Steam Scandalous: The Untold Story of the National Enquirer

As someone who reads the Enquirer, I know that the members of the tabloid are vicious and mean-spirited, and that they are self-sustaining, with the newspaper in almost perpetual need of another hit. The documentary, The Untold Story of the National Enquirer, takes us on a journey through the lives of the men and women who work for the Enquirer and their relationship with it. The documentary covers the career of John Magaro, the creator of the tabloid, and his relationship with his editors and reporters. The documentary also covers the story of one of the Enquirer's most famous stars, Anthony Asher. The documentary covers the life of Nancy Koehler, who grew up in a working-class family in Queens, and was the first woman to ever win the National Enquirer's Glamour Award. The documentary also covers the life of George "Honey Boo Boo" Hennigan, who worked for the tabloid for over thirty years. And finally, we cover the life of Edward "Eddie" Kunkle, the creator of the tabloid, and the man who actually has the power to turn a big hit into a hit. This documentary is a great example of how someone like Richard Talbot, who wrote the book about the Enquirer, was able to get this story told. If you are a fan of the Enquirer, I recommend this documentary. If you are a fan of the tabloids, I recommend this documentary.

I am a HUGE Enquirer fan, and this documentary was a great addition to my Enquirer collection. It was a good look at the publication's decline from its glory days of the 1970s to its current decline to the point that it has become more of a tabloid newspaper, than a news organization. I thought the interviews with former Enquirer reporters were great, especially with the ones that covered the war in Iraq. I think they have a lot to learn from the people who were there in the 1970s and early 1980s. I think that this documentary is great for people who like history, and people who are interested in the world of news media. I would say that it is a good starting point for people to learn more about Enquirer. It is a great documentary that should be enjoyed by anyone who enjoys history and news media.

This film is a fascinating, comprehensive look at the Enquirer's history and its impact on the lives of the magazine's staff, contributors and subscribers. I would recommend it to anyone who loves to learn more about a news source. A must see.

This documentary is filled with colorful characters, but only the audience knows what they are, what they are looking for, and what they are looking for. The director, Brian Grazer, does not go into depth about the origins of the National Enquirer, but the purpose of the film is to tell the story of the company, the people who work at it, and the families who are affected by it. I was very interested in this film, and I hope it has a strong following. The people in the film are fascinating, and I found myself caring about their stories and how they became what they are today. It is very interesting to see the evolution of the business, and the other people involved in it, from the founder of the National Enquirer to the current staff. The documentary is an incredible story, and the film is a great way to learn more about the history of the National Enquirer.

I was pleasantly surprised to see a movie on the tabloid world that addressed all the controversies and controversies surrounding the tabloid world, from the rise and fall of the Enquirer to the demise of its magazine as well as the sensationalistic tabloid newspaper to the cover-ups and cover-ups that are still going on today. I don't agree with the conclusions that many people have come to regarding the Enquirer, but this film does a good job of explaining what made the Enquirer what it is today. The ending is very predictable and nothing new, but the movie does an excellent job of showing the twists and turns that have unfolded over the years. Overall, I highly recommend this movie.

This is a great movie. It does a great job in explaining the Enquirer's origins and how they became the tabloid they are today. It is a great way to get a better understanding of what the Enquirer is and what it's history is. It is also informative and funny as well. The only thing I didn't like was that it was over long and had a few holes in it. Overall, I recommend this to anyone looking for a documentary on the Enquirer.

I saw this movie on TV, and was able to watch it on a home-video, and I must say I enjoyed it immensely. I was not prepared for the level of "uncensored" footage that this movie provided. This documentary is very interesting and informative. It provides a fascinating look into how the Enquirer came into existence. I enjoyed this film immensely and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the world of tabloid journalism.

The National Enquirer is a magazine that is run by George Zimmerman. This film follows the life of George Zimmerman and his family from the time he was a young boy to the day he was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin. The film was written by Kyle Smith and directed by Paul Haggis. Haggis is a television producer and the film was shot in the Los Angeles area. There were some inaccuracies in the film. For example, Trayvon Martin was not a witness to George Zimmerman's killing and George Zimmerman was not a licensed psychologist. However, these inaccuracies are not enough to ruin the film for me. The story is told through interviews with family members, friends, neighbors, and others. They also discuss the events that led up to the trial. The film also focuses on the trial and the resulting backlash. I thought the film was very interesting and did a good job at telling the story of George Zimmerman and his family.

The National Enquirer has never been a positive influence on my life, but this documentary does a wonderful job of exposing the dark side of a tabloid and making it out to be a positive thing. The documentary covers the history of the magazine and its history of trash and sex, but also covers how the magazine has changed over the years and how it is still relevant today. It also goes into the personal life of the magazine's founder, Joseph Pulitzer. The documentary covers all of the negatives and positive aspects of the magazine, and does an excellent job of making the audience think about the "news" they see on the newsstands. There is also a lot of humor in the documentary, and it is a refreshing change to see a documentary that doesn't focus on the negative sides of a publication, but focuses on the positive aspects. I highly recommend this documentary to anyone who loves a good documentary. I give it a B+.

When I first heard about this film, I thought it was a documentary, but I was also pretty impressed with the acting and the details about the magazine. After watching the film, I couldn't help but think it was something else. The DVD was so nice that I looked into finding out more about the men who were involved in the story. I came across the National Enquirer's website which had a lot of information about them and I was amazed that they did such a great job of showing their work. It was like they were there! It was interesting to read the background on the real lives of those involved in the film. This is definitely something I would look into if I ever make it past the second season of Criminal Minds. The real women and men who were involved in the movie were also pretty fascinating. I don't know how it ended up on a DVD but I am definitely going to get it.

It is amazing that the National Enquirer would allow itself to become a source for tabloid sensationalism that could potentially be damaging to people's lives. That is an extremely sad case study of a tabloid that could have so much more impact on the public's perception of journalism and public health than it does. The National Enquirer has a very powerful combination of credibility and persuasiveness that many news organizations are beginning to ignore. Their detractors and critics on the left and right of the political spectrum have a long way to go to reach their potential and they will continue to fail on their lack of impact on the public's perception of journalism. If the National Enquirer can get this kind of story out, the balance of their credibility will be greatly improved.

Based on a true story, the National Enquirer has been the subject of many films and TV shows. Their popularity as a story is as old as the hills. So when it was announced that ABC would be doing a biopic on the Enquirer, I was very excited. The same goes for all of you who may have been involved with the Enquirer, or at least know someone who was. This is a very entertaining and honest documentary. The acting is very good, the interviews are excellent, and the story of the Enquirer is just a beautiful story of love, friendship, and of course, gossip. I think the audience will love this film, because it is an honest story, a very good story, and I think everyone will find something to like in it. The film has a very funny feel to it, and it is very entertaining. The National Enquirer is one of my favorite stories of all time, and I think anyone who has ever been a part of the National Enquirer or knows someone who was will enjoy this film.

It's an interesting look at a family business that many people associate with scandal. Each family member can be seen as a trophy. A film to remember. The documentary is an in depth look at the tabloid the Enquirer, a tabloid that is the largest circulation in the United States and was known for sensationalism, sensational headlines, and sensational titles. The movie does an excellent job at being a political statement on this company and on the company itself. The movie takes you through the organization, including the development of the tabloids from newspapers to "The Enquirer", and how the company grew to be the most profitable tabloid in the country, as well as how the paper went from a paper that only gave you a bunch of articles to a major media company. It also takes you through the lives of the major players in the company, from the leader of the company, (the founder of the company), all the way down to the "coach" who helps the founder, a father, a husband, and a son. I found the film very interesting, as well as being very entertaining. It's a good thing the Enquirer was based on a true story and not a fictional film.

I'm surprised to see the reviewers' bad reviews. So many bad reviews that many are like the reviewer in "Liar Liar" (a picture that should have won Best Picture of 2000) that believe that the reviews were unfair. The people are happy to see the movie. They are not surprised, nor offended. They just wish that it was true. I'm glad the National Enquirer isn't an everyday sight. I wish they'd make more movies. Every other Hollywood movie is about the product. Now they're about the people. They are interesting and provocative and should be encouraged to tell the truth. We are so cynical about the media that we don't know how much is just that.

