What's the worst documentary you've ever seen?
- Thread starter fu-pow
- Start date
Aristocrats was disappointing, I rather chew on tin foil than listen to Carlin pretentiously define "funny" again.
As to the question, the best documentaries don't take a position, they reveal.
If they do take sides, they do so in a nuanced way. For this reason, IMHO, anything Michael Moore does, "Roger and Me" excluded, is sub standard. I find his film making manipulative and at times insulting. (and I am no neo-con)
As to the question, the best documentaries don't take a position, they reveal.
If they do take sides, they do so in a nuanced way. For this reason, IMHO, anything Michael Moore does, "Roger and Me" excluded, is sub standard. I find his film making manipulative and at times insulting. (and I am no neo-con)
FlintMI
Well-known member
anti-Moore stuff ranks down in the bottom
anti-Moore stuff ranks down in the bottom
Wow that's a tough one. Generally if you are watching one you are most likely interested in the subject matter, so even if its bad, you'll still probably enjoy it to a point.
There have been a few PBS docs lately that are very bad because they are just telling the obvious stories and are not digging very deep. Also, if its really that bad, it's likely to not get distributed to theaters, whereas bad drama and action movies pass because you can check your brain at the door.
Michael Moore Hates America coulda been an objective look at the world's most successful documentary filmmaker, but the title doomed it. Comedy Central ripped the heck outta the director, which didn't help him much. He also failed to notice the deep sarcasm in Moore's own comments with respect to the film such as "I've been waiting to see this movie."
Within that vein, and I hate to give this movie any publicity, is another one called Shooting Michael Moore directed by a bitter former friend of his still stuck back in Davison (Moore's childhood hometown). It is so devoid of any originality that the director could have brought to the table with the kind of insider info he had. Shame. Instead it is replete with silliness and faked drama which makes you realize just how special Roger & Me was to come out of the same area.
I will offer most underrated and should be household titles:
1. The N-Word
2. The Weather Underground
3. Times of Harvey Milk
Brian Singer's next film is about #3...
anti-Moore stuff ranks down in the bottom
Wow that's a tough one. Generally if you are watching one you are most likely interested in the subject matter, so even if its bad, you'll still probably enjoy it to a point.
There have been a few PBS docs lately that are very bad because they are just telling the obvious stories and are not digging very deep. Also, if its really that bad, it's likely to not get distributed to theaters, whereas bad drama and action movies pass because you can check your brain at the door.
Michael Moore Hates America coulda been an objective look at the world's most successful documentary filmmaker, but the title doomed it. Comedy Central ripped the heck outta the director, which didn't help him much. He also failed to notice the deep sarcasm in Moore's own comments with respect to the film such as "I've been waiting to see this movie."
Within that vein, and I hate to give this movie any publicity, is another one called Shooting Michael Moore directed by a bitter former friend of his still stuck back in Davison (Moore's childhood hometown). It is so devoid of any originality that the director could have brought to the table with the kind of insider info he had. Shame. Instead it is replete with silliness and faked drama which makes you realize just how special Roger & Me was to come out of the same area.
I will offer most underrated and should be household titles:
1. The N-Word
2. The Weather Underground
3. Times of Harvey Milk
Brian Singer's next film is about #3...
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Blaine said:I could answer that, but I just don't feel like starting a war...rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
You ain't kidding Blaine
valdez
Active member
Thats tough,
So many that aren't horrible but I just don't agree much with the subject or how they were made. Thats what makes em so hard to talk about here. I agree, on MM, I once loved his stuff, but now it's pretty cheesy and I'm tired of it.
Letsee, though. Ok I'll give my list that will earn me lots of enemies:
firstly "Dogtown and Z-Boys" was really annoying a bad doc that was so hyped and could have been great. Looked to me like an art student with thier first weekend with Imovie edited the thing; all the cheesy shaky cam interviews and color changing crap, and that great super-8 footage that always cuts away to interviews when it gets interesting. Better suited as a VH1 special if you ask me, but there was too much money to be made in theaters.
I'm biased about "Stevie" because I had to work at the post house that transfered thier s-16 to HD for the final edit, and the producers, crew were really pretentious and annoying. In every shot he (Director Steve James) must stand in the room over the subjects and pontificate his big city wisdom, he'll never sit with them respectfully. Ultimately he's trying to convince us that he did this great thing helping this guy out, when the guy is truly a messed up child molester and can't be fixed by a poignant doc film about him. A self serving mess. Hoop dreams was manipulative but undeniably good.
