BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Desertman84 After watching Mora Stephens' Zipper,a movie about a politician who's got a sexual addiction towards escorts,it referred me to this documentary - Client 9:The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer - from where the main character of the film - Sam Ellis - was based from.This documentary was directed by Alex Gibney and worked together with Eliot Spitzer,the former Governor of New York who was involved in sex scandals that involved high class prostitutes working in escort firms.It tries to focus on his political career as well as the sex scandals that Spitzer got involved in.The interviews conducted in it involves the political friends and opponents of Spitzer as well as the people working in the escort services.Interestingly,the interview made on Angela Dupre,who happens to be Spitzer's regular client was portrayed by an actress.Apparently,it was both thought-provoking and informative as we get to realize how great Spitzer could have been politically as he was definitely great in acting as a "police" of Wall Street.Despite of his temper,he could have had a great future ahead as he could have been a possibly the "first Jewish President" of the United States.Both his friends and foes attested to his capabilities.Too bad that his inability to resist women led to a sex scandal and unfortunately the so-called "poster boy" for politicians involved in it despite having more popular ones involved such as the likes of Bill Clinton,John Edwards and even Newt Gingrich.It was also interesting to see how the so-called beautiful women work as escorts despite the fact that they are probably the ones who are less likely to be due to the fact that they are going to have the talent to succeed in the real world.One would definitely be bothered how much the United States has ingrained the attitude of materialism in its culture.Overall,this is one complex documentary that is more about Spitzer himself.

lufts If I could give this a zero, I would. I was a fan of Spitzer's early in his purported campaign against Wall Street. As a New Yorker, I had followed his silk purse career from the beginning.What the writer director does here is imply, use innuendo and ultimately avoid the bottom line single issue. Eliot Spitzer hired prostitutes and flew them all over the country, nay, the world, all the while prosecuting the same behavior in others. Worse, he was hiring young women, the same age as his own daughters. A truly sleazy individual.But it goes much farther than that. It totally ignores all of the financial shenanigans of Eliot and his father, which would have derailed any national run for office. His father, one of the largest real estate developers in NY, gifted Eliot numerous apartments which provided most of his multimillion dollar income. His father even paid the gift tax on it.Bernard also loaned Spitzer's campaigns millions of dollars, $5Million +, and worse, made enormous donations to the campaigns of those who were his son's "allies".That is almost unimportant next to the real issues. Spitzer's supposed campaign against Wall Street. In most of the cases that he made sure to hold press conferences when issuing subpoenas, he ended up settling for virtually nothing, or never even pursuing in court.Worse, he lost the most high profile prosecutions he pursued, including the one showcased in the movie against Dick Grasso of the NYSE (never mentioned in the movie that Grasso was vindicated in Federal Court) and was shown to have been nothing more than a personally vindictive, wildly undisciplined attorney general.By his own admission in the film, again, brushed over by the filmmaker, he admits to telephone calls to the people he was pursuing telling them they were 'dead' or going to be 'steamrolled' or "at war". What kind of prosecutor does such things? Ultimately, the director through innuendo and editing, implies that there was a conspiracy to bring Spitzer down. He even uses pro Spitzer talking heads to imply that Spitzer would be the only "John" to be prosecuted under the Mann Act (I guess he never heard of heavyweight champion Jack Johnson) and then immediately quickly brushes past the fact that Spitzer, in fact, was NOT prosecuted. He then again uses a talking head to claim that the entire investigation was a set up simply to leak Spitzer's involvement with the Emperor's Club prostitution service to the NY Times. Huh? The most liberal newspaper in the country, which almost singlehandedly had made his career was now the demon of his destruction? What he completely ignores are the simple facts of the case. There was not a single notice of an illegal transaction noticed by the Feds, but many transactions designed to specifically skirt the federal law that requires ANY cash transaction of $10K or more to be reported (some reports said dozens of such transactions). Spitzer repeatedly made transactions of $5K at a time to pay his $10K/day hooker. The law that was designed primarily to ensnare money launderers as a result of the cocaine wars of the 1980's is what caught him.The size of the this ring, whose owners were sent to federal prison, is demonstrated by the fact that when they were arrested in their apartment, they had more than $1 Million in cash in a safe in their bedroom. This was no small time hooker service, but a major international escort service which included members of the royal family as clients - oh yeah, I guess since THAT came out, it wasn't really an attack just on Spitzer - another fact noted, and whitewashed by the director.Did Spitzer make enemies? Of course. But the idea that Hank Greenberg or Ken Langone brought him down is not only foolish, it's insulting. Were they the ones hiring the hookers? The director also compares Spitzer to fallen pols like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich and others who engaged in extramarital affairs. As bad as they were, they were NOT committing crimes and certainly NOT at the same time they were specifically empowered to prosecute the very crimes they were committing.That Spitzer has any credibility is a sad reflection of the current state of the body politic.Spitzer is a brilliant individual with an extreme case of narcissistic personality disorder.Had the filmmaker used the forum to dissect the hubris that ultimately brings down so many of these types, he might have added to the conversation.Instead, this film looks like it was bankrolled, as Eliot's whole career was, by his father.

