This, THIS utter piece of junk, slapped together and lacking anything close to coherence, this was supposed to blow the lid off of some conspiracy about Cobain's death? I cannot believe anybody gives credence to something this lacking in any evidence, real interviews, or some semblance of anything above tabloid schlock. Okay, actually, tabloids do much better work.
Here's what they've dug up.
In the end the movie makes no claims at all, which is for the best since there's really nothing but a lot of 3rd hand chatter and noise. The filmmaker asks no real questions, does no real research, does no real editing and makes no real claims. The musical choices are bland, drab, and perfectly fit the endless blank-wall pallor of the film (except the live bands add a little flavor). The only real info is very clear evidence that Courtney is probably a relentless bitch that few people probably liked before she got rich and that nobody likes now, although many people fear her. Then again, is that really news to anybody? The movie is more about the attempts to stop the movie from being made, but given what he accomplished while he was working Courtney need not have feared it so much. I understand that he lost financial backing, but even if he had a million dollars it doesn't look like he was capable of using it to get any any information justifying the expense. There's not one interview with Nirvana, no people who knew the couple at the end of his life (well, nobody who can speak in more than vague, spaced out phrases), no ex-handlers, no Evan Dando, no Eric, no nothing. Since I'm an information junkie I have never before actually said "yeah, pull the funding on that documentary," but there's a first time for everything.
Someone in an earlier review said they couldn't understand why Nick Broomfield's work is unavailable in the US. Well, I think I can answer that question.
Here's what they've dug up.
- family members who don't like Courtney (and who she doesn't like), who haven't seen her in years, using Courtney's fame to aggrandize themselves and make a lot of baseless charges. Both her father and stepfather think she killed Kurt; of course, neither has spoken to her in a decade. Her stepdad actually pulls a poem out that she wrote when she was maybe 14 and says that it's proof that even then she was going to kill a rich husband.
- friends and supposed friends who tell self-conflicting stories about Kurt being suicidal, Kurt not being suicidal, Courtney being a harpy, Courtney being a good partner for Kurt.
- The infamous El Duce (of the Mentors) interview, where he does back up his claim that Courtney offered him $50,000 to kill Kurt. His specifics aren't anything more than what could be pulled from any newspaper story on Kurt. His death shortly thereafter looks less like a Courtney-orchestrated hit than the inevitable death of a doomed nihilist (see G.G. Allin).
- Paparrazzi who are supposed to be so smooth and jump Courtney to ask her questions, but who are so inept that the battery on their camera runs out while they film themselves buying soda outside her studio. Then they catch her at the ACLU dinner and ask her wimpy little questions about her new record and get all giggly, and are too "overwhelmed at the moment" to ask her any questions of importance.
- The private investigator hired by Courtney to "find" Curt who now believes that she had him killed, but who has nothing supporting his claim, only vaguely polished reasons why Curt could not possibly have been able to kill himself. Which are then easily refuted.
- Numerous interviews with either stoned or simply stupid acquaintances whose concept of answering an open-ended question is by saying, "Yeah................yeah man, I think so." The surprise final interview with the Cobains' nanny is scintillating: we learn she had to leave because she hated it up there; that Kurt was a loving father, but Courtney wouldn't let him love Francis Bean as much as he wanted; that Curt seemed really unhappy and wanted to get away. That's it, that's the big insight from someone who was on the inside. Wow, brilliant work there.
In the end the movie makes no claims at all, which is for the best since there's really nothing but a lot of 3rd hand chatter and noise. The filmmaker asks no real questions, does no real research, does no real editing and makes no real claims. The musical choices are bland, drab, and perfectly fit the endless blank-wall pallor of the film (except the live bands add a little flavor). The only real info is very clear evidence that Courtney is probably a relentless bitch that few people probably liked before she got rich and that nobody likes now, although many people fear her. Then again, is that really news to anybody? The movie is more about the attempts to stop the movie from being made, but given what he accomplished while he was working Courtney need not have feared it so much. I understand that he lost financial backing, but even if he had a million dollars it doesn't look like he was capable of using it to get any any information justifying the expense. There's not one interview with Nirvana, no people who knew the couple at the end of his life (well, nobody who can speak in more than vague, spaced out phrases), no ex-handlers, no Evan Dando, no Eric, no nothing. Since I'm an information junkie I have never before actually said "yeah, pull the funding on that documentary," but there's a first time for everything.
Someone in an earlier review said they couldn't understand why Nick Broomfield's work is unavailable in the US. Well, I think I can answer that question.