Fat Head (2009)

Why would someone glorify Mc Donalds and fast food. He talks about weight the whole time but does he mention quality of life, heart attacks, etc. You don't get quality of life at Mc Donalds or any fast food place. He doesn't even discuss all the chemicals , GMOs , trans fat , gluten, that come with fast food that can harm your health. This movie is ridiculous. The only people who gave him good ratings are probably overweight unhealthy fast food lovers.

Some "comedian" decides that his job as a computer programmer wasn't interesting enough so he makes a "documentary" to answer a movie that is already wholly irrelevant to most of its original viewers. I turned on this movie with an open mind hoping to be enlightened by a satirist looking to take an idea to its extremes. For this I blame the description on Hulu. What I did get was an overly preachy movie about all of the scientific and logical flaws that Super Size Me made. Of course Spurlock had an agenda, he made a documentary, but at least he had an agenda. This movie doesn't really find a focus on a message and really just dumps on things that Tom Naughton dislikes, like Super Size Me or the government or lawyers (and boy does he hate the government and lawyers). What's funny is that he ignores the possibility that paternalism may actually be the cause of the public's awareness of the public's negative perceptions about the health effects of fast food, which is the opposite of the premise of his movie to begin with.So if you just want someone making uneducated critiques of another documentary or of the government, I'd watch this movie. But if you'd actually like to see a (real) comedian (not just some computer programmer wanna-be comedian) take the premise of Super Size Me to an interesting and focused direction, maybe watch Super High Me. In addition, this movie doesn't really offer any sort of answers or thesis, which is unsurprising if this guys only formal education was in the science of computers and not social sciences/hard sciences (which actually look to accomplish something with a degree of focus). What this movie does a good job at is railing against government and paternalism without actually offering a reasonable model to oppose those models. Government is paternalistic because Americans, yes Americans, want our society to be inherently paternalistic. So if you want someone to blame, blame democracy, or our uneducated and uncritical public (which would seem to include Naughton since his critical analyses don't go much further than what I've mentioned. Really, it's a wonder that he was able to scrounge up $150,000 for this movie from the get-go because of its inherent flaws. What is more surprising is that he doesn't seem to even make good use of that. I could make a better food documentary for 1/100 of that budget.

A great movie that proves that we should all be skeptical of what 'experts' tell us and especially skeptical of what documentary filmmakers tell us. I never saw Super Size Me, but I know all too well what its conclusions were. Our media gobbled up SSM as gospel now its conclusions are part of our "conventional wisdom".This movie does a great job of reminding us to use our brains and think for ourselves. These facts alone (revealed in Fat Head) should make you question Spurlock's conclusions: - To this day Spurlock still refuses to disclose his food diary - The movie was backed by a lawyer who's suing McDonald's for billions - Spurlock's numbers of 5,000 calories a day don't add upThe movie may be a little corny and a little heavy-handed in its approach, but as believer in personal responsibility I feel it hits the mark.

Mr. Naughton was not justifying his "obesety" with this film, nor is he on a crusade to inspire people to eat nothing but fast food from McDonald's. He was merely pointing out the fallacies inherent with the current standards of health and fitness in the United States as well as addressing the doom and gloom in regard to healthy eating. Essentially it came down to this; Eating out isn't the end of the world, Government regulation isn't the answer, and whichever path you choose to healthy living, just be satisfied with your choices and accept the consequences of your actions.In response to the review from dkinem regarding nutrition in human evolution: http://cast.uark.edu /local /icaes /conferences /wburg /posters /sboydeaton /eaton.htm (Delete space to follow the link) I genuinely think that most doctors have their patient's health in mind, but the best of intentions don't always equal what's best for people.Consider the fact that Veterinarians seem to be consistently at odds with holistic nutritionists. Veterinarians are told all throughout their training that Science Diet is an acceptable brand to feed your dog. However, that particular brand is nothing but corn meal and grain with beef flavoring; ingredients which Dogs are unable to digest and ingredients which have a deeply negative impact on the the overall health of the animal. Meanwhile holistic nutritionists consider canine evolution when suggesting dog food, which, from my experience has had a profoundly positive impact on the quality of my dog's health.It's not the fault of the veterinarians that they are unaware of the negative impact of science diet, as is it not the fault of doctors that they may not have considered taking human dietary evolution into account when they write guidelines on what is best for us. It just seems that while they haven't necessarily been fed false information, they haven't been properly conditioned to be as skeptical as they could be in regard to what constitutes a healthy diet.