I like to define all movies/films by either or whether documentary, action, slasher, etc. I think the narrower definitions come in the form of genre and sub-genre, but in general they're all under the same classification and about that art is the medium, etc. With documentary as a genre of film then you could debate whether or not a movie with recreations is a documentary. I think yes, since it fits into the classification of creative non-fiction, which in itself is a problematic term, but it just means something that incorporates the fundamentals of storytelling, theme, tone, character, narrative, etc.
Movies are films, films are movies. Those terms, aside from the actual tactile film used to shoot them, are often used in a pretentious sense by people who want to be known as someone who only likes films, not movies, or wants to demean movies as something lesser. There are other words for those things, like blockbuster, art house, independent, corporate, etc. I think we should just be more descriptive. In general I prefer to define movies as either bad or good and then give reasons why instead of reducing them with some kind of highfalutin "I'm better than you" scale.