Yes the KKK had a revival in the 50's but not aware of too many plantations with the "boys" picking cotton around at the moment. As for Hillary's America - I think I will give it a miss.
Critical reviews
Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party was panned by critics. On review aggregator
Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 4%, based on 25 professional reviews, with an average rating of 1.8/10. The site's consensus reads, "
Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party finds Dinesh D'Souza once again preaching to the right-wing choir – albeit less effectively than ever."
[19] On
Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating, the film has a score of 2 out of 100, based on 17 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike".
[20] The film has the second all-time lowest score in the site's history.
[21]
Reviewers from
The Washington Post[12] and
The New York Times[22] have described the film as politically partisan.
In a review for
IndieWire, film critic David Ehrlich wrote, "This is the same old dog and pony show upon which D’Souza has built his brand. It’s his usual shtick of piggybacking a baseless personal attack onto a pseudo history lesson, a feature-length dog whistle that’s blown at a pitch so high that only the most ignorant or paranoid of people are capable of hearing it."
[23] Writing in
The Guardian,
Jordan Hoffman described the film as "paranoid" and "so demented that no synopsis could do it justice" and D'Souza as a "simpleton". He goes on to say that the basis of the film, the "purposely misunderstood fact" that "the Republicans used to be the good guys when it came to the issue of racial equality in America" is as surprising a discovery as the Soviet Union being an ally of the United States in World War Two because: "things change, and labels are semantics, and the concepts that bind a political party then might not be the same ones that bind them now."
[24] Dann Gire of the
Boston Herald called the film "an embarrassment to propaganda films", full of "mind-boggling conspiracy theories" and "fried thoughts and lapses of basic journalistic practices".
[25]
Reviewing the film, Alan Zilberman of
The Washington Post stated that "any conservative voters who check out the latest film ... will be disappointed by what they find. Incurious to a fault, it’s also too incoherent for serious argument."
[12] In addition, Kurt Hyde of
The New American called the film "a mixed bag", stating that, among other reasons, although "parts of the movie were well-researched, the accounts of numerous other events, especially those more than 100 years in the past could have been researched more thoroughly" and that "[t]here isn't any great difference between the two parties", contrary to what the film claimed.
[26]
John Fund of the
National Review stated that "[the film] is over the top in places and definitely selective, but the troubling facts are accurate and extensively documented in the D’Souza book that accompanies the movie [and that] the film is intensely patriotic".
[13]
