Any communication of information will inevitably be limited, and the way that limitation manifests will be influenced by the subjectivity of the person communicating.

The documentaries may present the facts they choose to include in a more dispassionate style than other sources, but this should not be confused with objectivity.

Not more. And all the ugly things he saw, stealing, dirt, unprofessionalism, etc. he states very clearly.

Objectiveness is not treating each party equally -- it's calling a spade a spade!

Well, not much more than what western empires have been for their colonial subjects (who, in addition to slavery, forced labor, mass killings, political rule, torture and so on, they also considered inferior beings). So there's that. Of course another being wrong doesn't make one right -- but at least helps put things in perspective and reduce one-sided smugness.

The difference is that the USSR did so upon its own subjects (which is probably better for the rest of world -- if you weren't their subject).

USSR had a dictatorship of upper echelons of the party, which degenerated into full scale war against large parts of its own population (including ...the upper echelons of the party).

But there are some subtleties too: it's not like people weren't supportive of the regime, especially early on. (Of course Germans were also supportive of the Nazi regime, so there's that).

So, in a sense, they got what they wanted -- it just happened to turn to tyranny. That said, they also had many positive changes from the tsarism on its early days. And they also become a less tyrannical state after Stalin.