DocSub has the right of this.  A minimalist visual style does not mean lack of effort or skill.  If you think all Laura Poitras did was turn a camera on and point it, then all you're doing is demonstrating 1) a lack of cinematic vocabulary and 2) a myopic view of what Documentaries should accomplish.

I started Documentality to dispel this very idea.  Docs are NOT educational films.  They are not journalism (in fact the IDA just hosted a huge symposium on this YESTERDAY, saying roughly what I am now).  A docs job is not to make your broccoli taste better.  A docs worth is not demonstrated by  the efficiency it displays in making learning fun.  If that's how you rate them, then Reading Rainbow is the greatest documentary ever.  A documentary film, before anything else, is cinema.  It's job is the same as any other film you see, whether its Jupiter Ascending or Paddington: to tell you a story and present it through audio and visuals in a way that aligns thematically with the story itself.  Hopefully if its done well it resonates with you.  I always harp on the Lectern Test in Documentality as a way to gauge if Docs are taking advantage of cinematic tools to present its story.  You're actively saying you would prefer a Lectern Doc on this subject matter than heavy directorial hand that Laura Poitras demonstrates, and that you marginalize with your criticism. 

I know I'm being super harsh here, Avatar.  Please understand that I'm not trying to ether you, so much as I am this disturbingly widespread assumption of documentary directorial technique that you have.  There's far more many ways to skin a cat when it comes to Doc directing, and I just wish you wouldn't confuse form for content.

I was JUST about to type Dogma 95, but Doc Sub beat me to it.  Same goes with a film like Barry Lyndon.  Incredible cinematic technique in a film that is mostly one camera lock offs.  It's like saying, "well there's twice as many cuts in film x versus film y, so film x is better edited."  Hogwash.  Again, and man I'm kinda gonna sound dickish saying this, but I think watching a wider variety of docs will benefit your understanding of what Directing actually, IS. 

Gates of Heaven
Vernon, Florida
The War Room
My Brothers Keeper

Those are four docs off the top of my head that have a minimalist style, but immense skill.

I agree with that sentiment to an extent (particularly with non-documentary filmmaking), but you've also got to qualify for the situation here. Like, I sincerely doubt that a filmmaker risking being arrested for abeting an enemy of the state was in any position to fly 100s of lbs of camera and lighting gear to Hong Kong. It seems ridiculous to knock someone risking their life to document something that crazy with almost no time to plan for not doing elaborate lighting setups.

I don't know for sure, but I reckon something has to do with the pure nature of them being all CG. They can perfect each single shot individually, as they don't exactly have to reshoot.

Watched Kingsman last night. Though I'd enjoy it from the cast, premise seemed a bit too silly to me from the trailers, but apparently I hadn't accounted for it basically being a British film. I loved it, even when the last act flipped the switch from taking the spy movie premise seriously to a more lighthearted homage to the genre.

Also, someone really likes wide angle lenses. I can describe two shots the next day that used them (both with strong center framing and should-be-vertical lines) and know there are a few more I'm forgetting. Oh, and entire sequence with a dynamic camera that was probably wide-angle as well.