Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

bkoganbing Looking back over 50 years the brief and tragic presidency of John F. Kennedy it has an air of inevitability about it. But in my 13 year at the time there was nothing inevitable about it. The great Kennedy machine as it came to be known flexed its muscles first in the Wisconsin primary in 1960. The traditional first primary of New Hampshire was disregarded that year as it was conceded to New Englander John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Wisconsin which had the oldest of primaries with a mixed population, but next door to JFK's challenger Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota was the real test.Could a Catholic be elected President? That was the issue, the only one nominated by a major party Alfred E. Smith took a shellacking in 1928. However there were lots of differences between Al Smith and Jack Kennedy too numerous to mention. From 1956 to 1960 the wealthy Kennedy family organized a 50 state machine second to none. Poor Humphrey never had a chance.The film without a word of commentary shows the glamorous Kennedys and the excitement around them and Humphrey talking to small knots of people trying to retail votes. When JFK passes his first real test before the voters it's pretty obvious why.Primary is a real must for any student of the period.

John T. Ryan IN FILMING THE behind the scenes of the 1960 Wisconsin Democratic Primary, the production team found what was probably a natural. While primary time lacks the punch and long-lasting effects on we, the electorate, it is nonetheless an unavoidable step in the process . SHADOWING TWO ASPIRING candidates, the film tells the story of how differently the two candidates' campaigns sized up the run for the State delegation's voting at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in July of 1960. The differences that are dramatized are much more those of tactics and logistics; as neither man is shown saying much (if anything at all) about his Primary opponent. Both men seem to have concentrated in criticizing in the broadest terms the course that the nation was headed under the previous 8 years of G.O.P. policies of the Administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. THE CAMPAIGN OF Senator Hubert H. Humphrey consisted of short jumps between stops at many a rural farming community. The Humphrey campaign reasoned that his strength would be in the country folk, of whom Hubert was also born and bred; his father being a small town pharmacist.CONTRASTING SHARPLY FROM that was the Kennedy central tenet that the heavily populated Big City districts would render a far greater return on his investment of time. Greater crowds could be reached and there would be a greater identifying by the urban gentry with JFK; although this is one of varying shades; for how well could a blue collar worker in Kenosha accept a Harvard educated, Bostonian Millionaire as one of his own ?BUT THERE WAS yet another, perhaps unspoken reason to exploit the minor contrast that would be present. That would be Mr. Kennedy's having been born and raised a Catholic. That was a big deal in 1960, especially following in the wake of 1928's Presidential election where Democrat Al Smith, a Catholic, lost big time to Herbert Hoover.KENNEDY'S CAMPAIGN REASONED that they could turn his religion into a plus factor by concentrating on the more urban districts with heavy Polish populations; with the Poles, of course, being very predominantly Catholic.

teddyryan I wasn't a huge fan of PRIMARY. Being a JFK and 1960s political buff, I highly anticipated the behind the scenes campaign film. Due to my lack of interest in Hubert Humphrey, unfortunately, I spent most of the viewing time hitting the fast forward button to the Kennedy segments. Regardless, this film does show the overwhelming and taxing manner of campaigning and how it takes a person that does not appear to be mortal to carry out such a function. The camera gets intimately close to JFK when he enters rally halls. There's a few shots that are groundbreaking in this sequence. It almost appears that the cameraman glued his lens to the back of Kennedy's collar. It creates an eye opening feeling of proximity. Therefore, I guess if you eliminated Humphrey from the film or showcased the Presidential Election itself, you'd have a much more interesting piece of work. Ted Ryan www.modesthouseproductions.com

John Seal Poor Hubert Humphrey. First he lost to John F. Kennedy. Then he lost to Richard Nixon. And finally, Jimmy Carter called him "Hubert Horatio Hornblower" at the 1980 Democratic National Convention. And that was AFTER he was dead — surely the final indignity. This film examines Humphrey's first presidential run, focusing specifically on the April 1960 Democratic primary in Wisconsin, which threatened to derail JFK's candidacy on the familiar shoals of inexperience, religious prejudice, and lack of interest in agricultural issues. The 1960 campaign marked the birth of the modern era of politics as mass media personality cult, and unfortunately for Humphrey, he couldn't hold a candle to the youthful, handsome, and wealthy Jack Kennedy. As a film, Primary looks ugly and amateurish-but as a document of how the modern political campaign evolved, it's absolutely priceless. Anyone remotely interested in American politics needs to see this film.