Problems abound from the get go: the production is uneven, occasionally plodding and doesn't reveal much of Grant as a human being. Though they take pains to introduce his parents, siblings and give a thorough overview of his childhood, there is something intangible missing. Though he was retiring, Grant was still a vibrantly alive man. He had fierce appetites and had a desire to be somebody. None of this is really explored in the film and it results in massive frustration for the discerning viewer.

The interviews with historians are uneven. Unfortunately, the producers elected to have Geoffrey Perret air his opinions on Grant, none of which are historically valid or interesting. Brooks Simpson and John Simon fare much better, and their views are entertaining and reliable.

Much of the documentary focuses on Grant's Presidency, which is a curious facet of the film. The revisionist aspect of the show reveals USG to have been a much better President than he's given credit for, but the content again induces more questions than it answers.

Grant was a fascinating man with rare depths of emotion and feeling. He's worth getting to know, even though the journey is sometimes a complex experience. That description would sum up this futile attempt to shine a light on the psyche of this remarkable man. Though the film has definite merit, it simply doesn't begin to showcase what an incredible man Grant was. The definitive film of Grant has yet to be made.

Certainly I learned more about Grant's accomplishments as President than I had ever heard before, since the history textbooks tend to focus on the scandals that plagued his administration rather than his attempts to bridge the animosity between North and South that continued for years after the Civil War ended. Ultimately, I was struck by two central ideas behind this documentary. The first was that Grant was the most popular American figure of the 19th century. This is one of those ideas that seem obvious once you consider it; after all, Lincoln was not beloved until he was dead and buried. But I would have named Andrew Jackson as deserving that honor, forgetting for a moment how much he was hated in certain quarters. The second idea offered up confirms the first, and that is the argument that the death watch for Grant, as he was dying of throat cancer and struggling to finish writing his memoirs so his family would be taken care of after he was gone, was responsible for bridging the sectional differences between North and South.

This might be a romanticized assessment of the situation, but by the end of this documentary there is a desire for Grant's legacy to be more than the best selling memoirs of the 19th century. "Warrior President" justifies this conclusion by focusing throughout on how Grant was an honorable man, a reasonable man in unreasonable times as we are told several times, who tried to provide equality for African Americans. Grant always admitted to his errors, both on the battlefield and in the White House, and along with the way he handled Lee's surrender, would be the most compelling evidence of the man's personal honor. Furthermore, the documentary does not gloss over the man's many failings. However, there is a concerted effort to look at both his generalmanship on the battlefield and his memoirs as clear evidence of a superior mind.

Finally, I am struck by the idea that if it were not for Grant's memoirs we would have little basis for insights into what the man was ever thinking. "Ulysses S. Grant: Warrior President" offers a nice combination of biographical detail with critical insights from a variety of talking heads. Grant is one of those historical figures whose reputation will always be in a state of flux depending upon what emphasis you place on various aspects of his life. This documentary does not compel a particular conclusion, since the case it advances is be no means dogmatic, but it does offer up a series of perspectives for viewers to consider in reassessing the man.