This documentary is worth watching if you're interested in Nico or related subjects (my interest in the Velvet Underground is what got me to watch it, and VU are so important to modern music history that it's worth watching just for that), but it is seriously lacking in several respects.
First of all, the movie is only 67 minutes long and ends too abruptly. Another half-hour of more extensive interviews would have greatly strengthened the film. Maybe people like Lou Reed or the surviving members of The Doors simply refused to take part in the movie, but the absence of their opinions leaves definite holes in the story. In the film's defense, maybe there's just not much elaboration anyone can give about Nico--she was pretty, had a striking voice, and was a depressive junkie; that about sums up the impression I'm left with (which probably isn't all the film's fault!). But couldn't they have at least given us Lou Reed's take on Nico, even if it was only via anecdotes shared by others?
The creation of her solo songs & albums is very glossed-over. Suddenly Andy Warhol's crew is talking about hearing a single of Nico's--the viewer is left to wonder, "Well, when & how did that recording come about?!" We are shown pictures of her solo albums while clips of her songs are played, but that's about it--no real discussion of the circumstances surrounding the writing, recording, promotion, dates of release, etc. It's left unclear how much of the actual CREATION of those songs was done by Nico herself--did she learn to play any instruments, did she direct other music writers to produce what she was envisioning? Maybe these things were addressed and I simply missed them, but if so, it was a sentence or two at most, which might have been inaudible--
--which leads us into the problem of the poor sound quality; the music sometimes drowns out the poorly recorded interviews, so that when the interviewees lapse into softer voices, mutters & mumbles (their various accents add to this problem), it can be very hard to understand what is being said. Also annoying is the cheesy method of occasionally superimposing words on the screen as they are spoken by interviewees or sung by the soundtrack. This technique feels cheap and superficial--like a commercial trying to convince us that what is being said is important or deep.
Overall, it's definitely worth seeing if you like documentaries & music/pop history, but not a great documentary by any means. I'm almost tempted to go back and change my vote to 6, but I think I'll leave it at 7 because I did enjoy watching it. Worth renting, but not worth owning.
First of all, the movie is only 67 minutes long and ends too abruptly. Another half-hour of more extensive interviews would have greatly strengthened the film. Maybe people like Lou Reed or the surviving members of The Doors simply refused to take part in the movie, but the absence of their opinions leaves definite holes in the story. In the film's defense, maybe there's just not much elaboration anyone can give about Nico--she was pretty, had a striking voice, and was a depressive junkie; that about sums up the impression I'm left with (which probably isn't all the film's fault!). But couldn't they have at least given us Lou Reed's take on Nico, even if it was only via anecdotes shared by others?
The creation of her solo songs & albums is very glossed-over. Suddenly Andy Warhol's crew is talking about hearing a single of Nico's--the viewer is left to wonder, "Well, when & how did that recording come about?!" We are shown pictures of her solo albums while clips of her songs are played, but that's about it--no real discussion of the circumstances surrounding the writing, recording, promotion, dates of release, etc. It's left unclear how much of the actual CREATION of those songs was done by Nico herself--did she learn to play any instruments, did she direct other music writers to produce what she was envisioning? Maybe these things were addressed and I simply missed them, but if so, it was a sentence or two at most, which might have been inaudible--
--which leads us into the problem of the poor sound quality; the music sometimes drowns out the poorly recorded interviews, so that when the interviewees lapse into softer voices, mutters & mumbles (their various accents add to this problem), it can be very hard to understand what is being said. Also annoying is the cheesy method of occasionally superimposing words on the screen as they are spoken by interviewees or sung by the soundtrack. This technique feels cheap and superficial--like a commercial trying to convince us that what is being said is important or deep.
Overall, it's definitely worth seeing if you like documentaries & music/pop history, but not a great documentary by any means. I'm almost tempted to go back and change my vote to 6, but I think I'll leave it at 7 because I did enjoy watching it. Worth renting, but not worth owning.