A W Have you ever had a conversation with the type of person who refuses to stray from a rigid belief? Tom Naughton's film "Fat Head" felt like that to me. About 1/3rd of the way into this movie, I had to wonder if the film was paid for by the fast food lobby. The writer/director/star Tom Naughton is billed as a comedian yet there was no laughs here. Frankly, it felt like a one-side argument designed to further confuse frustrated dieters and to push a weak agenda. The dripping sarcasm, straw man arguments and non-stop condescending tone quickly made me want to turn off my TV, but I continued to watch just to see if it would get better. It didn't. There are so many problems with this film and Tom Naughton's arguments that it could not fit in a review. But, I'll go through a few of the most irritating points.NOBODY'S FORCING YOU TO EAT FAST FOOD: The first issue for me was the claim at the very beginning of this film that the fast food industry does not force anyone to eat their food. They may not hold you down and force feed you McD's, but what they have done in past decades is to crowd out mom & pop restaurants with a combination of aggressive marketing, cheap deals, factory food practices; all designed to push out local competitors. Another fast food chain technique is to locate themselves in areas which have no other options. (i.e. airports, highways, cafeterias, food courts) 25 years ago, a trip across Ontario meant reasonably healthy meals (if one desired) at truck stops. Today you cannot find anything but fast food places. It's a problem if you travel as part of your living which I did for many years. Trying to stay healthy on McD's, Wendy's and Subway is a real problem. You may not get fat if you count your calories, but you will feel horrible if this is all that you can get.STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS: This movie spent far too much time trying to discredit Super Size Me instead of addressing the issues which led to the making of that film. I have seen Super Size Me, but I'm really not interested in defending Spurlock's movie. The core point is still that the fast food industry has worked tirelessly to market food which calorie for calorie does not contain enough nutrition, and at worst can cause obesity in individuals who find the low cost and lack of affordable options irresistible. MARKETING TO KIDS: Naughton complains that McD's playland is unfairly criticized. They provide air conditioned / heated playgrounds in some communities that have not been provided by several levels of government. He does not touch on the other incentives that fast food chains use to lure children through their doors. In some countries, marketing to kids is illegal - and for good reason. Children are not good decision makers. Naughton turns the camera on a small child in the playland area who isn't interested in eating as if to say "see, these kids are only interested in playing, not eating" but neglects to mention just how awful this fatty, starchy, salty garbage food is for growing bodies. He also rails against organizations which have targeted McD's and other fast food chains to get them to make nutritional information more accessible as if such initiatives are nanny state nonsense. He forgets to mention that McD's has changed to include a few healthier choices as a result of these initiatives. Nobody is saying never eat at McDonald's, they have always been warning people that the claims of it being healthy for kids (yes, they used to say such things) is patently false. Instead of discussing initiatives that have resulted in better information for consumers, he attacks the consumer groups as vegetarian organizations intent on spoiling all our fun. If you go back to Morgan Spurlock's original premise, it was that the portions are intentionally priced to make gluttony affordable. And the more you eat of that type of food, the more you crave it which is in line with McD's business model. Super Size Me did not intend (IMHO) to show that moderate eating would lead to weight gain. The goal was to show that McD's and other fast food chains have a vested interest in getting you to eat their food, despite the negative nutritional effects, as often and as much as we can. POSITIVE CHANGES AFTER SUPER SIZE ME: There was an immediate shift for the better after Super Size me came out. McD's began to offer a variety of salads, apple slices, juice or milk instead of high fructose syrup sodas. Nutritional info became easier to get. McD's even began a campaign to show how their food is made. It's not all pretty but at least we know now.Activists have also exposed factory farming, the mistreatment of animals destined for McD's, the sludge they use in McNuggets and other odd practices which were once a trade secret hidden from customers. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would take issue with asking any organization to show us how our food is made, and what's in it. It should be our right. These are positive changes but I believe we can do better without ruining the burger experience for those who want it. Let's face it - shining a light on the inadequacies of these organizations and shaming them into doing better isn't bad. It's beneficial to all of us. I give Fat Head 1 star for being nothing more than corporate propaganda and misinformation. If you want to shed a few pounds, you should avoid this film and fast food in general if not for the calories and fat, but for the simple fact that it lacks good nutrition.

CompuLOL In this particular case; the deceitful agenda of the powerful lobbying especial interest groups behind the shadowy "fattification" of the US of A. A smoke and mirrors "epidemic" which they themselves manufacture ("The Man", obv); knowingly and willingly. The medium is in a form of rebuttal to the lame Super Size Me one; even with the same tone. Except infinitely better and more funny. It also serves as a teaching aid in explaining why regular diets don't work, and the intuitive truth about how our metabolism has evolved to eat meat; not vegetables. Despite what you have been misled to believe all your life. I can't believe this isn't rated higher; but it doesn't surprise me as much anylonger. The problem for many then is, that oftentimes it comes too hard and lengthy on it subject matter. But it's OK, since after all; it was made by a self proclaimed on-the-side comic (nothing wrong with that either) And I thought it succeeded wonderfully in making fun of the referenced people and institutions; again, it was really good and funny. If any; I found out that it didn't pwnd them hard enough. I also didn't mind the low budget; for it was nicely shot, edited, and very well put together; also it gave it real character. The animations were well done, funny and informative as well. Hence, the problem with sheeple is that when you tell them explicitly; then it's always your fault. They resist you and go all STFUN&WTF on you. People just don't like to be accountable for their actions; let alone hint at being merely responsible. Not to mention that people get offended for the most irrelevant and silliest things; because he badmouthed Mcnutguy(Spurlock), some minorities, the govermint; etc. Give me a break! Nothing nowhere near when an anti establishment person utters a word. Eg, a 9/11 conspiracy; which I'd at least understand their closed minded, backlashing, emotional response. There's no need to say conspiracy anyhow; because everybody should know by now that the evil corporate-govermint is responsible. This has been proved time and time again. Yet sheeple just don't want to accept that simple fact. Nevertheless; I urge you to think and found out for yourself, if that's not the case. Ie, ask yourself; what parts were not true about those statements? None obv; at least to me. Vegnuts arguments are exactly like animal rights ones; they are all emotions over reasons. Because otherwise they'd have no arg "point"; ie anything to stupidly complain about. Vegetarism is malnourishing, sickening and anti-natural; deal with it. So if you eat like a pig; better stated, what a pig does; then you'll obv become a pig. No surprises; a bad rating or review, or self righteous indignation; at least from my behalf. Just kudos for telling it like it is, on a job superbly done!

Floyd Maxwell I like Morgan Spurlock and I liked Super Size Me. I wasn't expecting to like Fat Head. I certainly didn't expect to agree with it.Tom Naughton won me over. He makes a lot of good points. But first, let me say that there is no point in complaining about Tom's comedic style. Morgan has plenty of that as well. Let's judge both directors on their facts.Fat Head brings up important points about how Super Size Me presented information (or neglected to do so). FH also rips the government, and rightly so.Got me researching Glycemic Index/Load, backing up what I was taught as a child (Adelle Davis household).Well done, Tom. A worthy effort.

geniusman7 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.