She stated that she attempted to interview multiple conservatives for the film, including Newt Gingrich, but most (except for Bill Frist) refused.
[10] Writing for RogerEbert.com, Brian Tallerico gave the film a score of 3.5 stars out of 4, describing it as "a razor-sharp piece of filmmaking, a movie that doesn't just hit the chronological beats of Clinton's life but places them in context of how they impacted the campaign and election of 2016" and as "incredible documentary filmmaking no matter your party affiliation, a must-see TV event."
He concluded that the film "isn't really designed to win over the detractors of Hillary Clinton as much as offer her fans and the maybe a dozen or so people in the world with no opinion about her a complete look at an important political figure in U.S.
"[11] Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal wrote that the film "would merit honors for the remarkable frankness of this four-part chronicle of Hillary Clinton‘s life, career and marriage—a buoyant history, its gut-wrenching aspects notwithstanding" and described it as being "never less than mesmerizing".
"[14] Judy Berman of Time magazine wrote: "The problem isn't that she comes off as disingenuous so much as that people who follow politics ... have heard almost all of this before: Wellesley, Arkansas, Whitewater, Hillarycare, "women's rights are human rights," Monica, Senate, Obama, Benghazi, Trump", and concluded: "As it happens, I don't need Hillary Clinton to go away.
"[15] Kyle Smith of National Review was critical of the film in his review, writing that it "simply ignores the most sordid and embarrassing aspects of Hillary's life: Juanita Broaddrick, the $100,000 gain Clinton supposedly made in "cattle futures trading," It Takes a Village", and described it as "an episode in its subject's never-ending project to convince the public that we were all wrong about her in every particular and that she therefore should be president.