There are two types of documentaries that are popular: those with a clear storyline, and those with little to no plot, and that is the case with The National Enquirer. This is one of those documentaries, because it focuses on the gossip and scandal that surrounded the story of the tabloid in the 70s. There are many fascinating and informative interviews with prominent figures from that time. The most intriguing interview is with the late Hugh Hefner, who reveals how he was determined to stop the Enquirer from making money off the "exposure" of his sex lives. A few of the other interviews include Howard Stern, David Letterman, Barbara Walters, George Carlin, Rosie O'Donnell, William Shatner, etc. This documentary is very good and informative, but also quite long, and it would be great if they would make a shorter version that is not as long as this one.

Consequently, this is a must see documentary. There are many videos, which are more entertaining than the actual film. The movie does a great job of describing the history of the Enquirer and the magazines in which it ran. I found the film to be informative and entertaining, but the topic is very controversial. Many people believe that it was an unethical, immoral, and unethical organization. I don't agree with that, but I understand that it was a business, which had many reasons to get the stories. In my opinion, the topic is a difficult one to discuss and you may be left feeling very uncomfortable and a bit uncomfortable. The documentary does a good job of showing the stories of the Enquirer, but does not give a complete picture. There are many stories about the Enquirer, which are not included in the documentary. For example, the FBI files are not included, as are the most recent files of those involved in the death of Marilyn Monroe. However, the documentary does provide a great deal of information about the Enquirer, which is a very interesting subject. I found the documentary to be very interesting, and I would recommend it to anyone who likes to learn about a very interesting subject.

Anyone who has read any of the Howard Hughes biographies will know that the one thing that always fascinated him about his past was his "sociopathic tendencies". His infatuation with beauty, his hatred for poverty and the way that an ordinary working man could transform himself into a wealthy and ambitious citizen. It's hard to imagine anyone going through that in real life. Hughes had it all. He did it all. He had the wealth, the fame and he had the perfect body. He was obsessed with the fact that he was not just some ordinary man. He wanted to be a celebrity and would go to any lengths to achieve it. He was a serial killer. He was a publicity hound. He loved food and loved his hair. His "ideal wife" was beautiful but she wasn't the one. He made women fall in love with him by offering them something he could only give them - beautiful, glamorous women. He loved to play golf and was a golf pro. He had an intimate relationship with his company and loved it. He loved women and was a passionate lover. He was the ultimate dater. He was obsessed with his own appearances and wore clothes that reflected his beautiful figure and created a stunning personal and professional image. Hughes was a man who owned his image and who owned his talent. He was the embodiment of a man who thought he had everything, and he felt he had nothing. He wanted to be beautiful. He wanted to be glamorous. He wanted to be famous. He wanted to change the world. He wanted to be successful. He wanted to have everything. "The man is completely without self-control", a psychologist once said to him. "What he craves he can't have."

This is an interesting film, with some really interesting interviews. There are a lot of news articles and a lot of claims that are either not backed up by evidence or are simply untrue. This is not a documentary, but rather a collection of interviews. The biggest problem is that there are so many people interviewed that there is very little time to develop each of the interviews. Also, there are so many stories that are either not backed up by any evidence or are just not credible. For example, some of the news stories are just so vague that the viewer is left wondering how the story was ever related to anything. The information that is presented is not very coherent, either. For example, there are several stories about the "scandal" of the Enquirer, but the details that are presented are not very clear. For example, there are claims that the news story "the birth certificate" is not backed up by anything. But there are very few people interviewed who actually have any background knowledge on this story. A lot of information is presented, but not much is really explained. For example, when one of the interviews is discussing the story of the birth certificate, the interviewer is asked about the credibility of the story and he does not really answer. It is a really confusing story, and this film does not provide enough details to fully understand it. Another big problem is that there is a lot of information presented about various celebrities that have been the subject of some kind of scandal, but the viewer has no idea what is going on. There is also a lot of information presented about various famous people, but they do not really explain what is going on. Some of the stories are presented as facts, but some are just not backed up by any evidence or are simply not credible. A lot of the information presented is pretty questionable. For example, when one of the interviews is discussing the "birther" conspiracy, the interviewer does not really explain what is going on. The viewer is left with the impression that this is a real news story that has been given a lot of publicity. The information presented is not very coherent, and this is a very confusing movie. There are many good points in this movie, but it is not really enough to make a good documentary.

I was fortunate enough to see this film at the Cinequest Film Festival in 2012. It was on a short list of films to be screened, but I went with my friend, and it was the best decision I ever made. The film is a beautifully written, and beautifully filmed, look at the media-industrial complex, and how it affects and affects us, especially those of us that are trying to get out. As someone who has spent a great deal of time with the media, this film is one of the most honest, and informative I have ever seen. The film is very entertaining, with great actors, and great story-telling. It was also very well-acted, and the way the story was told, left you wanting more. I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to learn more about the media, or about how they affect us. This film is not for everyone, but if you like it, you will definitely enjoy it.

While I'm not familiar with the Enquirer, I did not find it terribly interesting. It's not a very good documentary, and doesn't really delve into the actual story of their organization. The most interesting thing about the documentary is that the Enquirer is a very private organization, so it's easy to miss their private stories. Even if it's a little biased towards the Enquirer, I still think it would've been better to have a more balanced approach. As it is, it is good, but not great.

The New Yorker, a very credible magazine, has a constant flow of scandalous stories in its pages. Now the magazine has been around since 1873, but its meteoric rise in the 1980s has come from the very first issue of a single issue, New Yorker, which is truly the leading magazine of its day. My first exposure to the magazine was when I was in college and my professor told us to get the magazine and read every article, and he did! I was hooked. The magazine was that well-organized, the headlines, the captions and the entire article were so memorable, the stories such a shock. There was something so profound about them. The stories, especially the JFK story, were fascinating, often very well-researched and even a bit scary at times, and the scoops were always right on target. The New Yorker has been on a slide downhill for years, going down from the top. The ratings have dwindled, and it has been increasingly geared toward making money for the magazine, which for some reason has been a disaster. The New Yorker has actually been losing subscribers over the last ten years, and the numbers are now down to a respectable 24,000. The magazine seems to have abandoned the original purpose for which it was founded: revealing the secrets of the rich and famous. The magazine has become the most profitable business in the United States, and it has gone the way of the dinosaurs. What a shame. I think that the magazine will continue to change and evolve. It seems like it has given up on its core mission of shining a spotlight on the dark corners of the human heart, and will ultimately be forgotten in the process. I also believe that the magazine will continue to lose more subscribers, and ultimately will cease to exist as an independent institution. I've had a few phone calls from people asking me to watch the film, and I have to say that the film was very informative. In addition to getting an inside look into the magazine's history, it also touches on some very important topics, such as how the magazine has been moved away from the original purpose, and now focusing on its bottom line, instead of the heart and soul of the magazine, which I felt was its original purpose. I also think that it gave an honest portrayal of the magazine, the people who worked in it, and the gossip, and scandal, that made the New Yorker special. If you are a die-hard fan of the magazine, then I think you will love this film.

This is an intriguing documentary, in which the National Enquirer, the tabloid news magazine, gives the account of the most explosive story in the history of the United States. This story, which we know was the inspiration for The Usual Suspects, involves a scorned ex-girlfriend of a celebrity, whose name is never mentioned in the film, and a tabloid newspaper who was told to "get a life" by the star, who in turn was advised to have an affair with the reporter. In the film, the journalist is accompanied by his editor, who is appalled by the affair. The journalist has to deal with the press, and the tabloid, which makes it difficult for him to continue with his investigation. In the end, the tabloid reporter is forced to deal with the tabloid, and it becomes clear that the affair was the catalyst for his downfall. The film is extremely well made. It is interesting to watch the investigative process, with the star and the tabloid, as well as the editor and the journalist. It also provides a great look at the relationship between the tabloids and the press. I really liked this documentary, because it was so well done. I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a good documentary, because it is well made.

This is a great documentary about a newspaper that is more important than the news. It is based on the book, The National Enquirer, by Anthony Shaffer. The documentary is well worth watching. It covers a wide range of subjects including the Enquirer's early days, including a visit to an underground bunker, a visit to the local high school to talk to the principal about the school paper, and their first big scoop. The film is well produced and narrated by Terry Bradshaw. The film is well worth watching.

