Cover-Up (2025)

The review finds the documentary scintillating and worthy of Seymour Hersh, though its fast pace can feel overwhelming. It praises Hersh’s vivid personality and the filmmakers’ skillful use of his source materials and archival footage.

Shaffer sees the film as a sweeping, tempered tribute to investigative journalism and its continuing importance. He praises the filmmakers’ respectful, evidence-grounded portrayal of Hersh’s reporting and its landmark revelations.

Ide finds the documentary a compelling and inspiring portrait of Seymour Hersh. She praises its attention to his tenacious investigations and to journalism’s power to shape history and policy.

Ehrlich calls the documentary brilliant, damning, and urgently relevant in connecting decades of American wrongdoing. He praises its archival material and its use of Seymour Hersh’s reporting to reveal recurring patterns of concealment.

The review calls the documentary a vital reminder of investigative journalism’s importance and a thrilling watch. It praises Hersh’s willingness to confront disturbing truths, while noting the film does not fully explore tensions between him and the filmmakers.

Linden finds the documentary exhilarating and an urgent reminder of the value of informed dissent, though its later sections sometimes feel equivocal. She especially praises its treatment of Hersh’s My Lai reporting and the first-person testimony about Abu Ghraib.

Gleiberman finds the documentary enthralling and argues that fearless investigative reporting remains essential. He praises its account of how Hersh uncovered the My Lai massacre and other stories despite institutional resistance.

Bradshaw presents the documentary as a compelling portrait of a dogged, nonconformist journalist. He praises Hersh’s shoe-leather reporting and willingness to challenge powerful institutions.

The review presents the film as a fascinating portrait of journalist Seymour Hersh. It praises its account of his reporting on Vietnam, Watergate and Abu Ghraib.

The review is positive but acknowledges the film’s nostalgia and limits, finding that it renews belief in journalism’s power to expose wrongdoing. It praises Poitras’s interviewing and the documentary’s evocative use of Hersh’s reporting materials and archival images.

The page appears to be a review of the specified film, but its verdict cannot be determined from the accessible content. No specific praise or criticism is available to summarize.

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. Any specific praise or criticism is likewise unknown.

The critic finds the documentary riveting and insightful, while acknowledging that some viewers may find Hersh’s answers about anonymous sources incomplete. The film’s probing portrait of his reporting methods and the tension around his notebooks stand out for praise.

The review finds the documentary incomplete but powerful in exposing the failings of US journalism. It praises Hersh’s compelling presence and the film’s use of archival footage to illuminate the stories he investigated.

The critic finds the documentary absorbing and valuable, though at times pulled between its directors’ perspectives. They praise it most when Poitras challenges Hersh and probes his blind spots.