SVT Play: All Systems Operational Normally

Watch Online Scandalous: The Untold Story of the National Enquirer

(247) 5.9 97 min 2019

Scandalous: The Untold Story of the National Enquirer is a movie starring Carl Bernstein, Tony Brenna, and Maggie Haberman. 'Scandalous' is the sensational true story of The National Enquirer, the infamous tabloid with a prescient...

Starring
Tony Brenna, Maggie Haberman, Carl Bernstein, Generoso Pope Jr.
Genres
Documentary
Director
Mark Landsman

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles 日本語  Čeština  Português  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres Documentary
Director Mark Landsman
Stars Tony Brenna, Maggie Haberman, Carl Bernstein, Generoso Pope Jr.
Country USA
Also Known As Scandalous: The True Story of the National Enquirer, Skandalozno: Neispričana priča Nacionalnog Enquirer-a
Runtime 1H 37M
Description 'Scandalous' is the sensational true story of The National Enquirer, the infamous tabloid with a prescient grasp of its readers' darkest curiosities.

Top reviews

Thursday, 27 Aug 2020 09:14

This is a very well-done documentary about the National Enquirer. It is in the same vein as the similar documentary "The Black List" about the Black List, which is not a bad thing. But what makes this documentary stand out is that it is not just a look at the Enquirer's inner workings, but also the personalities who worked there. The documentary was made by a man who was a journalist for the Enquirer for many years and also served as its executive editor for many years. That's a pretty unique combination of talents and experience. So when you look at the "unexpected" results of a story, you can't help but look for the people who helped make it possible. If they are not in the documentary, you know they worked there. So it's an easy way to look at the National Enquirer and see what it was like to work there and how it shaped the culture of the paper. As a journalist, I really liked this documentary because it shows the enmity between the Enquirer and the "Black List." It was a dark time for the paper and the people who worked there. The relationship between the Enquirer and the Black List was not a friendly one. It was a battle of egos. The Enquirer wanted to write a hit piece about the Black List and the Black List wanted to stop them from writing a hit piece. So there were a lot of people who disagreed with each other and you can see the animosity in the work of the Enquirer. The documentary shows the source of that animosity and how it was at the heart of the Enquirer's reporting. I also liked the fact that the documentary does not paint the Enquirer as just a tabloid newspaper. I think a lot of people would expect a documentary to paint a picture of the Enquirer as just another tabloid newspaper. But the documentary does a good job at showing that the Enquirer was also a great source of information and investigative reporting. So it was a shame that the film was not also about the National Enquirer. In the end, I think it's a good documentary because it shows how the Enquirer has changed over the years and the reason why I think it's important to look at what happened when the Enquirer was at the top of the tabloid world. The National Enquirer was at the top of the tabloid world in the 1930s and 1940s and then fell quickly. It wasn't the only newspaper to do this. Newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post, to name a few, also had tabloid properties. The National Enquirer was the top of the list and it was falling down fast.
Sunday, 28 Jun 2020 04:28

The National Enquirer is a tabloid that's a sensational, oftentimes lurid tabloid. It is generally a tabloid with a negative spin, particularly in the 1980s. It's the voice of the "Enquirer" and it is portrayed as the voice of reason in the media. However, it's not always that way. The movie begins by detailing the origins of the Enquirer and how it came into being. This is pretty interesting and I thought that was an important part of the movie. But the part that I found most interesting was the interview with reporter Joseph Curl who talks about how he felt being a reporter, there's something about the reporters being able to say what they want, being able to say whatever they want. He talks about that and he talks about how he feels like an outsider, not really getting on the same page with other journalists. He talks about how he feels like a reporter and the journalist's job is to be able to get people's attention. This is a fascinating interview and it was one that I enjoyed. However, I felt that the movie was a little slow at times. I felt that the interviews didn't really follow the narrative of the story as well as the movie was really pretty quiet. It's not that it's bad, I felt like it was just a little slow at times. But I felt like it could have used a bit more energy at times. The movie does a pretty good job of setting the stage and the story, but it did feel like it was a little too slow. However, it's worth a watch if you're a fan of the Enquirer. The movie has a few nice moments and it's worth a watch, but it's not really worth a full length watch. It's a pretty decent movie that's worth a watch.


Write a review