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.

I have been an avid National Enquirer reader since the late '80s, and I will say that the story of how the magazine got its start is certainly a fascinating one. The major highlights of this documentary are the interviews with National Enquirer founder Joseph Lipscomb and star reporter Harry Ransom. Some of the material is quite funny, but the emphasis on the National Enquirer's origin, and its impact on many people, is important to the story. It is also fascinating to see the magazine's coverage of the sensationalist events of the 1980's, and how that coverage led to the decision of the Enquirer to completely discard its reputation. One of the main themes that emerges from this documentary is the obsession with celebrity gossip. It is clear that the people who were in the National Enquirer back in the day were not very big on the fact that the magazine's news had nothing to do with the news of the day. For example, many of the key figures in the story, such as Hollywood movie mogul William Randolph Hearst, or the National Enquirer's original star reporter Harry Ransom, were in reality a major part of Hollywood. Even the rest of the main cast of the magazine, who were primarily young and attractive, were not allowed to interview the most powerful people in Hollywood, such as William Randolph Hearst. I would like to see how this documentary was received by the people who were around during the National Enquirer's history, but this documentary is definitely worth seeing.

This film is a wonderful opportunity to see how journalism can actually destroy the lives of innocent people. The National Enquirer, which is based in Northern Virginia, is a tabloid newspaper with a very strict editorial policy. The media mogul Paul "Chip" McClellan is the most popular and powerful man in the state. He rules the tabloid with an iron hand. The story of the death of his ex-wife and her subsequent suicide is a tragedy. The trial of the star journalist Alison Parker is just one example of the crimes committed by McClellan and his newspaper. The director, Don Mancini, does an excellent job of capturing the dark and violent atmosphere of the tabloid world. The violence shown in the film is real and very disturbing. The fact that the majority of the victims were African Americans is not mentioned at all in the film. It is shown as a fact of life and does not seem to be a big problem to the media tycoon. The abuse of power shown in the film is not a joke. It is a very real and very important part of our society and the media has no business to do it.

The National Enquirer is a very interesting tabloid that dates back to the 1920s. It has been around since the late 20th century and it is still very popular. It's all about picking up a couple of tabloid stars, either old or new, and running their stories to the paper, usually without the star's permission. The reporters then have an opportunity to run stories that will generate the biggest circulation. The real beauty of the National Enquirer is that it doesn't have to compete with the big dailies, the rest of the papers and the TV news channels. This is a tabloid that focuses on the real celebrities. It is a very unique tabloid and it is fascinating to watch how the Enquirer works. It is interesting to see how the reporters are getting to the celebrities and how the gossip is mixed up. Some of the stories that are ran are quite sensational and the journalists seem to have a lot of fun. This documentary is very interesting and is a must see.

This is an interesting documentary about the National Enquirer. While some of the episodes may be predictable, there are some truly interesting stories and people in the film. The documentary is certainly worth watching. However, it is not enough to make this a good movie. It is quite slow and there is not enough action to keep you interested. However, the film does get better as it goes on. The first half is very slow and boring. However, the film starts to pick up a bit in the second half. The first half is the best part of the film. However, the second half is the weakest part. It is quite hard to sit through the second half. The documentaries does not have the impact it should have. It does not have enough action and the documentaries do not have enough suspense. However, it is still worth watching.

I was completely shocked at the amount of bias in this documentary. I am a long time National Enquirer reader, and I found the portrayals of the magazine and the people involved in it extremely unfair. I don't think that any of the people who were interviewed for this documentary were trying to help the people involved in the story. It was more about trying to make the story look like it was a complete story. This is one of the few documentaries that I have seen that gives a straight face to the National Enquirer. I think it is a very important documentary for everyone to see.

I was really impressed with this documentary. I was in high school when it was being filmed, and I was really shocked at how the story was portrayed in the media. I thought it was very well done, and I think it's an important film. I don't think I've ever seen a documentary that made me feel so much like I was in high school. I think this documentary is a great tool for educating the public on the importance of good journalism and the importance of honesty and integrity. It's great to see how the media can be so corrupt, and how they can use the media to their advantage, and how the media can be used to manipulate the public. I think the media has a lot to answer for, and I hope this documentary gives people an idea of how they can become more aware of this issue.

One of the most powerful and fascinating documentaries I have ever seen. It was so full of facts and it was made so well that you can not understand where this is going or who are the characters. They are just like you, you are wondering what is happening and what happened. It is so well made, I can not say anything about it without giving too much. The interviews with all the people involved, who made this movie, are great. I like the fact that it did not put the National Enquirer on the map and that it did not use a lot of "Hollywood"s methods. I think it is really important to let the public know what is really going on in the world. It does not look like it is a Hollywood movie, it is a true story. I am glad that the movie is out there, I wish more people would see it. If you do not want to know what is really going on, do not see this movie. If you have already seen the movie, and you do not like it, you should watch the documentary again and find out what you can about it. I really recommend it.

There is nothing I like more than a good documentary and I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Although there are a few holes in the narrative, I was glad to see how the investigative reporter kept going and the documentary maker kept at it. I do think it was a bit too close to the truth, but I also don't think it's a documentary. I think that the focus on the tabloid journalists was a bit too close to the truth. And I didn't really like the ending. It was just so abrupt. Overall, it was good and I'd recommend it to anybody who likes documentaries and likes investigative journalism.

I saw this film about two weeks ago. It's a documentary about how the National Enquirer turned into a tabloid (along with a few other publications) and how it evolved into the tabloid it is today. I wasn't expecting much from this film but it was actually pretty good. It was interesting to see how the National Enquirer got its start. I also thought that the main character, Jeffrey Wigand, was really interesting. I thought that he was a really interesting guy. He was also kind of a freak. I thought that he was really weird. I also thought that the director did a really good job of showing how this tabloid got started. He also showed how it changed from just being a tabloid to becoming a mainstream newspaper. Overall, this film was pretty good. It was interesting to see how the National Enquirer came into being and how it evolved into the tabloid it is today.

From the very first moment of the movie, we are inured to the electronic sounds and images, the visuals that appear over and over again. This is really not a movie. The cameras are close ups. People are getting shot, some of them are just running away. Sometimes the angles are so blatantly apparent that it's hard to distinguish who is trying to tell a story and who is just sitting there. It's just a little too late to catch the conspiracy theories that are starting to surface about the movie, but I wouldn't really say there is a conspiracy here. But the really entertaining part is watching the people get shot. There are several different versions of this movie that include bits and pieces from the interviews that are really interesting. And to all the people who said that this movie was filled with lies, I can't disagree more. The movie certainly did use the word "lies" at least once in the movie, and the "Trunews" type interview was used in a lot of the time as well. But the truth about "Who's gonna live, who's gonna die?" is always the same. These are the facts. And the "crackpots" who have these opinions are still running around on TV. It's one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen. It's something that you can watch and learn about something that affects all of us. You can feel the emotions of the people around you when they hear that "crackpot" quote. But as for what this movie is really about, I think it's a little more complicated. Maybe it's a little more of a "post-truth" movie. But I'm still not sure if it's a "post-truth" movie or not. At least I don't think so.

This is a very interesting documentary that shows how the tabloid press is a staple of American life. I think it was a very powerful film and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the role the tabloid press has had in American history. The film is very well shot, the director has done a great job at making it look like a documentary. The film is about the rise of the tabloid press and how it took over the nation's media landscape. I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to understand the role of the tabloid press and how it has shaped American history. I think this film would be a good introduction for people to the idea of the tabloid press.

As a film student, I really enjoyed this film, even though it did not completely explain the story of The National Enquirer. I think this film is great because it presents a realistic and honest view of the tabloid news industry. The people in the movie did a great job, and I think it is very important that people know that it is not easy to get access to the National Enquirer, but also that it is a great job. The producers and directors were very professional in how they presented the story and the way that they portrayed the media. I also think that it is important that people know that there are people who do not like what they see on the news, and that they also like the people who are in it. I think that this film was very accurate, and the way that it was presented was very interesting. Overall, I think that this is a very important documentary about the National Enquirer and it's relationship to the news media. The documentary also shows the importance of reporting the news, but also shows how important the National Enquirer is and how it is different from other news outlets. I would recommend this documentary to anyone who is interested in the National Enquirer.