Same thing with Buena Vista Social Club. Great subject and filmmaking, but another story hinging on the theme of "a famous white guy goes and helps out some backwards unknowns to get famous and a famous filmmaker takes a big crew to document it and give some more credit to said white guy". Patronizing and not ok to me.
Same thing tenfold with "Born into Brothels" Saw it with Q and A and the Director when it ran the festivals a few years back and it's a total tearjerker about really cute poor kids that this snotty photographer gives cameras to in Calcutta. She then tells the story of how they're extra special talented and how she single handedly pulls them from poverty and shows the world thier greatness. A movie about how great she is, really, that never adresses the real problem there and the fact that you can grab any other of millions of repressed hungry adorable kids there and they'd take great pictures if they had a camera in Calcutta. More MTV editing to make bad camerawork look good, and cut around the fact that she doesn't actually speak Hindi and never really speaks directly to the kids. Won the hearts of millions and looks great on her resume, but didn't actually do **** for the millions of other poor kids in India since it's just a movie about her.
There are many other bad ones for more obvious reasons, but those are the big overrated ones that bug me most.
Didn't see the aristocrats but it seemed like it'd get old after about 45 min. so I skipped it.
So many that aren't horrible but I just don't agree much with the subject or how they were made. Thats what makes em so hard to talk about here. I agree, on MM, I once loved his stuff, but now it's pretty cheesy and I'm tired of it.
Letsee, though. Ok I'll give my list that will earn me lots of enemies:
firstly "Dogtown and Z-Boys" was really annoying a bad doc that was so hyped and could have been great. Looked to me like an art student with thier first weekend with Imovie edited the thing; all the cheesy shaky cam interviews and color changing crap, and that great super-8 footage that always cuts away to interviews when it gets interesting. Better suited as a VH1 special if you ask me, but there was too much money to be made in theaters.
I'm biased about "Stevie" because I had to work at the post house that transfered thier s-16 to HD for the final edit, and the producers, crew were really pretentious and annoying. In every shot he (Director Steve James) must stand in the room over the subjects and pontificate his big city wisdom, he'll never sit with them respectfully. Ultimately he's trying to convince us that he did this great thing helping this guy out, when the guy is truly a messed up child molester and can't be fixed by a poignant doc film about him. A self serving mess. Hoop dreams was manipulative but undeniably good.
Same thing with Buena Vista Social Club. Great subject and filmmaking, but another story hinging on the theme of "a famous white guy goes and helps out some backwards unknowns to get famous and a famous filmmaker takes a big crew to document it and give some more credit to said white guy". Patronizing and not ok to me.
Same thing tenfold with "Born into Brothels" Saw it with Q and A and the Director when it ran the festivals a few years back and it's a total tearjerker about really cute poor kids that this snotty photographer gives cameras to in Calcutta. She then tells the story of how they're extra special talented and how she single handedly pulls them from poverty and shows the world thier greatness. A movie about how great she is, really, that never adresses the real problem there and the fact that you can grab any other of millions of repressed hungry adorable kids there and they'd take great pictures if they had a camera in Calcutta. More MTV editing to make bad camerawork look good, and cut around the fact that she doesn't actually speak Hindi and never really speaks directly to the kids. Won the hearts of millions and looks great on her resume, but didn't actually do **** for the millions of other poor kids in India since it's just a movie about her.
There are many other bad ones for more obvious reasons, but those are the big overrated ones that bug me most.
Didn't see the aristocrats but it seemed like it'd get old after about 45 min. so I skipped it.
bustak
Well-known member
anything from Nick Broomfield. "Grizzly Man" was pretty bad too.
"Stevie" is one of my favorite documentaries, what valdez mentions above about Steven James is VERY dis-heartening to me. But now thinking about it, Steven James did seem distant to his subject, but I think the fact that he didn't maintain contact with Stevie for years, show's that he didn't want to get too close to him. Also I'm sure the fact that Steven James had children of his own, it really freaked him out that this guys was a child molester! So I think it's interesting that Steven James put himself in this movie, displaying his discomfort with his subject.
I just watched "Born into Brothels" for a 2nd time last night & loved it. The thing that amazed me is the English photographer has been going to that part of Calcutta for years, but really didn't speak the language! I'm a monkey when it comes to foreign languages, but after 3.5 months in China, I was able to pick up a bit of Chinese, & that's a crazy a$$ tonal language!!
