This little flick has been quite controversial. McDonalds announced it won't offer super sized menu options after it was released. MTV won't air ads for this film because it's doesn't want to offend other (fast food) advertisers.

I liked it. It felt very much a la Michael Moore "David v Goliath." It was upbeat, fast moving, and seemed to offer a strong view without being overly preachy. I even felt he tried to represent McD's viewpoint.

Technically, it was cool to see another film done on miniDV. A lot of it looked like crap, however. The end titles were screwed up and some of the video was difficult to watch, but it's still nice to see minidv bumped to film (I'm know they used a DI, but I'm not sure if they first bumped it to HD ... anyone?). The editing and animations were great. They really made the film.

Anyway, I definitely think it's worth a watch. I can't say I learned a ton of new info (because my family always has been very health conscious), but it was interesting and entertaining.

I've been wanting to see this, especially after reading Fast Food Nation. Looks really good.

It premiered here in Austin for South by Southwest. I passed up on it because I thought the idea of putting your body through torture to prove a point I coulda guessed on my own was stupid. His next documentary should be going on a crack binge to get those pounds off.

Yes. I recently watched this film as well and thought it was pretty good. I honestly would like to see Goerske's [sp?] health from all those Big Macs. I don't know if I would really compare this to Moore's Bowling For Columbine because Moore is headstrong in his views and doesn't really offer first-hand experience or information [whereas Spurlock was the guinea pig and had all the information from the doctors right there].
I was expecting to see nothing but just the experiment, but it offered a lot of good info and delved into other things. I'd recommend watching this.

That Big Mac guy said he almost never eats fries or sodas (which may account for why he isn't dead yet). But still, eating two big macs a day is around 1500 calories. I don't see how he lives that way.

I didn't make the the Bowling for Columbine comparison. I compared Michael Moore's style of documentaries where the little filmmaker goes after the big business. But I think BfC is similar to SSM. Moore didn't offer first hand information? What movie did you see? What about the two kids who got shot at Columbine? Moore spent 20 minutes of the film with those guys. What about the little girl that got shot? Moore interviewed the principal and her mother. These would classify as first hand information to me. And there are many other examples. I think he is just as headstrong as Moore. This dude only ate McDonalds for a month. That is pretty ridiculous.

So, that's what I think.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: joren,

Moore spent 20 minutes of the film with those guys. What about the little girl that got shot? Moore interviewed the principal and her mother.
Precisely. What he had was secondary sources. This link explains it better. He was not involved in any way with the happenings at Columbine or any shootings. Spurlock however, used his own body as his evidence of what would happen.
I do see the correlation between the small guy fighting a big business. It was kind of nice to see that one person could make a difference.

I don't think the book and the movie are connected in any way.

My bad guys. Joren is completely right [Thank goodness this isn't Dan Gross or I'd be in his sig, haha] I thought first-hand experiences and primary sources were one and the same, but I messed up. Guess I should take those summer courses for English. -= p

I'm about to get a little preachy here, you have been warned:

It would seem to me, yes someone would get fat if all they ate was McDonalds, duh! What do you think would happen!? I don't think its Mcdaonald's fault, if you choose to eat their and get fat, do it. But don't blame McDonalds because your so fat the chair sticks to your butt and you have to grease the door so you can get out.
For goodness sakes, take responsibility for your own actions!!!

Anyway, I didn't know it was shot on mini DV, that's a nice tidbit of information. I might watch it for technical reasons. And it was nice to find out about the primary/first hand thing that came up in this forum. I was not aware of what one called them.

If you question wheather showing the effects of 30 days of fast food are stupid, you haven't seen the movie. He explains the 2 reasons at the start and end of the film. First, we hear that 2 females tried to sue Mcdonalds accusing them of making them fat. The lawsuit stated they had to prove that eating mcdonalds everyday (as they did) was harmfull, which somehow they failed at.

So the director's experiment proved this, even if it was too late for the lawsuit. The second reason is that while you and me and most intelligent people understand that eating mcdonalds everyday is insane, many others don't. Some kids get fat because their family takes them everyday, or their friends go. So if you don't think this is common, maybe you just havent heard of it elsewhere. My dads best friend ate at BK for lunch everyday for several years and one day died of a heart attack.

People are flocking to see this movie because this is the hidden epidemic we don't talk about but all relate to. Even though the cimematography is horrible, I find it highly inspiring. Such a simple idea we all wish to have though of first, I know some of you bash it cause your jelous!

no I haven't seen it, it was just an observation I was stating.

now that you mention it, I like Supersize Me. It's like pone of those crash videos you watchin Drivers ed . . .

Dude, why do you feel it's appropriate to add your personal feeling on this issue without even being educated by watching the film? When I started this post, I critiqued the film, not the message. This is a filmmaking forum, not a high school debate team. Saying Super Size Me is about a guy that only eats McDs for a month is like saying The Passion is about a guy's journey to crucifixion. There's much more important aspects to the film. Maybe before you start talking about a film, you should watch it and get more informed about it.

I thought his interviews with and facts about school lunch programs in various cities and how the business of providing school lunches is evolving was the most interesting part. It certainly didn't feel like watching a crash video in driver's ed.

And, the filmmaker's final point is that change should start with the people. (wasn't that your point?) Once people don't want highly processed, relatively unhealthy food, the chains won't serve it. His problem is how they (large food chains) market their food and how they don't always provide enough information for the public to make informed decisions. And that the big businesses that sell it disregard public safety to make money.

sorry for stating my opinion, I forgot there is no free speech in America.


Dude, (that means to call people warts on camel's butts, I found that out today ) in my response to what I have HEARD ABOUT the film, the previous statements were based on what I have HEARD about the movie.
Take a chill pill, I want to learn more about the film by taking an active part in the conversation, if that is all right with you.
Anyway, after HEARING MORE, I started to agree with the stand the movie was taking, to educate teh populace about what is going on behind the counter. I'm really impressed with the huge project he took under, that would not have been easy.

Free Speech does not restrict the criticism of speech. And, I would echo the sentiment that you should watch the film or at least learn more than what you saw in the trailer before making such bold remarks about it.