peapulation Although Bill Clinton became president of the United States, it was James Carville and George Stephanopolous won the elections in 1992. That seems to be what Hegedus and Pennebaker are telling us in their documentary The War Room, and for what it looks like, it must have been true. The democrats hadn't won an election in a long time. They, as people in charge of the Bill Vlinton electoral campaign changed the way campaigns would be run and seen. Or did they? History tells us that presidents have aways liked being presidents! They always tried to reach the audiences, always tried to use all the media at their disposals in the best of ways, and there always were people that managed their image and wrote their scripts. The premise seems to be pretentious and wrong. It is true, however, that this is possibly the one and only documentary that gives us such an insight of the organizing committee of a presidential campaign, and it is very interesting to see how things are run, and how people think. They are the underrated heroes. Before Clinton does anything, they think of it. In fact, we hardly ever see Clinton ourselves, which further strengthens the fact that it was them who won the elections, not him.Pennebakes does what he does best: direct cinema. But in comparison to other direct cinema legendary films, this one is hard to get fully into. In fact, the scenes that we are allowed to get into through good editing and cinematography are great, but the rest is just annoying and confusing. Also, it's hard to keep track of all that goes on in the war room, and although that was never going to be easy to do, it should have been done better. Still, a lot of it is very good, and worth a look, because the concept, the most important thing in a direct cinema film, is very interesting, and now that we know how things ended, pleasant to watch (unless you're a republican...) WATCH FOR THE MOMENT - When Carville is asked by the media if Clinton went to Moscow. "Yes" answers Carville. He knows exactly what is doing.

thewhopdx This is a well-made, but not exceptionally crafted documentary. However, the topic is so inherently fascinating, the editing so effective, and the subjects (James Carville, Clinton himself) are so funny, that I gave the movie a 9. I would definitely recommend buying it off Amazon.com for $8.99, as I did.

Joe Benik This is one of the great political films since All the President's Men, and one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. The story is fascinating, the characters are very interesting, and its all real. Even the music adds to the frenetic pace of the film.The documentary follows the 1992 Clinton Campaign from the doldrums in New Hampshire, through the Democratic convention in New York to its summit on election night in Little Rock. But Clinton spends very little time on the screen. The film captures the behind-the-scenes action of James Carville, George Stephanopolis, and the rest of the cast and crew of Clinton campaign headquarters. The film shows how TV spots are written, how interviews are managed, how the candidates' message is distributed, and how the "spin doctors" do their stuff.The pace is quick. Staffers come into and out of scenes constantly, and there is a great deal of off-camera dialogue, much like an emergency-room scene from E.R. The mix of standard documentary footage with news reports and interviews is terrific. Some of the best scenes are of the pols watching the news reports and reacting to what they see. The central character is James Carville, who is more interesting than anyone else in the campaign, much moreso than the candidates themselves. He reveals that his "Ragin' Cajun" image is genuine, for he is truly passionate about his work. But it also reveals a mind working on overdrive, and a sensitive nature that you wouldn't expect to see. His "people will say you are lucky" speech to staffers at the end of the film is as moving as anything written for the studio, and moreso because it is genuine. Stephanopolis came off less well. Behind his youthful looks and seeming intelligence comes a certain shallowness. Much of his contribution was more of a "me too" nature than anything truly creative or deep. He also had a moment at the end of the film when, in a room with a starry-eyed female staffer, he's describing how he feels. And the conclusion is, not much. It is not hard to understand why years later George was a washout in the Clinton White House, never managed another campaign, and is now earning his living in front of the camera.After all is said and done, it is clear that the candidate is secondary in a modern presidential election. He's like the hand your dealt in a game of poker. It's important, but what you do with it once it is dealt to you is much more important. And these guys are pros.So are the filmmakers. There were several times when I had to remind myself that this was a documentary, and not a work of fiction. In fact, if you see it immediately after seeing "Primary Colors" you'll see that truth is not only stranger than fiction, but it can be more interesting as well.

J.Bond As a student of Political Sciences, I believe this to be one of the most fascinating and introspective documentaries regarding the subject of campaigning. The first modern campaign, the 92 Clinton war is an amazing melodrama of quick rises to power, downfalls, villains, heroes, and the precursor to one of the most vicious political battles of our nation's history. In the film, if you look hard enough, you see the seeds of weakness being sown which would lead to an awesome political showdown which is more grand, more high-stakes, and more dark than the plotline of any film in this database. Note: If you like "The War Room," read Woodward's "The Agenda."