By the People: The Election of Barack Obama

By the People: The Election of Barack Obama

By the People: The Election of Barack Obama is a documentary film produced by Edward Norton broadcast in November 2009 on HBO, which follows Barack Obama and various members of his campaign team, including David Axelrod, through the two years leading up to the United States presidential election on November 4th, 2008.

I don't even know whats going on. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


By the People: The Election of Barack Obama torrent reviews

Allison W (es) wrote: Big fan of muckraking, but most of the women in this doc. have made a lot of money off their looks and now they want to turn around and say "respect my brain." Bonus insult, Katie Couric extolling the sisterhood -- wasn't she the one who asked Sarah Palin what magazines (if any) did she read.

Chris G (de) wrote: I haven't seen this but I really want to see it

Brian D (es) wrote: This movie is pretty laughable. While it's not the worst movie I've ever seen, it's certainly not that great. It sure is a lot better than some of the Lifetime/Hallmark movies, but the premise happens to be a bit hackneyed. Typical female fantasy film fare. A lovestruck girl is struck between two guys, one of whom seems to be perfect and the other not so perfect. While her meddling grandmother pushes her toward the "perfect" guy, her heart seems to be screaming out for the seeming "badboy". After needlessly juggling the two throughout the entire movie, she ends up picking the mysterious "badboy" who's really not bad at all, but has just been misunderstood throughout the whole film. They end up happily ever after, with the grandmother eating her words.I mean, that's terrible about movies like this is that they're made for the slightly overweight, giving up hope on dating, twenty-something year old woman who wants it all. A rich, handsome, mysterious badboy who just seems like a philanderer, but really isn't. The typical guy they had a crush on in college who ended up just partying and sleeping around and never developing an actual real relationship with anyone. I don't understand why that fantasy is so potent, but it is rather annoying. Just like this movie.

Wes S (br) wrote: Not only does the plot sound pretty ridiculous- the entire movie is ridiculous. From the characters, to the character's purpose, to... there's a lot of mess in this film. Still, it has a fun atmosphere, maybe unintentional.

Private U (it) wrote: I thought this was really good. Good story, pretty actors and good music!

Zachary M (de) wrote: To put it simply, it's a zombie movie where the zombies are replaced by werewolves. With that said, it is a very good film with many great an interesting characters. The effects are all practical and are a lot of fun to watch. Some would say that it seems a bit by the numbers, but I would ask them to give it another watch and think long and hard about that decision.

Alex r (jp) wrote: Third entry in the Candyman franchise is wasted opportunity. As far as I'm concerned, this is the worst in the series. I think it's a shame because the second film in the Candyman trilogy was good, but this one is mediocre. The film has a bad plot, it doesn't do anything great with its ideas and the filmmakers scrap the bottom of the barrel of ideas with this one. The cast are terrible, and the actors starring opposite Tony Todd are awful, and even Tony Todd himself is wasted on a poor third entry. Candyman 3 could have been a good film, but the filmmakers are clear out of ideas, and thus the film is pretty sloppy, and really isn't that great. The second film for example, went deeper into Candyman's back story, which is why I think it's a strong sequel to the first. But with this third entry, the filmmakers don't try to do anything creative with its material, and feels tired and uninspired. The film plays out simply as a gorefest and it mostly relies on its gore factor. There is nothing scary, unlike the first two films in this film, and the film for the most part is boring. I think the idea was good, but the execution was bad. Add to that an awful cast, and you have a recipe for disaster. Candyman 3 could have been a great film, but it never tries to do anything new or inventive. The idea might have been good, but in the end, the execution is pretty poor, thus you have the worst film in the trilogy. This is an unscary third entry that simply doesn't deliver.

Griffin W (kr) wrote: Horrible for children in every possible way. Bad acting, bland directing, generic and formulaic writing, terrible morals, a cheap and horribly thought out ending, and a really deplorable main character. This is a film that should be kept as far away from children as humanly possible, they deserve so much better. Blank Check is total, absolute, bottom of the barrel, complete "BULL SHIT!!!"

Alden P (mx) wrote: This film is carried by the shoulders of Jamie Foxx's performance. His portrayal of Ray Charles is electrifying as well as genius, if I may say so. But I think it relies on Foxx too much that it loses focus on other aspects.

Jacob D (ca) wrote: Sexual innuendo after sexual innuendo and doesn't get any laughs.

Dylan G (nl) wrote: This is a movie only for kids, teens may like it, but adults won't! It's stupid, unfunny, and at times boring, but kids younger than 8 will love it anyways! F

Michael S (us) wrote: Boring as hell. If you like movies with loads of dialogue and very little action or characters to care about, then this is the film for you. Dull, over the top, stupid, and humorless, this movie has it all. Looks pretty, though.

Craig T (ru) wrote: Rauch - the film's star and co-writer - too often confuses crassness for humor, sketching a highly unlikeable character both too finely and too broadly to support a feature film. It has its laughs, and the supporting cast is game, but it has no landing to stick.