, like Gore years later, Nixon decided not to challenge the results - even though the election was most probably stolen from him - because it would be bad for the country. By 1968 he'd given up on the black vote and figured if cheating worked for Kennedy it would work for him as well. Presidential elections look like sleazy affairs, and it appears that candidates like Dukakis that try to run a genuinely honest and positive campaign just get knocked down for it, so it's not a series that is going to make you feel better about the election process. But it is interesting.

Danny Blankenship Been watching the new CNN series "The Race for the White House" which is a showcase that puts a spotlight on the most dirty and close and cruel presidential races in U.S. election history! It's a real joy to watch as the clips and footage with news clips for each contests takes you back to that present time. And it's nice to see the interviews from political insiders, history teachers, and those that were involved in that very race. It shows how dirty politics is with back room deals and attack ads that can make or break an election. And it shows how the media and culture can impact a presidential race. Overall great series that should return for many seasons and feature every presidential race in U.S. history because it would educate everyone and this show is a must for any political and history buff.

lreese-1 I watched the Lincoln v Douglas episode. It was somewhat interesting, but not particularly based on facts. I was surprised at how inaccurate it was. I suppose they wanted to make the story interesting, but I was hoping to actually learn something new. Living in Illinois, 30 miles from Springfield, I have learned quite a bit about Lincoln and the politics of the time. Within the first few minutes the show claims Lincoln was an inexperienced politician. He wasn't. He'd been in the state legislature since the 1830's. Then it states he lost the Senate election to Stephan Douglas. There was no Senate election. Senators were appointed by the state legislature. These factual errors continue throughout the show.Entertaining, but you could learn more on Wiki!!