Crappy film

best movie i've ever seen.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

While I think "Fat Head" is a very flawed film, I do recommend you watch it. It has many good points to make and makes you think...too bad the film is so ugly to look at and uneven that you might not bother watching the movie to its conclusion. Watch it...even if it is really ugly and could have used some work.When the film begins, the filmmaker (Tom Naughton) brings up some possible inconsistencies behind Morgan Spurlock's film "Super Size Me". I really wish Naughton hadn't piggybacked on Spurlock's film, however, as although I agreed that Spurlock wasn't particularly fair in how he conducted his 'experiment', focusing all this energy against Spurlock seemed to deflect from THE most important message in "Fat Head"--that many of our dietary assumptions are wrong! Various experts throughout the film made convincing arguments that animal fats are NOT bad and should make up much of our diet. And, interestingly, the US government food pyramid we all followed for so long (which recommended consumption of HUGE amounts of grains) actually have made us fatter and less fit. But, focusing so much on Spurlock was done, most likely, for marketing reasons. As a result, the film seemed a bit ill-focused.Despite these complaints, my biggest ones are because the film looks very amateurish. The graphics look incredibly cheap and ugly--really, really, really ugly. So, while Naughton is making some good points, he's doing it with graphics which would embarrass most viewers. Plus, sometimes Naughton made wonderful jokes and observations--and other times, he missed the mark and having some outsiders help him polish the film would have really helped.The bottom line is that Tom Naughton has a lot of talent and made some wonderful observations. But, he simply needs polish and better direction. So, if he could perhaps work WITH A TEAM, the results would look so much better instead of looking more like a YouTube post than a movie. There's a lot to it....and try to look past its deficits.

Congratulations Tom Naughton! You just led everyone whom has watched your documentary to believe that Fast Food is "OK"! I feel sorry for anyone without a sense of knowledge about nutrition and watched this show, taking away 'any' information from it.Not to say that I cant agree with certain information that is in the show, but you have to dig through with a fine tooth comb to grab what is useful. I'll face it any day of the week, Facts are strictly Facts. But when you only cut skin deep, the message here is land-slided that it its OK to eat Fast Food.Here's some useful facts for everyone. Calories-in vs. Calories-out = weight loss. Portion control with properly balanced macro-nutrients will result in a healthier lifestyle. And be prepared to increase your chances of "earlier death, cancer, heart disease, etc." or all of the above when you consume Processed foods, refined foods, enriched foods, or pesticides. Exercise or not.I like how he even mentions that Mexicans and African Americans are "genetically" predisposed to have higher BMI's... Its the American cultural diets that "genetically predispose" an individuals outcome. "How come African-Americans in Africa don't look like the African-Americans in America?" "Would a group of Obese Mexicans from America still be obese if they moved and lived in France for the rest of their lives?" (the answer is NO! Because it would be just plain silly to ship processed, fried, and refined foods from America) What a joke this documentary is... "waste of time and space"

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.

There are a lot of things I could have liked about this movie, such as the silly humor of it. I was even excited that someone was motivated enough to propose a response to Supersize Me, unfortunately, this film doesn't do it. The key difference between Fathead and Supersize Me, was a background in social sciences. If the idea was to show that there was a compelling deficiency in Spurlock's theory, an equally compelling argument is not, "I have a brain," that's a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdam - reduction to the absurd. This is no documentary, it's a comedy - if it was science, the film maker would have been motivated to repeat the experiment to document any changes in his findings from the original study. Instead, the film maker changed all of the original variables to give him a very predictable outcome and he is left with about %90 of empirical and biased data forming the overall structure of this comedy; what's funny about it is how it pretends to be scientific yet has absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever.