So far I'm about half way through and I must say that this could have been a good film. As it is, its okay, but it misses the mark in several ways. He interviews people that you could meet at the mall or a flea market, no one important really. Maybe someone of import was at an industry party - where the producer would never be invited. I doubt he meets Courtney Love at all, she seems to be against this. There is NO music (so far) by Nirvana, or even Kurt (save some stuff he recorded at like 2 & 15 years old at his aunt's house). A doc about Kurt with no music by Kurt? Oh well. Even the band the producer goes to see who supposedly were influenced by Nirvana sounded like Misfits! Oh no.Also, he interviews some people who you think might have something important to say - but then, he can't put what they said in the film! What?! He sights British law issues (as he "films" for the BBC, or says he does) for some of the prohibition and for others he just leaves things out! Like the music. If this doesn't turn around considerably, I'd have to say miss this. If I ever do finish watching this and it turns into something good, I'll let you know. Although without any music by Kurt or Courtney, I seriously doubt it. * (of 5) at the half.Well, I saw the rest of the film. So the whole second half is pretty basic. He re-interviews Kurt's aunt and there's a guy who may have been hired to do something to Kurt, but (surprise!) his accusations couldn't be added to the film due to British libel laws. Oh well. He out accuses Courtney's dad of being a rotten father when its obvious that the man had been to hell and back with the woman. His main concern at that time was his granddaughter, and that she have a safe environment to grow up in. The doc's producer tells us he doesn't believe the conspiracies - that Love had anything to do with Cobain's death. Take that for what its worth. Given this, the later scene at an ACLU dinner doesn't make much sense. Courtney is shown to be capable of anything - the nanny that worked for the couple in Kurt's final weeks was obviously scared to say much on camera. He plays some tape of Courtney threatening the author of a "tell all" book, and its not a soft or veiled threat. This all culminates at the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) awards dinner where Love is a presenter and speaker. Before she takes the stage, the "extreme" "celebrity stalker", who had been in a scene earlier in the film saying he'd do anything to show Courtney's true colors - that he'd walk right up to her and ask if she killed Kurt or something, is at the ACLU function. He gets Love right on camera with the mic in her face! So this "extreme" stalker - who's partner in that early scene wouldn't even appear on camera without a mask! they are crazy guys - finally asks her a question for the producer of the film. Is it, did you have anything to do with your husband's death? Is it, did you threaten and/or assault journalists and writers? NO! He asks about a song he overheard when they went to her studio (where he was supposed to confront her and didn't!) and if she has any new members in her band! Extreme! Finally, the producer of the documentary, actually shows some real balls! After Courtney speaks, he gets on stage and basically calls the ACLU members gathered that they are hypocrites because they have a speaker who gives a speech about the importance of freedom of the press, while having intimidated, threatened and assaulted that very same press for writing and saying things about her that she didn't like. He does actually ask Love a question, and her answer is interesting. At the very end we DO get an original song. Unfortunately its by Kurt's aunt Mary, singing at a school where she is giving a talk about the horrors of drugs and addiction using Kurt as example. A very good message - I'm just not sure we needed to go through 90 minutes to get it.

The damning evidence, pointed one way or the other, is not to be found in Bloomfields' "Kurt & Courtney". There is no smoking gun contained in the last few frames or words. I believe this film maker had honestly set out to dig to the bottom of the supposed scandal, perhaps even moreso excited about the prospect of finding this intangible truth when many attempts fell through in the past. At this, he does appear biased at first; his initial questions have a tendency to steer his interviewee toward some desirable response, but as the film progresses and his attitude and convictions sway, you find that he wasn't trying to force an answer but rather he is quite graceless at interviewing. Half of the time I wanted to yell at him to stop interrupting. The backdrop of the film is Courtney, not just in her important link to the story but in the climate she distantly molded before the filming even began. In some obscure legal context, she tightens the screws from an affiliated production co. on Bloomfields project and ultimately has them cut off. Needless to say, she has a tendency to pick on little guys (shown in the film) and intimidate/threaten similar journalists who show interest in getting near the same subject at hand. The film, and all of the "evidence" within, becomes about Courtney. Insinuations about her past in relation to how she handled Kurt poses some interesting perspectives on a possible agenda she had been harboring. Not to mention her violent disposition (rolled in to her constant death threats to various journalists and people they reached), and the near-smoking gun of a half-assed confession from El Duce on the subject of being approached with the kill contract. A lot of it is incriminating, none of it evidence. But Bloomfields project, truncated as it feels, was not at a loss for purpose. Despite a lack of forensic proof, and the shaky testimony of peoples involved, Bloomfield carves out a clear and infallible MOTIVE for the murder of Kurt Cobain, and that is perhaps this movies achievement. It is worth it to watch and judge for yourself.

"How did Kurt Cobain really die?" asks the cover of my DVD swanky. The reality does look like this: After the 90 minutes of this documentary, you won't be more suited to answer this question, because everything you get to see are conspiracy theories, brought up by people who I would not consider as being very trustworthy. Many of the interview partners were obviously under the influence of drugs or had personal feuds with Courtney Love in the past (father, ex-boyfriend). When at the end director Nick Broomfield goes on the stage of an award ceremony for freedom of the press to denounce Courtney (with a probably justifiable accusation), I only saw the completion of his way of self-satisfaction and whining about Courtney. And: Am I the only one who finds it a little bit funny that Broomfield acts, as if he wants to make an even reappraising of Cobain's death? But: The film has at least a certain level of entertainment value.

Having done a lot of research before watching this documentary, particularly on Kurt's death, I was almost convinced that Courtney had someone kill him -the suicide letter is NOT a suicide letter and someone has added the last 3 lines.- Anyways, Kurt was in a good phase at that point of his life: he just wanted to leave Courtney and Nirvana. There's a lot of clues supporting the fact that this was a murder and not a suicide, BUT the movie only shed light to a couple of them + wasted a lot of time interviewing random ppl, that had nothing to do with the whole thing, like Amy. Also, the director presents this medical evidence that someone can take double the doses that Kurt did, and still stand on one leg!!!that's ridiculous!! the doses was 3 times the lethal doses, and the evidence he presents has to do with swallowing methadone, and not injecting heroine! all in all, i would say that the movie doesn't have a clear view on anything. It just left me feeling depressed and sad that the Kobain case is and will always be closed, and Courtney is not and never will be where she deserves: IN JAIL!!