Good film with lots of facts and figures on tabloid newspapers and TV programs that distort the truth. The film was made in the late 1990s and some of the information is outdated, but it is still an interesting film.

This documentary explores the National Enquirer, the tabloid magazine known for sensational stories, and its parent company, Life magazine. The company has a history of covering celebrities' personal lives. But it was the publisher's brother, William Randolph Hearst, who ran the magazine and the sensational stories. In this documentary, reporter Brian Williams follows the rise and fall of the tabloid and the magazine's parent company, which is now defunct. Williams has a knack for interviewing interesting people, and he shares the story of his interview with Hearst, and his discovery of the magazine. The documentary is a good look at the rise and fall of the magazine and the parent company.

In 1981, the National Enquirer, a tabloid magazine that called itself "America's #1 Dog-Loving Magazine", put out a big scoop about a dog that died of cancer. The man behind the story was Scott White, who became the man behind the Enquirer. What started as a hobby soon became a career, and he started the magazine. Today, the magazine is published in about 5,000 newspapers, and is in the top five newspapers in America. The film was based on the real life, and the documentary is based on the real life of Scott White. It shows that the story of the dog was not as sensational as the magazine claimed. The real story of the Enquirer is much more sensational, and they made the film to make it more dramatic. The film was well made, and shows a very good interview with Scott White. I recommend this film for anyone who is interested in the real life of the Enquirer.

I was fortunate to have attended a Q&A session prior to this movie and was fortunate to hear from a number of the people who worked on this project. The movie is not without flaws and should not be taken seriously as a documentary. However, if one is to compare the documentary to "The Enquirer" then they are likely to find the director to be the same. The movie does make it clear that the subject matter is serious and the film maker did not try to hide from the subject matter. The interviews are engaging and interesting. The film maker is not afraid to tackle a subject matter that is taboo in the entertainment industry. It is interesting that the subjects discussed in the movie were the ones who did not want to be interviewed by the director. This is because they did not want to have their names associated with the film maker. I would also like to point out that the subject matter of the film is not really about the "Enquirer" but rather about the publisher of the Enquirer, Harry Markopolos. The subject matter is still an important one and the people who were interviewed in this film are people who were, for the most part, involved in the publication of the Enquirer. The film maker is not afraid to talk about the publisher of the Enquirer, Mr. Markopolos. This is a good thing because the interviewees did not want to be associated with the film maker. The documentary is very good and should be viewed by people who are interested in the topic of the "Enquirer".

I recently watched this documentary and found it very informative. It was well-balanced and it was filmed in a way that made it feel more like a documentary. I was also impressed with the way that the camera was able to get into the lives of the people featured in the film. I think it was well-acted and well-made, and the music was very fitting to the film. Overall, this documentary is a good film and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about the world of tabloid journalism.

This movie takes a good look at the National Enquirer. The facts in the movie are accurate. The interviews are interesting. The movie is well done. The final version is somewhat confusing as it contains some information that may be erroneous. The movie does show the terrible work of the National Enquirer. However, it also shows the good work that the National Enquirer does. If you enjoy watching movies about the National Enquirer and its' inaccuracies, then this is a must see.

This is an interesting look at the National Enquirer, the "newspaper of record" for tabloid-loving Americans. The first part of the film is very informative and fairly entertaining, and the second part is entertaining and informative, but it's very slow and it never really has much of a plot. There are a lot of segments in the film that do not add much to the story, and a lot of segments that do not make sense. The only thing I liked about this film was the final segment, which I thought was interesting and entertaining. Overall, this is a pretty good documentary, but not the best documentary I have ever seen. I would recommend it to fans of the National Enquirer, but I would not recommend it to those who are interested in the National Enquirer.

I was looking for a film to watch with my husband and we were not disappointed. I was a bit skeptical of the film because it is so controversial, but it really is a very good film. It's very entertaining and it's definitely worth seeing. I think that if you are a fan of the National Enquirer, you should really watch this film. It is really a good documentary about the National Enquirer. It's not a documentary about the Enquirer. The film is very interesting and it's really a good film.

This is the National Enquirer, the ultimate tabloid in America. It's owned by a guy named William Randolph Hearst. Its going to be very hard to have a good film about the National Enquirer without mentioning Hearst. There is not a great deal of context given in this film. It's very much about the founder of the National Enquirer, but I don't feel the film ever delves into the relationship between Hearst and his papers. This film is very much about the investigative journalism that Hearst began. Its about the people who went out and dug up dirt on politicians and journalists. Its about the guys at the National Enquirer who came up with stories that people were afraid to talk about. Its about the journalists who knew that these stories were important and were afraid to say anything about them. The most interesting part of the film is when we hear the stories being told about the people that they dug up dirt on. We learn that these stories were very important to the newspapers, and they gave them a great deal of power. The most important thing in the world was to know the truth. Hearst wanted people to know that the news was always about the big news, and that he was the only one who could tell the truth. The film is worth seeing for that reason alone. However, the film does not go into the newspaper's motivation for digging up dirt on politicians. I have no idea why Hearst was so keen on that. Maybe it was because Hearst believed that the newspapers had a great deal of power, and that Hearst could use that power to get what he wanted. Maybe Hearst wanted to build up his newspapers, but they were in danger of going out of business. This film does not give us the background information on the newspapers' motivation. We know Hearst was a man who knew how to build up newspapers, but we don't know how much of a threat he was to the newspapers' safety. This film, which is very long, is very good at getting the right information about the National Enquirer. The problem is that we don't get the background on Hearst and the newspapers. I felt that the film did a good job of showing the newspaper's motivation. However, there are still holes in the film. For example, the film does not talk about the National Enquirer's relationship with the New York Times. The New York Times wanted to publish the National Enquirer's stories. The New York Times was fearful that the newspapers would go out of business if the newspapers were allowed to publish the stories. The New York Times believed that it had a right to publish the stories because they were one of the few newspapers that were still going strong after the war. It's a story that is worth knowing, but the film leaves it unexplained. The film also doesn't go into the history of Hearst. We don't know what he's like. We don't know why he did what he did. The film doesn't give us the whole story. This is important, because it means that the film is telling the story in a way that you don't know anything about Hearst. It's also important because it allows us to see how the newspapers and Hearst got what they wanted. The film does not give us much insight into the newspapers' motivations, which means that we don't know the newspapers' motivation. It also means that we don't know the newspapers' motivation. I can't say that I feel that the film is really good. I feel that it does a good job of telling the story

I'm glad I decided to see this film on Netflix, and have only two complaints: 1) They showed almost no interviews with the subjects. 2) I wish they showed the actual first article that supposedly "revealed" the fact that this whole tabloid was founded by right-wing, Trump-loving tabloid columnist Max Shachtman. And the other complaint: They used the real names of the subjects in their interviews. In order to keep the movie under the $3-hour limit, they were forced to use only the real names. It wasn't because I didn't know who they were. The only reason I wanted to see this movie is because of Chris Cuomo, and I can't help but wonder if this would have been better if they didn't use the real names. If you're interested in this subject, it's worth seeing.

This is a documentary about the National Enquirer, a tabloid magazine founded by Charles Colson in the 1930s. It's a collection of clips from the magazine's 60-year history, along with news clips from a range of other sources. It's a fascinating look at the magazine's history and its impact on the nation. While it's an entertaining and informative documentary, it's also very serious and manipulative. If you don't like Charles Colson, or you don't like newspapers, this documentary isn't for you. As a documentary about the National Enquirer, it's fairly boring. The clips are largely from the magazine's inception, and they're pretty boring, especially the ones with the Washington Post, and then of course the dozens of unedited clips from the Washington Post itself. But if you're into the National Enquirer, or you're interested in the tabloid world, you should probably give this documentary a look.

