Weiner (2016)

Kohn calls the documentary a genre-defining portrait of a political campaign and a media-driven fall from grace. He singles out its extraordinary access and the tense silences that reveal the fallout for Huma Abedin.

Murray finds the documentary valuable for capturing political frenzy and exposing the media’s priorities. He especially praises its intimate access to the campaign and its revealing contrast between public appearances and behind-the-scenes footage.

Bakare finds the documentary riveting, portraying it as a political tragedy with surreal comic turns. He especially praises the filmmakers’ extraordinary access to Weiner and his family.

Rothkopf gives the documentary a strongly positive verdict. Its fly-on-the-wall portrait of Weiner’s mayoral campaign and political comeback is the central focus singled out.

The review treats the documentary as a compelling portrait of a political campaign unraveling. It singles out the filmmakers’ close access to Anthony Weiner and his campaign.

The critic finds the documentary invigorating and expertly told, despite its limited insight into Weiner’s psyche. They especially praise the filmmakers’ access, which makes the campaign’s collapse gripping to watch.

Goldstein finds the documentary absorbing, entertaining and riveting, while noting it offers little deep examination of Weiner’s psychology. He praises the film’s all-access, fly-on-the-wall coverage of the chaotic campaign and its rising tension.

The review finds the documentary dramatically compelling and troubling, with Weiner’s political rise making his eventual collapse all the more striking. It singles out the intimate access to Weiner and Abedin, especially the painfully tense moments between them.

Singer finds the documentary vastly entertaining but not fully enlightening, and questions whether its focus on Weiner limits its political insight. The review praises the filmmakers’ remarkable access and the editing’s deft changes of pace.

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. Its praise or complaints cannot be verified from the supplied content.

Berkshire finds the documentary rollicking and never dull, but ultimately frustrating and mainly of interest to political enthusiasts. He praises its unusually intimate access to the campaign while faulting it for leaving the most compelling questions unanswered.

Gray finds the documentary compelling as a sideshow but says it never develops a greater purpose. He criticizes its familiar media criticism and says the filmmakers miss chances to probe Weiner’s addiction to attention and winning the news cycle.

Edelstein finds the documentary provocative and sobering, but also an uncomfortable spectacle of collective voyeurism. He particularly praises its uncanny behind-the-scenes access and the revealing scenes between Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin.

Chen gives the documentary a strongly positive review, praising its revealing behind-the-scenes footage. He says it humanizes Anthony Weiner and prompts reflection on reactions to public scandal.

Wilkinson finds the documentary dynamic and fascinating, with a grudging respect for Weiner’s audacity. She especially praises its immersive access to Weiner and the media circus around him.

Colburn finds the documentary compelling and politically resonant, while leaving viewers to decide whether Weiner deserves sympathy or distrust. He singles out the candid access to private campaign and marital turmoil as its strength.

The critic finds the documentary fascinating and entertaining, despite the ugliness of Weiner’s scandal. They praise the directors’ remarkable access, which captures the campaign’s emotional highs and lows.

Goldberg finds the documentary a limp, wasted opportunity that offers no deeper perspective on Weiner or the scandal. He criticizes its failure to provide personal or political context, despite the dramatic turn in the campaign.