King Corn (2007)

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

I wouldn't say this was a horrible movie, but it certainly wasn't a good one. I think a lot of people think that if the movie's informative or says something you agree with, that makes it a good documentary. I didn't have a problem with the subject matter, it's the way it was presented.The filmmakers made the choice of inserting themselves into the film. This can be a very effective documentary style (see Michael Moore & Morgan Spurlock for example) but in this case, no offense guys, you just don't have the personality to pull that off. You're not funny, you're not witty, you're not interesting, you're just two dudes floating through this film as if bystanders - which is fine, but then be bystanders, don't be in front of the camera. Don't take offense to that - a lot of people would not be suitable for this type of documentary, including me.One example: there was a shot in the taxicab where the camera lingers on one of the guys (I don't know their names - and it doesn't matter) presumably to capture his emotional response to some horrible story the driver just told him, yet he's just staring blankly. What emotion was that supposed to be conveying? Either have a reaction worthy of showing us or leave that on the cutting room floor.Second problem: The filmmakers try to make it look like they're just two schmoes who are clueless about this stuff and are just trying to figure out how corn got into the molecules of their hair. Right. That's insulting our intelligence and just got more & more annoying as the movie went on. You obviously were educated about this topic and that's why you did the movie in the first place.Third problem: I thought the point of growing an acre of corn was to see what happened to it. But since it's impossible to follow what happened to their one acre of corn because it gets mixed in with everyone else's, that makes that whole part of the movie pointless. At that point they're just doing a more traditional kind of documentary and it was even less important to have them in the story. Yes they still got to show some information about how corn is planted & raised, but they could have shown that, and to better effect, by hanging out with farmers handling real crops.Fourth problem: I don't remember all the details, but they calculated (spoiler alert?) that if not for the government's checks they would have lost money. Perhaps this is a valid point but using their calculations and drawing conclusions from that is complete B.S. If you were a real farmer, you'd probably own your own equipment, or if not you wouldn't be renting equipment in order to farm one acre of land for 18 minutes. Of course that's not economical!! Fifth problem: Munching into an ear of corn wasn't tasty... well duh, it wasn't sweet corn. There are different varieties of corn. Biting into raw popcorn wouldn't taste good either. That doesn't demonstrate anything one way or the other.Finally (I could probably go on but I'll just make one more point): What was that ending all about? It was silly and contrived.Note that nowhere in this comment did I say anything about disagreeing with their message. A good movie could have been made on this subject, but this wasn't it.

I was forced to watch this in my Tech class for our unit in Agricultural technology, and all in all, it wasn't bad, as far as amateur documentaries go. As with all food documentaries, it touched on the explicit dangers of obesity and how fat Americans are, but not to the point of preachiness. Most of the focus was on the process of corn, from growing to harvesting to the elevator. Although the subject content is not as exciting as the apocalypse, it's important enough to be seen. We really don't realize how much corn is a part of our daily food intake. While calling King Corn "enlightening" is a stretch for some, it opened my eyes. I not going to start obsessively reading the ingredients for every single food product I eat, but you can't accuse me of ignorance. In short, King Corn is good for a school assignment, but watching it on your own will more likely than not make you a grade one nerd.

The film did not demonize corn as a species. It demonized the particular strain of highly selected and genetically modified corn that we use for high fructose corn syrup and cattle feed, a type of corn that requires intensive fertilization and herbicide regimens, and which actually kills off other strains of corn such as the sweet corn we all love eating at a summer barbecue. Also, cows are ruminants, which means that they have basic, low-acidity stomachs, evolved to digest grass. In order for them to digest the starchy kernels from corn, the acidity of their stomachs have to be artificially increased, causing myriad health problems for them which can only be remedied using antibiotics and hormones. This also makes them vulnerable to diseases that threaten us. It is absolutely naive to think this doesn't impact our health. Finally, the "Harvard professor" you refer to is Michael Pollan, a UC Berkeley professor. He is the author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, a book perhaps you should consider reading if you value facts so much. I think it is you who have not carefully understood the information presented by this film.

What I really like about this film is how you feel like you're watching two city guys just kind of figure out how farming works. Along the way you come to understand our broken (IMO) corporate farming system, the political and social ramifications of our farming industry, and much more.This is a film that I hope will catch people unaware. For instance, Sicko was a fantastic brutal indictment of our un-health-care system. Unfortunately, unless you're someone who already knows the system is broke, and you're not anti-Moore, then you're probably not seeing that film. Which is a shame, because I think everyone should see Sicko and really contemplate what is going on, but I digress.King Corn is such a fun film, about a couple likable guys who go about things in a seemingly naiveté that it invites you to watch, regardless of where you sit on the debate concerning our current food system. That is its strength, as it innocently invites all to watch. Only when all parties to an issue participate can we really have a meaningful discussion of our current state of affairs.I only withheld that last vital 10th star, because I felt they could have asked Mr. Butz some tougher questions. Obviously his point about driving down food costs is valid, but how we did it, how we subsidize it (since we're paying for it via taxes, is it really that much cheaper?) and other ramifications of the policy he championed may not be as great as Mr. Butz views it. I did like that they were respectful in their treatment of him during their interview, but a few more fast pitches (no need to throw a spitball) would have been nice.Go see this film.