This is the kind of documentary that I love, and also think it's very funny. It's not a "gore-fest" like you'd expect in a mainstream documentary, but it does have a light-hearted tone, with a few moments of "stalking" humor. There is also a lot of history and intrigue in the story, and the most interesting part is when you learn what the Enquirer really is, and the power it has over people. The cast is also very good, with quite a few good people you don't see much in the media, but who really have their own story. It also has a good, straight forward, approach to the story. It's really a shame that the cast and crew of this film are not well known. It's a shame, too, that the film is not available on DVD. It would have been nice to have seen more from the director and/or producer. I do recommend this documentary to anyone who loves documentaries, especially those who want to learn more about the Enquirer. 8/10

I was expecting this to be a bit of a topper for what was available in this film. However, this film was a let down. I don't think that the film was even close to the best documentary I have seen. It was very mediocre. The only thing that I could see that was very interesting is the story of his wife. The documentary focused on him and his marriage. It was interesting but for a documentary I would expect much more. There were some graphic images throughout the film that was upsetting to me. I was very shocked to see that his wife was a former model and an actress. I didn't think that it was necessary to show that information. The documentary also showed that he was not a family man. I really did think that the doc was biased toward him. I was very surprised that the documentary didn't do much for me. I was glad that there were some articles published about his wife and that I found out that they were her interview. I think that the doc was very weak and it showed little to no documentary value. I felt like it was just a bunch of facts and some clips of his wife. If you want to see a documentary that will teach you something about the National Enquirer you could do much better than this. Overall, this was a very poor documentary.

This is a must-see documentary about the tabloid publisher and the power he had over people. It shows how tabloids helped build a man's empire and the effect they had on his family and friends. He was a savvy and multi-faceted man, and he knew how to use the power and media to get what he wanted. The documentary focuses on the man's life, from his childhood, to his business successes, to his downfall. There are some incredible stories in here, like how he went to a prostitute, and was able to get the photo of his wife. The documentary is very well done and quite entertaining. It is a great look at the man and the people who were close to him. It's a must see for anyone interested in the man and his rise to power.

This documentary features clips of news stories about the National Enquirer, an all-purpose tabloid magazine. They include news of the death of a prominent political figure, the assassination of JFK, the first-ever death of a child in a news story, and a visit to the World Trade Center with a young girl. This film was made in collaboration with the National Enquirer. I found this to be a fascinating look at the newspaper's story telling and storytelling. The interviews are conducted by Dr. Paul DeJong, an author and journalist who has written several books about the National Enquirer. This film focuses primarily on the early days of the magazine and the transition of the company from a smaller, lower-brow tabloid to a tabloid empire. This documentary features interviews from William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, Fred Friendly, William Randolph Hearst, Richard Scheibe, and Peter Kaplan, a journalist who worked for the National Enquirer. These interviews are fascinating and have a lot of insight into the workings of the National Enquirer. This documentary also features excerpts from the book The Secret Life of Enquirer, a biography of Hearst, and the film "The People Who Killed Kennedy" which was a biopic of John Connally. The documentary also features a lot of interview with the current editor of the National Enquirer, Paul Crupi. I recommend this documentary as it covers the evolution of the magazine and the various scandals and news stories it has covered. I also recommend this documentary for anyone who likes to learn about the world of journalism and news.

This is a wonderful movie that captures the true story behind the famous National Enquirer magazine. I was lucky enough to see it at the Sundance Film Festival. This was a fantastic opportunity to learn more about the magazine and the reasons behind the publication. While some of the other films in the festival were "serious" about the subject, this was lighthearted and fun. The director does an excellent job of portraying the magazine and the way it was used as a marketing tool for the industry. The film itself is really amazing and will give you a good idea of the actual magazine itself. The interviews with the subjects are very informative and enlightening. I would recommend this movie to anyone who loves history, the media, or just a good film. I highly recommend this film and am glad to see it in the theater. It was also very entertaining and exciting to see this documentary in the festival. You can't go wrong with this.

I haven't been able to see a movie in a long time that really worked, "The Untold Story of the National Enquirer" does that. It is a story of how one man from a small town in the country town in New Hampshire, rose to become a national newspaper man, and how his paper made his life completely worth it, and his life was worth it in a way, it made him a real man, instead of being the total fat man who worked for a paper, he was kind of like the Mickey Mouse of the newspaper industry, he had a heart for good news, and his reporters always turned out to be true blue men, and they were a real crew of old school newspaper guys. I really do hope there is a sequel to this, because the story is really good, and the guy who has to talk about all of this should be able to do it. Overall, I really recommend this movie, I really do, and it does the job, because it really does make you believe what really happened in the world of the Enquirer, even though you have to believe it, you still believe it, and it makes you really feel for the people who worked for the National Enquirer, and for the people who worked for this guy. My rating: 9/10.

This documentary has a lot of strong points and some weaknesses. It is generally interesting, and it does well to show how The National Enquirer became so important to our society. But there are also many factual errors and mistakes, some of which are very embarrassing. For example, when I was in high school, The National Enquirer ran an article on my cousin, Kathy Swain, saying that I was promiscuous. She wasn't promiscuous, she was just an attractive girl who got pregnant by a guy who was not interested in her. The article was false, and it was a shame that it was published in the first place. But at the same time, it is not entirely correct that the National Enquirer was the only newspaper to run the article. A couple of other papers also ran the article, and they did not publish the story in the newspaper, they put it on their website. The National Enquirer may have been the first newspaper to run the article, but it was not the first to publish it, and many other newspapers ran it too. The National Enquirer is a good source of information, but there are still many factual errors. If you are looking for something to show your friends, check this out. It is worth seeing.

As a film maker, it is my duty to make a documentary that explains the reasons behind the sensational news that was the National Enquirer. "National Enquirer" is a documentary that takes a look into the tabloid's past and the origin of the tabloid. The movie features interviews with family members of the original newspaper owners, as well as historians and newspaper reporters. The documentary goes into the origins of the tabloid and goes through the mistakes that the tabloid made. It also goes into the subsequent rise of tabloid. The documentary is well worth watching. There is a great amount of information presented in this documentary. For example, you will hear interviews with the first editor of the tabloid, as well as the current editor. You will hear interviews with current and former newspaper employees. You will also hear a great amount of information about how the National Enquirer started. If you are a fan of the National Enquirer, you will be interested in watching this documentary. The documentary itself is entertaining. It is a good introduction to the magazine and how it developed. I would recommend this documentary to anyone who is interested in the National Enquirer.

This is a fine film for anyone who enjoys the "personally thrilling" and "wonderful" type of movie. This is a great film to share with a girlfriend or friend. It shows how the true horrors of journalism can be without being violent or disgusting. The film makers gave us all a snapshot of the works of John L. Jones, the author of the National Enquirer. The movie gives us all an insight into the way that the Enquirer creates and creates things in order to go on the front of the newspapers. I was shocked to find out how much these people were paid and the amount of money they get from their job. The film also shows us how we are all fascinated by the tabloids, with how many different things they are interested in. I can tell you this much, you will love this film.

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.

I have to admit that I was skeptical about watching this documentary. After all, I have no love for the tabloid industry. But it did not take long to realize that the Enquirer was a fascinating, fascinating, fascinating story. I enjoyed the interviews with some of the people involved in the Enquirer. I especially enjoyed hearing from former Enquirer editor in chief Richard L. Sherman. He had a lot to say about the magazine's work. I found it interesting that the Enquirer came to be a conservative publication, which in turn led to the magazine's downfall. It also had a lot to say about the racial politics of the magazine. I was especially interested in hearing from Barbara Lively, who had been an executive at the Enquirer when the magazine was first created. She talked about how the magazine would take on conservative issues such as the war in Vietnam. She also talked about how the magazine would attack the Republican Party. I think that this is a really fascinating documentary. It is not a perfect documentary, but it is a really interesting documentary. It is worth watching.

It was a great movie to see! My friend and I have been searching for a documentary about the National Enquirer for years. We were so excited to see this movie! It is truly a story about how the National Enquirer came to be and how they became the big news organization they are today. I also enjoyed the history of the National Enquirer. I also enjoyed the story of how the Enquirer became what it is today. I also enjoyed the interviews with some of the people that worked on the Enquirer. The National Enquirer was a very big deal in the 1980s and 1990s. I am glad that they did a movie about it. It was a great story and it was very entertaining.