"Stevie" is one of my favorite documentaries, what valdez mentions above about Steven James is VERY dis-heartening to me. But now thinking about it, Steven James did seem distant to his subject, but I think the fact that he didn't maintain contact with Stevie for years, show's that he didn't want to get too close to him. Also I'm sure the fact that Steven James had children of his own, it really freaked him out that this guys was a child molester! So I think it's interesting that Steven James put himself in this movie, displaying his discomfort with his subject.
I just watched "Born into Brothels" for a 2nd time last night & loved it. The thing that amazed me is the English photographer has been going to that part of Calcutta for years, but really didn't speak the language! I'm a monkey when it comes to foreign languages, but after 3.5 months in China, I was able to pick up a bit of Chinese, & that's a crazy a$$ tonal language!!
Last edited:
hawkmankt
Active member
Valdez??? I love "Stevie" (even own a copy) and I really felt more like Steve James felt like a real turd after leaving that boy alone and going off to start his own family/live his own life. Just my opinion.
Okay, well "The Aristocrats" does indeed suck and was indeed way over hyped. So was "American Pimp". In addition, while I enjoyed and became emotionally involved in "Farenheit 911", I also realize it is hardly a documentary in the true sense of the word.
Okay, well "The Aristocrats" does indeed suck and was indeed way over hyped. So was "American Pimp". In addition, while I enjoyed and became emotionally involved in "Farenheit 911", I also realize it is hardly a documentary in the true sense of the word.
valdez
Active member
LIke I said, I'm unfairly biased. It was well produced.
I just despised James himself after having to work on it with them and the last version I saw of it was like 3.5 hrs so I imagine the final one was pretty different. Very pretentious and they didn't really care much for the guy in reality from the way they talked about it. Maybe I should rent it now and I might like it more since so much time has passed.
It occurs to me, also, that the really bad documentaries just don't get seen by hardly anyone anyway. Anything that many people here will have seen is probably good in some respect thats why we've all seen it; there'll just be some kind of content that we disagree on and then deem it bad. Like the stuff I mentioned before are mostly good documentaries but I just have some obviously nit-picky, snotty, standards.
I've seen some horrendous stuff, but nothing anybody will have seen, like I'm sure the rest of you have.
I've a friend who's on the selection committee for a big doc fest and she has to watch hundreds of docs each year in just a couple months, (can't say which because she's supposed to watch them alone and will be scolded if I yapped about watching with her). Occasionally I'll watch with her and there's a lot of really bad **** out there, but it gets weeded out after that by people like her so the rest of us don't have to watch it.
Just a thought. I think anything we list here will raise debate because it's only been seen because enough people did like it for it to get past the festivals.
I just despised James himself after having to work on it with them and the last version I saw of it was like 3.5 hrs so I imagine the final one was pretty different. Very pretentious and they didn't really care much for the guy in reality from the way they talked about it. Maybe I should rent it now and I might like it more since so much time has passed.
It occurs to me, also, that the really bad documentaries just don't get seen by hardly anyone anyway. Anything that many people here will have seen is probably good in some respect thats why we've all seen it; there'll just be some kind of content that we disagree on and then deem it bad. Like the stuff I mentioned before are mostly good documentaries but I just have some obviously nit-picky, snotty, standards.
I've seen some horrendous stuff, but nothing anybody will have seen, like I'm sure the rest of you have.
I've a friend who's on the selection committee for a big doc fest and she has to watch hundreds of docs each year in just a couple months, (can't say which because she's supposed to watch them alone and will be scolded if I yapped about watching with her). Occasionally I'll watch with her and there's a lot of really bad **** out there, but it gets weeded out after that by people like her so the rest of us don't have to watch it.
Just a thought. I think anything we list here will raise debate because it's only been seen because enough people did like it for it to get past the festivals.
"Same thing with Buena Vista Social Club. Great subject and filmmaking, but another story hinging on the theme of "a famous white guy goes and helps out some backwards unknowns to get famous and a famous filmmaker takes a big crew to document it and give some more credit to said white guy". Patronizing and not ok to me."
Buena Vista Social Club is a classic example of a documentary that actually undermines the subject it claims to promote. In the final scenes Wim Wender's fake nostalgia for vintage cars, Old Havana and forgotten musicians gives way to a blatant propoganda piece about the virtues of America and electricity.
The final shot says it all, Wenders on stage by himself lapping up applause meant for the Cuban musicians. Wenders' politics are as insincere as the [SIZE=-1]faux vérité[/SIZE] camera work.
