Do you remember when documentaries were single 60 or 90 minute shows? In the streaming era, seemingly every documentary is now stretched out to 4 plus episodes. This creates a snail's pace and redundancy of content. It's up to us viewers to push back on this.
Still Missing Morgan is the prototype for this stretched out phenomenon. This could've been a 60- or 90-minute show rather than 3+ hours. Thus, the documentary was repetitive and more tedious than it should've been.
Also, documentaries have devolved to put more work on the viewers by having unnarrated parts where the viewer is forced to read tiny print on the screen. I'm a multi tasker. I don't watch the screen 100% of the time. I suspect the majority of us are multi taskers. These written parts should at least be narrated so we don't have to try to read the small words.
I understand you're going for style points but it's not working. Documentaries in particular typically are interview-centric with little action compelling the viewer to watch; having these silent written sequences is at odds with the general premise and nature of a documentary.
The story is good but only watch if you have time to kill.
ABOUT MY REVIEWS:
I do not include a synopsis of the film/show -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.
My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating). For Lifetime Movies for Chicks (LMFC), drop the above scale by 3 notches. A 6 is excellent and 7 almost unattainable.