I've been a loyal Enquirer reader for many years, and I'm pleased to say that this documentary, like the magazine itself, was much more than I expected. I think it captures well the energy and determination of the Enquirer, its knack for getting a story that isn't supposed to be popular, and it showcases a variety of personalities from some of the top talent in the business. In the end, it's a very good documentary, and I think it should be watched by anyone who has ever enjoyed the Enquirer, even if it isn't an Enquirer fan. It's one of the best things I've ever seen in the business, and I'm glad that I saw it.

Loved it! All the story, including the incredible inner workings of the Enquirer, and many details about it. The more I watched the more I enjoyed it. Very funny and very informative. I'm also a big fan of the Enquirer. The audience at my screening was laughing and having a great time. Great stuff!

This is an excellent documentary that gives you the inside scoop on the National Enquirer, a tabloid tabloid that is published in the United States. It's about the National Enquirer, and their success in getting their stories published. The documentary is quite informative and interesting. It's a very entertaining documentary, and I highly recommend it.

I found this movie to be quite interesting, and I would recommend it to anyone who loves history or just like to learn more about the tabloid industry. This movie shows the downfall of one of the biggest tabloids of all time. One of the major criticisms I have heard for this movie is that it's too old school and it's hard to follow. Well, I can tell you, that's not true. I found it easy to follow, and that's what I expect from a documentary. I thought the interviews were interesting, and it was a good idea to get people from different sides of the tabloid industry. This was a very interesting film. I think it is an example of a documentary that can be watched by people who don't know a lot about the subject. You could watch it again and again, and you will come to understand what it's like to be a tabloid writer, what people do behind the scenes, and just how much you need to know to be able to enjoy this documentary.

A lot of people have given this documentary a bad review. I think most of the criticism is justified. I don't think this documentary is about the scandal, I think it's about the reporter's struggle with the "Monster" and how the "Monster" was feeding on people. I think the subject matter and the acting in the documentary was pretty good. In the documentary, there is a great amount of video footage of the journalist being interviewed. I thought the documentary did a great job of showing the interview and the discussion between the reporter and the monster. Overall, I think the documentary is pretty good and worth watching.

I don't know what people expected from this movie. I'm not sure it was a documentary or a movie. It was a collection of clips, mostly from the Enquirer, and interviews with the staff and the executives of the tabloid. I liked the way they showed the relationship between the people who worked for the tabloid and the people who worked for the people who owned the tabloid. I thought they did a good job of explaining how the tabloid became what it is today. I think it's important to remember that the tabloid was started by a guy named Joseph Pulitzer, who became a famous journalist, and the staff were basically like his assistants. The staff were hired to do the tabloid, and the executives were hired to do the newspaper. The staff were not in it for the money, and the executives were not in it for the money. The staff were actually hired to do what they were paid to do. I think the movie made a good point about the relationship between the tabloid and the newspaper. It was a nice change of pace from the usual Hollywood movies that try to take the tabloid and turn it into a movie. I liked the movie. I don't think it was a masterpiece, but I liked it. I hope it gets more attention.

In 1995, the National Enquirer published the famous "Body of Lies," a story that alleged that singer Nancy Sinatra's private life had been brutalized by a secret gay lover. The report, which was based on a well-known case file, quickly became a major scandal for the tabloids and a huge ratings bonanza for the cable TV networks. The story of Nancy Sinatra's years-long secret affair with a drugged-up gay man was paraded in front of the nation in front of the cameras and its contents were disseminated throughout the nation. The stories spread like wildfire, and the myth of Sinatra's homosexual life became a kind of spiritual force in the public psyche. If the public could believe the story, there was a kind of justification for not having sex with someone and therefore living a celibate life. The biographical piece by Michael Moore is quite effective in outlining the story and then demolishing the myth of Nancy Sinatra's gay life. Moore has an obvious knack for creating highly provocative documentary style films, but his approach here is somewhat unorthodox, mainly because he keeps the film under the guise of a feature-length documentary. There are no interviews with Sinatra, and Moore does not explain his premise or why he decided to focus on the singer's private life instead of the celebrity gossip columns that the Enquirer was popular in. The biographical piece is not totally successful, but the film is interesting, and Moore does a great job of debunking the myths about Nancy Sinatra's private life.

This is a great film. The plot is simple but the film moves along very well. It's a little slow at the beginning, but after the first hour or so, it gets really interesting. The acting is fantastic. I would say it's not Oscar material, but I also think it's not so bad as many other documentaries that are so great, that they're worth it to watch them. The whole thing is interesting, and it's not just about the Enquirer. It's about the whole industry, the politics, and it's great to see a film about it. Also, if you're into the entertainment side of documentaries, it's a must-see.

The National Enquirer is one of the best newspapers in America. It's well known for its tabloid reporting. It's famous for having its own radio show. And it's famous for being the first tabloid to go after the career of John F. Kennedy. So we are in for a fascinating documentary. The film starts out with the National Enquirer buying up the stories that were printed in The New York Times. The film then shows the increasing aggression towards the newspaper and the National Enquirer. The acting is great from the director and the cast. The film also shows the change that took place with the Enquirer. While the reporters of the newspaper started to become obsessed with the Kennedy story, the Enquirer reporters became obsessed with the story. They started to question the integrity of the newspaper. The movie also shows how the Enquirer became more aggressive. It started to do investigative work on people. And it became a media organization. This is a very good documentary. I highly recommend it.

This film is an excellent portrait of the tabloids of the early 1980s, who, in the words of author Jon Ronson, were "the voice of the American people" at the time. It's about a reporter, David Pegg, who started out as a cub reporter for the tabloid, then moved to the "big leagues" as a full-time investigative reporter, and then became the most powerful man in the country, thanks to his influence with the President. It's about the tabloid's best and worst moments, and the reasons behind them. There are plenty of quotes from the tabloids, and it is fascinating to hear the pundits who are supposedly in the know talk about what went wrong, and what went right. It's also interesting to see the people involved with the tabloids at the time, and how their careers changed. It's a fascinating and entertaining film.

I think I have to write a comment about this documentary, because I am still reeling from the revelations that I was compelled to watch. I don't really know how to begin describing the impact this documentary has had on me, because there are so many different stories that it takes you to each one of them. For me, one of the most poignant moments was when I read about the arrest of Corey Feldman for molesting a 10-year-old girl in Los Angeles, while I was filming this documentary. I was in shock, and then I thought about the countless other celebrities who were abused by them, and it seemed as if the people who were abusing these people were never going to stop. I knew that Corey Feldman was a brave and dedicated man, who gave up his career to care for his family, and when he made this film, I felt that it was his time to say the truth. It was a powerful film, and I encourage anyone who has seen it to buy it, and to see it a few times, because I think you'll find that it will touch you. The film begins with an interview with Corey Feldman, who tells his story, and the story of the Enquirer. The whole movie is centered around him, and his decision to make a documentary on his experience, and his relationship with the Enquirer. The documentary is a must-see, because it shows the story of a man who was a victim, and the powerful impact he has had on people. The film is very well-made, and the actors are all well-known. This documentary is very powerful, and it has affected me in a very deep way, and I encourage you to watch it.

From the beginning, I was impressed by the way this film presented a somewhat unusual and, in some ways, fascinating story. I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but suffice to say that I found the film fascinating from the beginning to the end. The film is very well made, with several interesting settings and the actors are superb. While some of the themes in the film are pretty disturbing, I found the film overall a great success. I especially enjoyed the interviews with several of the key people in the case. The film is well worth seeing.

This movie is a good history lesson about the National Enquirer. I thought it was interesting to see the movie as a biographical film, especially since I had a friend who worked at the Enquirer for years. I thought the movie was well done, and very informative. I was also glad to learn that they have moved on and gotten a new website. I was also glad that they were able to get the current stories on the website. I think they have a very good collection of stories. I think the biggest disappointment was that they didn't tell us more about the people involved. I think it would have been better if they showed more of the story, but I understand that it was a biopic and it had to be as close to the truth as possible. If you like history, you will like this movie.

