In this visual essay style documentary, intimate audio of journalist Michael Azerrad's interviews with Kurt Cobain is played over more recently photographed footage of Cobain's Washington state homes and haunts.
"Nirvana headlining at Reading in 1992 was something you had to see, and if you didn't see it then it was something you pretended you saw." --Kerrang (October 2003) "The staggering energy ... See full summary »
Nick Broomfield's second documentary on Aileen Carol Wuornos, a highway prostitute who was executed in 2002 for killing six men in the state of Florida. This second installment includes the filmmaker's testimony at Wournous's trial.
15 years after his classic documentary "The Leader, His Driver, and the Driver's Wife", Nick Broomfield examines the history of the far-right AWB and its leader Eugene Terre'Blanche and ... See full summary »
F.W. de Klerk,
After rocker Kurt Cobain's death, ruled a suicide, a film crew arrives in Seattle to make a documentary. Director Nick Broomfield talks to lots of people: Cobain's aunt who provides home movies and recordings, the estranged father of Cobain's widow Courtney Love, an L.A. private investigator who worked for Love, a nanny for Kurt and Courtney's child, friends and lovers of both, and others. Although Love won't talk to him and his inquiries lose him financial backing, he comes to believe the coroner's verdict. Portraits emerge: a shy, slight Kurt, weary of touring, embarrassed by fame, hooked on heroin; an out-going Courtney, dramatic, controlling, moving from groupie to star. Written by
This 'documentary' made me angry. I didn't bother seeing it when it came out as it got such bad reviews. I saw it on tv a coupla weeks ago and wasn't expecting much but got even less. I give it minus infinity out of 10. The moment Dick Broomfield appeared on screen, I wanted to punch him, and I'm not a violent person. I would say he was slimy, but that kind of implies deviousness and he's not intellegent enough to be devious. What was the point of this 'documentary'? Huh Dick? You wanted to make an easy buck out of the Kurt/Courtney story without knowing anything about anything or having any intellegent questions, any new info (or any info at all), any correct info, or any personal scope or objective whatsoever.
Please excuse my rantings, but it is all too fresh in my memory. To give a few examples of why u don't want to see this, here's what some of the scenes are like:
* 2 minutes of road, shot from inside a car driving to KC's old house, to a background tape of some guy K used to know's current band. When he gets to the house he says 'This is Kurts' old house' and drives off again. We get no background info or commentry during these overlong shots. It is a just a house. It is not interesting.
*Dick walks into a lottery state building that KC used to live OPPOSITE, for godsake. The woman at front desk says 'get out' and calls security. End scene. What were they gonna ask these people anyway? How could he get away with putting this kinda stuff in the film? Did they forget to edit it? Oh, hang on, if they edited out the bad bits, it wouldn't even exist.
*A scene of Dick meeting with 'stalkerazzi' to try and get a glimpe of CL. They do not get to talk to her, she walks past, and you see a shot of them fidgeting like pathetic school boys saying 'You ask her', 'No, you' etc. They are pathetic beyond words.
*The only intellegable interviewee is one of KC's aunts, but she irritated me too much. CL's dad is a d***, who (can u believe) actually implies she could have had something to do with plotting to murder KC. He also uses the opportunity to plug his book. All others willing to talk were mostly people who knew the couple vaguely, or knew someone who knew them vaguely..
The only scene I liked, was of Dick on the phone to his sponsers, telling him they were cutting of his funding. Haha.
Do not watch unless you want to make yourself really angry
10 of 17 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?