A documentary that was a big hit on the festival circuit despite it's appalling politics was Michael Tucker's documentary, "Gunner Palace". Iraqi's have no voice in the film, their houses are busted open, they are dragged off to [SIZE=-1]Abu Ghraib, but they don't get to say anything. Halfway through, when some of his marine friends are killed, the filmmaker begins to question the cost of war. But the real cost, the destruction of Iraq and the death of a hundred thousand civilans doesn't seem to register. Something is wrong with this picture.[/SIZE]
Buena Vista Social Club is a classic example of a documentary that actually undermines the subject it claims to promote. In the final scenes Wim Wender's fake nostalgia for vintage cars, Old Havana and forgotten musicians gives way to a blatant propoganda piece about the virtues of America and electricity.
The final shot says it all, Wenders on stage by himself lapping up applause meant for the Cuban musicians. Wenders' politics are as insincere as the [SIZE=-1]faux vérité[/SIZE] camera work.
A documentary that was a big hit on the festival circuit despite it's appalling politics was Michael Tucker's documentary, "Gunner Palace". Iraqi's have no voice in the film, their houses are busted open, they are dragged off to [SIZE=-1]Abu Ghraib, but they don't get to say anything. Halfway through, when some of his marine friends are killed, the filmmaker begins to question the cost of war. But the real cost, the destruction of Iraq and the death of a hundred thousand civilans doesn't seem to register. Something is wrong with this picture.[/SIZE]
valdez
Active member
Oh,
I forgot about the "Tupac: Resurection" one. WAAAY cheesy. It was like "Hard Copy" or "A Current Affair". Funny, though, especially all the highlighted text and musical stills montages. With the right marketing anything will show in theaters, I guess.
Also Ken Burns' "Jazz" series was pretty shameful for for anyone who really knows anything about jazz, and I don't think I'm alone in that one. I could go on about it but it's not worth argueing because those who really love the long and rich history of Jazz music will agree with me, and those who have a Miles Davis album and think Norah Jones is a Jazz great will have loved it.
I agree that Louis Armstrong was influential, but to make a 10 part series about him and call it "Jazz" is a tad misguided, not to mention basing the narrative structure around various young "writers" and "poets" and not the many living legends themselves. Plus the mountains of great archival footage of all the masters being replaced with Burns' pathetic outdated Panning over stills crap is just blasphemy when it comes to portraying Jazz history. He obviously ignored films like "Straight, No Chaser" and "Ralph Gleasons Jazz Casuals" series for starters. He ignores a good 20 years of rich history and development with his sheer ignorance and pissed a lot of people off, probably partly due to his reliance on Wynton Marsalis who is notoriously conservative about who deserves credit in Jazz history. Anyway, I gotta go, I'm fuming now.rogar-Evil(DBG):
I forgot about the "Tupac: Resurection" one. WAAAY cheesy. It was like "Hard Copy" or "A Current Affair". Funny, though, especially all the highlighted text and musical stills montages. With the right marketing anything will show in theaters, I guess.
Also Ken Burns' "Jazz" series was pretty shameful for for anyone who really knows anything about jazz, and I don't think I'm alone in that one. I could go on about it but it's not worth argueing because those who really love the long and rich history of Jazz music will agree with me, and those who have a Miles Davis album and think Norah Jones is a Jazz great will have loved it.
I agree that Louis Armstrong was influential, but to make a 10 part series about him and call it "Jazz" is a tad misguided, not to mention basing the narrative structure around various young "writers" and "poets" and not the many living legends themselves. Plus the mountains of great archival footage of all the masters being replaced with Burns' pathetic outdated Panning over stills crap is just blasphemy when it comes to portraying Jazz history. He obviously ignored films like "Straight, No Chaser" and "Ralph Gleasons Jazz Casuals" series for starters. He ignores a good 20 years of rich history and development with his sheer ignorance and pissed a lot of people off, probably partly due to his reliance on Wynton Marsalis who is notoriously conservative about who deserves credit in Jazz history. Anyway, I gotta go, I'm fuming now.
rogar-Evil(DBG):
bustak
Well-known member
I loved "Tarnation," VERY DISTURBING! That kid had a freaky life with his mother!Bus No. 8 said:
He did a nice job editing old footage & capturing new footage.
But I think that movie is one of those flicks you either love or hate, which is a good piece of art IMHO. It evokes a strong emotion, either positive or negative.