Based on the book by Tony Ortega, this film does a good job of giving the story of the Enquirer as it was when it first came to life. As it turns out, it wasn't a very good story at all. There were many flaws in the story, but I thought that the acting of the two actresses who played the lead actresses was very good. I especially liked that they portrayed their characters as not trying to be something that they weren't, but instead as people who were normal. In fact, they seemed like normal people. The documentary doesn't make much of the Enquirer's financial troubles, but I think that it could have been made more interesting if they had focused on it more. There was a lot of talk about how "anti-Semitic" the Enquirer was, but I don't think that it really was that anti-Semitic. I think that the movie made it seem like that the Enquirer was all about making money. The idea that the Enquirer would go to such great lengths to get their stories published, was definitely a stretch. What the movie did very well was show how the Enquirer's stories got into print. It showed how the stories were often changed by people in the media and how the stories were actually going to be printed in the Enquirer's paper. The movie was very informative, and I would recommend it to anyone who likes the Enquirer. It was very informative and you wouldn't want to miss any of the interviewees. It was a very good movie that I would recommend to anyone.

Just finished watching this documentary and was absolutely blown away by how it is presented. The research, the interviews and the clips are all superb. While the story is a little predictable in places, the actual documentary is quite interesting and leaves you wondering how it happened, what really happened, what was the motivation for it, etc. As a general rule, documentaries that are very slow and very boring are generally not good ones, but this is not the case with this one. I have to say, the documentary is definitely worth watching, even if it's just for the story and for the interviews. In my opinion, this documentary is a must-see for any person interested in history and for anyone who has had to deal with a very dangerous story.

I had never heard of the National Enquirer until I read a review of the film on television and decided to check it out. I was not disappointed. This is an interesting, albeit very in depth documentary. The film covers the history of the Enquirer, the origins of the magazine and the various people involved with the publication. This is a fascinating and in depth look at how the Enquirer came to be and how it evolved into what it is today. It is well worth watching and provides a good overview of the history of the magazine. I found the film very entertaining and interesting and recommend it to anyone interested in the history of the Enquirer.

Being a big fan of ABC Family's "Young and the Restless," I went to this movie thinking I would get a look into the life of a serial tabloid reporter. I ended up having more fun watching the behind-the-scenes look into the life of the Enquirer than I did reading the paper. The reality was much more interesting than the life of a tabloid reporter. I never thought I would have a chance to see how the Enquirer gets its information, but it was fascinating to see how they used their own sources to spread their venom. The story about the death of Vicki Swallow was pretty much in line with the Enquirer's press releases. The tabloid, as I learned, has a big history of death and destruction. They never mention their past, but it does not seem to have anything to do with their current activities. The movie does show that they are very competitive and will go to any length to be the first to get a story, and they may go after the most hated person in town, as was the case in this case. The movie does not have a whole lot of the "snarky" banter from the Enquirer, but it does have a few. The first interview was with a person who worked for the newspaper when it was very popular. He told them how much they were paid and how many people they had killed. Then, they had an interview with the current editor of the newspaper who explained how he got his job and what made him want to be there. The interview was pretty much in line with what the Enquirer has been doing for years, though it was a little less interesting than the rest of the film. The film did a good job at explaining how the tabloid works. There were some scenes that were a little slow to explain the tabloid's agenda and how it is different from other papers. But it does explain a lot of the gossip and drama of the tabloid. One of the best scenes was the scene with the editor of the newspaper when they tried to explain how they got the stories. He had a history of being on the Enquirer and explaining the stories to his employees. He ended up explaining the story to the director of the film who explained that the Enquirer is trying to reach the audience that would not have read the newspaper. The rest of the interviews were very interesting, especially with some of the people who worked with the tabloid. The interview with the director of the documentary showed that the newspaper has changed over the years, but they have always had the same agenda. The interviews with the reporter, a real estate agent, and the tabloid's editor also did a great job at explaining the tabloid's history. All in all, the documentary was very interesting. I would recommend this to anyone who is a fan of the Enquirer or anyone who likes a little bit of history.

I'm a huge fan of the National Enquirer. I have a few friends who are also avid readers. My mom is also a huge fan. So, naturally, my friends and I were looking forward to seeing this documentary. We were skeptical at first, but as we watched it, we were amazed. We were also very surprised to learn that many of the facts presented in the documentary were untrue. In addition, we found the documentary extremely entertaining and had a lot of laughs. I highly recommend this movie for anyone who enjoys National Enquirer stories and documentaries. It's definitely worth the watch.

A fantastic documentary that will have you asking questions about the "truth" behind tabloid newspapers. The film is about the Enquirer magazine, and how it was founded in the early 1950s by a single man named Joseph Pulitzer. The film follows the magazine's growth from a rag-like tabloid to a magazine that was a national powerhouse in the late 1950s. It's fascinating to see how the magazine went from being a rag to a magazine that was a national powerhouse. The documentary also talks about the changing attitudes toward homosexuality in America, and how the magazine was able to get ahead of its time. The film is a must see for anyone interested in how journalism has changed in the last 50 years. It's a must see for anyone interested in the rise and fall of the tabloid newsmagazine.

The second of a two part documentary film about the National Enquirer, it chronicles the magazine's rise to national prominence and the failures of its founder and namesake David Knight. The second part focuses on Knight's life and legacy, and his involvement in a string of scandals that ended his career, with the ultimate tragedy of his death at the age of 67. The documentary also has interviews with Knight's widow and his son, as well as his widow's friend, as well as other major figures in the magazine world. All of this is combined with a lengthy "making of" segment and some of the more recent National Enquirer scandal stories. The film also includes a few interviews with Knight's critics and those who worked with him, as well as a few actors who worked with Knight. As mentioned in the above, the film is rather slow in pace, and it does not cover many of the important scandals that he helped cover. Nevertheless, it is an important film about a man who was the best at what he did, but did not care about anything else. Knight had a passion for the magazine that never waned, and he devoted his life to it, but he was so enamored with the magazine, and its readership, that he never considered other projects. The final chapter of the film reveals the long process of Knight's death, and the loss of his fortune and empire. In the end, Knight did not live long enough to see his legacy reach its peak, and his legacy died with him.

This film was shot by a National Enquirer employee, so the producers had to find someone to replace him. A good news-story for National Enquirer fans, with some fascinating anecdotes about the Enquirer. But the production values and general tone were very uneven. There are a few scenes that seemed very out of place (which they probably had to add because of budget limitations), and some of the overall tone is very awkward. But overall, the production values were just as strong as the photography, and it's worth watching to see some of the great and bizarre photos that were shot. Worth watching.

I had never heard of the National Enquirer until I saw this movie. I would not recommend it for younger kids, but the movie was very informative and entertaining. It was very graphic in parts, but not too much. I would highly recommend it to anyone that wants to learn about the dark side of the media. I'm not sure I would like it more if I were younger, but I do not think that my kids would be able to handle it. They did not seem to care for the graphic nature of it, which is the same as me.

This is a very interesting documentary. I think it is very well done, and I thought it was very well done. I do agree with some of the points of the critics, but I think it is worth the viewing. I would recommend this to people who are looking for an alternative to the mainstream media. I do not think that this is a documentary that will make you happy, but it is a very good documentary and I think people should see it, at least once. I think the documentary is very well made and the actors are very good. I thought that the interview with Roger Stone, the one with the real Roger Stone, was very interesting. The interviews with the real Roger Stone were very interesting as well. This is a very good documentary.

I am a big fan of Enquirer magazines. They were my favorite magazines growing up. I was a big fan of the woman who ran the magazine, and it was a great honor to work with her. I was lucky to be able to meet the woman when I was doing my film, and I learned a lot from her. I have read all the Enquirer stories, and they are very interesting. I was impressed with how many people were willing to talk about the scandal. I think the best part of the documentary is the interviews with people who were involved in the scandal, and the reason they were involved. I think it was the most important part of the documentary. If you have never read the Enquirer, you will be surprised at how many people were involved. There are many good things about the documentary. The interviews with the people who were involved in the scandal, and the interviews with the people who worked on the Enquirer, were very interesting. The documentaries did not paint a perfect picture of the scandal, but it is the best way to show the scandal. I would recommend this documentary to anyone who has ever worked in an office, or who has ever worked for a magazine. It is a very important documentary, and I would recommend it to anyone.

