I loved it, but for me, it's an amazing story, I'm not sure it's a "good" film.
Yes, exactly. It was wonderful to watch, but the filmmakers were pretty much handed the movie on a silver platter once they picked their subject. (And I'm willing to be convinced that picking a good story is a big enough part of documentary filmmaking that I'm being unfairly dismissive. But I do think there's a qualitative difference between someone finding a good story and presenting it vs something like Fast, Cheap and Out of Control where the subjects are presented in such a transformative way. Could I be any more of a film school asshole in this paragraph? I think not!)
I generally ignore continuity errors unless they're really obvious. If that's what I'm paying attention to, there's something else wrong with the movie besides the continuity errors.
SO much this. If my brain is so disengaged that I'm thinking "hey, that lamp wasn't turned on in the reverse shot," it's a good chance the acting/writing/editing isn't very good either.
Or it's a movie I've seen a thousand times and the little glitches become like grease stains on a well-loved cookbook. The tiny little imperfections that remind us that this piece of art was made by people.
The editor (along with the director) has complete control over which take gets used.
Totally. Well, depending on seniority and temperment it may be the director or the producer making the actual editing decisions, but the point still holds that movies are created in post.