Cinnyaste A failed 2011 Academy Award hopeful, "Client 9. . ." offers an out-of-balance, sanitized portrait of former NY Governor and current CNN Commentator Elliot Spitzer.Full disclosure: Mr. Spitzer was my otherwise brilliant Governor.Nearly half of this love letter to Spitzer surrounds his White Knight efforts to curb Wall Street greed and malfeasance. According to the Doc, this crusade (and ruffling lots of feathers in the NYS Legislature) allegedly led a nameless enemy to turn him in to the Fed for prosecution. The re-creation of this alleged conspiracy does track and seems possible, but it's beside the point. Mr. Spitzer, in the height of hypocrisy, busted prostitution rings while being serviced by 'Escorts'. When pressed about this aspect of the story, Spitzer sputters and avoids with (paraphrasing) "I'm not going there." Conversely, Spitzer crows effusively about his prosecutorial efforts.Strongly inferred is a theory Spitzer was taken down just prior to the financial collapse and that his continued pressure on Wall Street (particularly against former AIG CEO Hank Greenburg) could have avoided the crash.It's surprising the fallen Gov appeared in this Doc; usually a coup. However, the filmmakers not only handle him with kid gloves, they drift into creating a mildly flattering portrait of a victim of angry enemies bent on his destruction out of a sleazebag who smeared New York's highest office by breaking public trust, spying on and falsely accusing fellow politicians.A comedic high point is the clueless bimbo Cecil Suwal (co-owner of the Emperor's Club Prostitution Ring) who seems unable to grasp the concept of cash for favors and why it's illegal. Joseph Bruno of the NYS Legislature is also unintentionally funny.In several cases actors sit in and mouth the words of the actual parties interviewed off-camera. A novel approach, but why would filmmakers make such a deal? Have the creators never heard of hiding faces and altering voices when someone desires anonymity?Technically, the film, at nearly two hours, is too long by half an hour."Client 9. . ." is reprehensible as journalism. It's cowardly point of view too steeped in avoiding hard questions and treating the subject with undeserved deference. Thus is created a pulpit for Spitzer from which to pontificate. That makes "Client 9. . ." a creamy and soft, uninteresting puff piece instead of a documentary.

jotix100 Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced former governor of New York, is a man of great integrity who made a lot of enemies while he was the only one with enough guts to bring to justice men in higher positions of the financial world. Mr. Spitzer had one of the brightest futures in American politics had he still been in charge as New York's attorney general, or even as governor of the state. His victory was one of the most short lived, perhaps, in the history of politics.This powerful man was winning every possible battle against the corruption that is so prevalent in those higher spheres. Eliot Spitzer went after powerful figures, notably the case against Maurice Greenberg, who profited handsomely from his tenure at AIG, one of the firms the US government had to rescue from collapsing. Kenneth Langone, the co-founder of Home Depot, and good friend of Mr. Greenberg, had a beef against Mr. Spitzer, who also dared to question the 139 million package given to Richard Grasso, former head of the New York Stock Exchange.It was Mr. Langone who vowed revenge from his arch enemy and the people in his circle that were being questioned by Eliot Spitzer. It was not too hard for this rich wheeler dealer to find the right man to begin tailing the governor. What the investigator found was a side of Mr. Spitzer that was contrary to the public image he projected of rectitude and honesty. Mr. Spitzer's weakness was for highly paid prostitutes. One in particular, caught his fancy and that proved to be the beginning of his own downfall. Unfortunately, the higher ups that were so corrupt, won. The day of his resignation several of the figures that were investigated by Mr. Spitzer toasted merrily about the fall of their avowed enemy at "21", a place where all these influential men gather to socialize.The documentary is a lesson in dirty politics. Directed by Alex Gibney, the man that has given us many interesting and informative documents in which recent history about wrongdoing by the rich and powerful go unpunished because of their access to powerful lawyers that are able to get them out of their jams with impunity. Sadly, Mr. Spitzer did not have to have resigned. After all, have we not seen other men in similar situations go on without batting an eyelash? A former American president included?