I'm going to skip the details, because it's not important to me. What I want to say is that I liked the film. Not a great film, but a very good one. I think this is a very entertaining movie that will keep you on the edge of your seat. The interviews are good, the movie was well done. If you are looking for a great movie, this is it. If you are looking for a really good movie, this is it. For me, I'm giving it a 7 out of 10. This is a good movie, but it's not great. 7/10

I watched this movie recently and I had a few questions, so I watched the film again and it was a lot better. I think the director did a good job in bringing the whole story to the screen. It was interesting how the film was filmed, and the director used a lot of different angles and camera angles to help the viewer understand the story. It's a movie that was made to get you to think, and that's what it did. It helped me understand the story, but at the same time it also made me laugh, cry, and have a good time. I really enjoyed this movie, and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in reading the story behind the Enquirer. It was a good movie, and it's worth a watch.

I am a student of the American Revolution and I am proud to be an American. This documentary was extremely well done. The fact that it was based on real people who actually had a hand in the war is amazing. I would recommend this documentary to anyone. It is a must see for anyone who has ever been a part of the American Revolution. The documentary does a great job of showing the hard work and dedication of the men who were willing to go to battle and risked their lives to bring freedom to America. It is a great documentary to show people about the American Revolution and the true story of the National Enquirer.

The true story of how this tabloid newspaper managed to write about a rock star getting killed by his girlfriend, at the time the rock star was an Oscar winning actress. The documentary follows in the footsteps of the rock star. And the results are startling. This is a must see for everyone who is a fan of the legendary rock star, Muddy Waters.

I am an avid Star Trek fan. So I have seen a lot of the movies. This one is just okay. I think I can also say this for the new Star Trek movie. This one was okay. The only one that was better than this one was The Godfather. I don't know why this one was better. I think they took a little bit from the first one and the second one. The story was okay. The acting was good. The special effects were good. I think they got the best one out of all of them. I am giving it an 8/10.

I found this movie to be one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It really gets to you and shows you what the Enquirer really does. The stories are very well done and are very interesting. It really shows you the kind of people they are and the kind of stories they tell. They are very negative and very disgusting. The interviews with the people they interview are very interesting. They tell you stories about what they are really like. They talk about the ways they are being attacked by the media and how they try to defend themselves. It's very interesting and they really show you the kind of people they are and the kind of stories they tell. It's really a very good documentary. It really gets to you and it shows you what the Enquirer really does.

This film is a fictionalized account of the National Enquirer, which is a fictionalized version of the National Enquirer, as seen through the eyes of investigative reporter David Cay Johnston. A man named Charles Carreon (played by Brian Flemming) created the National Enquirer, which started out as a tabloid tabloid, and was later sold to the big media conglomerates. He became a millionaire by the 1980s, and was married to a beautiful woman named Carla (played by Rachel Weisz), but his wife's family was murdered in a house fire. He became the tabloid's owner, and began publishing stories about the "unlikely" people who died in mysterious circumstances. From there, he became known for the "Carries", which are all of the people who died. This film is about Carreon, and what he does with the stories. The documentary tells his story, how he became the owner of the National Enquirer, and how he became famous for the "Carries". The film is also about the people who died, and how they died. The film is very entertaining, with some very funny moments. It is very interesting to see what the "carries" are like, and how they die. The documentary also tells how the big media conglomerates became the major players in the media industry. This film is very entertaining, and well done. The film is very well made, and the film is well done. I enjoyed this documentary, and I highly recommend it. This film is worth seeing.

The movie is beautifully shot, it was a pleasure to watch the film, it was a very informative film and I would recommend it to anyone.

It's not that this is a bad movie. It's just a good movie. It's a lot of fun to watch the guys who are in charge of all the evil stuff in the movie. It's a good laugh. There's a lot of gore, some of it actually makes sense and it's kind of cool to see the inner workings of a newspaper. It's a really fun movie.

This documentary is very informative and well presented. I did not think it was boring, as many other documentaries have been. The two main characters, David and Helen, are well portrayed. They seem like real people who are committed to doing the right thing. It is not a documentary about them but about their family. I think it is very important to show the people behind the Enquirer. They are a lot more interesting and interesting than the journalists themselves. They are responsible for their actions, and it is good that they have admitted their mistakes. It is good to know that the Enquirer is just a side business of a man who is guilty of some very serious crimes. David is a very funny and funny guy. He is probably one of the most creative and funny people I have ever met. Helen is the complete opposite. She is a complete idiot. I think it is important to know what really happened at the Enquirer. I think it is very important to know how the Enquirer has become what it is today. It is an example of how people can go to extreme lengths to make money. It is a very sad and sad story and I think it is a very important story to tell.

This documentary was very interesting. There was not much new information in it. It was mostly from the past and the present. But the part that was new was the part of how the National Enquirer became what it is today. This documentary showed how they became the most famous tabloid in the world. It's kind of like a time capsule for today. The first thing that I noticed was the fact that there were multiple takes of each interview. I mean they were multiple takes of each interview. It was like they were just recording and recording again. There were many clips of different interviews from other people. I'm assuming that they were taking the footage in order to do a book on the Enquirer. It's kind of like a how-to guide to the Enquirer. I would recommend this documentary to anyone who likes to learn about the Enquirer.

We've all seen the news reports about this terrible scandal in the late 70's/early 80's. The National Enquirer, a tabloid newspaper that ran long articles on celebrities and then after the story broke would print some of the tabloids of the day, including some of the biggest names in the business, such as Hunter S. Thompson. The film was an investigation into this sensational scandal, looking at the fact that the magazine was based in Miami and was actually owned by a man named Charles Gannon, who was actually the nephew of the publisher of the magazine. They did a pretty good job of showing the era and how people in the business felt about this scandal. I really enjoyed the fact that the film went into detail about the magazine's founder and the sensationalism of it all, like how he was very secretive about his own life and wasn't really happy with how his magazine was changing and was upset with the way he treated his editor. It was also interesting to hear the reaction of people in the business to this scandal, like how he had a lot of respect and was a very charismatic and sexy guy. I really enjoyed the fact that this film was a historical document and not a documentary, because it's just so interesting to watch and learn about this scandal.

This is not a documentary, as the title suggests, and it's not a look into the Enquirer itself, either. It's more of a look at the rise and fall of the tabloid tabloid. The documentary is on the quality of the print version of the Enquirer, but you could do worse if you wanted to watch a documentary about a tabloid newspaper. This is a look at the women who ran the Enquirer from 1969 to 1999, and how they were successful. There are a lot of interviews, but the interviews are only briefly mentioned, and they're only interesting when the women talk about how they met, how they became employees, and how they became the business. I'm not a big fan of tabloid newspapers. I find it hard to relate to them. I'm not a fan of tabloid newspapers at all. However, I found this documentary interesting because it's a look at the people who ran the tabloid newspaper. They tell their stories, and you can tell that they've had some tough times. And when they talk about how they're getting more publicity, you can tell that they're feeling the pressure. They're scared. It's kind of depressing, because it makes you think, "Why would anybody want to go on this journey? What's the point?" This is one of those documentaries where it's more interesting to listen to the interviewees, and hear what they have to say. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who's not a fan of tabloid newspapers. There's no real story, and it's not that entertaining. It's not that bad, but it's not good.

The National Enquirer was a tabloid news magazine, and the movie is based on the magazine. The film covers the magazine's success and controversies. It's a very interesting and informative movie about the magazine. I was interested in the movie because of the magazine's coverage of the Kennedy assassination, and the director's ability to portray the magazine in a fair and balanced way.

This film is a fascinating look at the Enquirer, a tabloid magazine with a big reputation for its scandalous stories. We see how the magazine's reporters were responsible for exposing the JFK assassination and the Watergate scandal. They were also responsible for exposing the lives of numerous celebrities in the 1970s. The film also shows how the magazine was able to cover both sides of the political spectrum, including the far left and the far right. The movie also provides some insight into how the Enquirer came to be, how it grew into a massive tabloid, and how it changed into a tabloid that covered both the left and the right. The film is well done, and the acting is fantastic. There are several great performances from the cast, especially from James Woods. The film is a must see.