Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

cricketbat The Greatest Movie Ever Sold dares to expose the fact that films use product placement (GASP!)! However, if you're a semi-intelligent human being, you already know this. This movie doesn't really bring any new information to the table and, therefore, it just feels flat. It's entertaining, and I do now want to try POM Wonderful, but it doesn't have the heart that Super Size Me has.

Vultural ~ Watchable, though not particularly illuminating documentary on product placement. Morgan Spurlock visits image consultants and product representatives, and pitches his notion of having them fund his documentary in exchange for gratuitous advertising throughout. The consultants and executives are far more interesting than the concept. At least one of the products I had no idea was still around - so this was a win for them. Major companies who declined had me scratching my head. The budget for this film was minuscule. $1.5 million. A major corporation's investment would have been petty. Decline. One pled that documentary viewers were too few to matter. Perhaps. Spurlock remains a recognizable name, however, and documentary viewers are oft times intelligent. Film was short, humorous, and I did sympathize with company honchos. Notwithstanding, I do tune out their ads.

bob the moo I first heard about this film in one of the many interviews that Morgan Spurlock did for it – in my case ironically, it was on the radio, so his suit and his props were carefully mentioned on the BBC show. With a proved track record for quirky ideas behind documentaries, Super Size Me's Spurlock sets out to make a movie about the process of selling space inside films to advertisers (what is publicly known as product placement) but he funds it by selling space to advertisers. Indeed, this is an understatement because his film is actually the process of him selling this space – a concept that he struggles to totally explain to those he is selling the movie to (the movie that is being made at the time he explains what he will do/is doing). It is a very clever idea for a documentary and in construct it is the same as the gimmick behind Super Size Me.Mostly it works well s an idea but the problems start coming in when you look for the film to be as informative and as engaging as Super Size Me was. The contrast between the impact of the two movies actually means it is easier for me to describe if I contrast the two. So with Super Size, Spurlock went on a journey (the gimmick) and this made up that part of his film, but all around this journey was input on the specific journey (the doctors) as well as plenty of facts and discussion about the wider topic (obesity and diet); the combination was good and effective. With Greatest Movie though, this combination doesn't really come off and we have far too much "journey" without enough documentary. It is an understandable failing perhaps because the film literally IS the journey so it is kind of achieving the documentary part while it goes on.Problem for me was that by the end I felt I had just watched an amusing film about how Spurlock made the film by getting others to pay for it. Along the way it had told me little snippets about the process but it never has the impact that Super Size had in regards its subject – at times it feels like the film is so tied up with the process that it forgot it also needs to step back and look at it from the outside at the same time. This is the film's failing but it is not a killer because what remains is still an entertaining film. It is funny and knowing throughout even if opinion and commentary is not present. I laughed regularly and there is a certain absurdity to it, with Spurlock mocking the process while also engaging in it. The biggest irony (and perhaps part of the filing) is that Spurlock is actually really good at this – indeed the section with Ban Deodorant is painful to watch because he is so much better than that company's trio of marketing reps; he asks them to describe their product in terms of qualities and they stutter and stumble with nothing! Likewise his natural air within the ads is really good.This is the joke then, and it is a joke that is mostly pretty amusing and interesting. It is a shame that the journey gets so much time and that the documentary aspect and message is rather lost in the delivery, but it does still work. The idea is better than the delivery here, but it still manages to be entertaining and quite engaging.

Good-Will After having seen the film then reading some of the reviews here then I think that most reviewers are completely missing the point.Which is: How do you go about making a film/documentary funded purely by product placement without sacrificing your artistic integrity, and how far would YOU go if your idea had to be compromised by the demands of your sponsors.(By the way, I worked in marketing for a multi-billion dollar corporation for 18 years, so I do actually know what I'm talking about) In the scene where MS is consulting his lawyer about the various demands that are being made by the sponsors, then you can see that nearly all of them are demanding the final cut (The permission to edit out what they don't like) of the film.Another scene shows an interview with the guy who "invented" product placement and the ways that he could influence the story to exclude a scene that featured Alka-Seltzer.So ask yourself this: Was this documentary influenced at all by the sponsors having the final cut? In the end titles it states that it wasn't, but was that just a get-out clause to protect the sponsors? Did we really see the documentary that MS meant to make or was it heavily influenced by the sponsors? So when you watch another film, then how much of that film was what the writer/director originally intended to make and how many scenes were influenced/changed/cut out completely to please the sponsors? That's the point I got from this, and to miss it is far worse than condemning the film for pointing out the obvious.Think about it.Cheers, Will