Super Size Me Review

I felt guilty for badmouthing this movie without seeing it in my review of Frekonomics last night.  So I got a copy and decided to watch it.  Then, I could actually give an opinion with some credibility.  After watching it this afternoon, I do have to admit that I was a bit misinformed on the whole thing and that it isn't as extreme as I thought.  However, i was not that far off on my assessment of Morgan Spurlock's work.

It isn't necessarily an attack on McDonald's.  It is a challenge to the fast food and grocery industries to be more responsible.  The vehicle of eating only McDonald's comes from a judge's ruling in a case against the company that challenges whether or not eating their food causes obesity and the problems that come with it.  That being said, the premise is still ridiculous.  Spurlock even says that McDonald's refers to people who eat there only once per week are Heavy Users.  He was eating there 21 times per week.  Only an idiot would think that you could eat only McDonald's and not almost kill yourself.

It also wasn't as sensationalistic as I thought it would have been.  On that, I will admit I was wrong.  it is a very compelling look at the industry and Spurlock does make some very good arguments.  However, like Michael Moore did in Fahrenheit 9/11, Spurlock makes mention of some irrelevant things to push his argument and a documentary will lose a lot of credibility with me when that is done.  Two examples stick in my mind and paint a good picture of this.  First, he says that the same company that supplies food to schools also supplies it to prisons.  This was done in a tone that would suggest it is a bad thing.  Who cares?  Is it ok to give prisons subpar food?  If you supply prisons does that make you an evil company?  It was a completely irrelevant message.  Second, he refers tot he artist that painted a lot of the "evil Ronald McDonald" paintings as an "Artistic Genius."  That is giving your own opinion and pushing your own agenda and that has no place in a documentary.  There are numerous examples like this that make the film lose a lot of credibility with me.

Ultimately, I would say don't see it.  It is an hour and a half of an argument that common sense should have already given to you.  But I will say that it isn't as extreme in the sensationalistic attitude that I thought it would be.  It does have a bit of an air of "holier than thou" to it but not as much as I would have assumed.

Freakonomics Review

Steph's pick for Movie Night at Karl's was the first documentary that we have had.  So it was interesting to see everyone's reactions.  While I don't hate documentaries, I must say that I am not a huge fan normally.  I prefer to get my non-fiction stories from places like Discovery or the National Geographic Channel.  But, a feature length documentary can be good as long as it sticks to facts and doesn't speculate on things like the motives of its subject (ie. Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did way too much speculating on motives in order to attack the Right Wing that it lost all credibility with me).  They also need to stay within the realm of reality in order to portray the truth on a subject.  I hate to break it to you, Morgan Spurlock, but eating only McDonald's for 30 days does not prove that it is a dangerous and evil organization and that they need to make sweeping changes.  All it proves is that excess is dangerous.  F-9/11 and Super Size Me were perhaps the two biggest and best received documentaries in the past decade so I'm a bit skeptical when it comes to watching one (An Inconvenient Truth should probably get a mention too for being a big one) (I should also mention that I haven't actually seen Super Size me but I do know that is the premise of it and it only takes a little common sense to see it as ridiculous - I may watch it if the mood strikes me sometime.  If I do, I will review it and admit if I'm wrong).

Given those parameters, I would say that Freakonomics is a very well done documentary.  It uses statistics to study situations with questionable causes and find the truth as to those causes.  On the surface, this sounds like an unbelievably dry topic.  However, the film makers they chose to tell the stories did so in a very entertaining way.  I must give Mr. Spurlock some credit here as his segment on people's names possibly determining their success in life was very entertaining and stuck to facts without speculation or some kooky experiment.  The only one I found a bit dry and out of place was the sumo wrestling segment.  It relied less on statistics to prove any causality and was more of a conspiracy theory story.  The final two big segments on the decrease in crime in the early 90s and whether or not ninth graders respond to monetary rewards to get better grades were also quite entertaining and informative.  If you watch it in a group, you may also find yourself in some good-hearted debate after the movie which I'm pretty sure should happen after a good documentary.

As for the technical aspects of the film, I cannot really comment too much on cinematography, plot and acting because it is a documentary and, therefore, is judged by different rules.  But I will say that I came away glad to have watched it.  I also felt a bit smarter and entertained at the same time.  So, from my perspective, it is a good movie.

Even if you aren't a fan of documentaries, I'd say see it.  It takes dry topics and makes them entertaining.  There were 8 people watching tonight and I think we all laughed out loud at some spots so that's a good sign.  Finally, it isn't too long so you don't lose interest.