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.

Morgan Spurlock once again pushes the envelope of movie-making with a unique form of documentary. It's a movie-within-a-movie about product placement and it explores all the artistic and moral dilemmas that go with the territory. He gets both sides of the story from famous directors (J.J. Abrams, Peter Berg) to big time marketing execs (with often hilarious war stories from the trade). All the while, truly "showing" rather than "telling" the story of how commercialism and art intersect, and often collide. Its a meditation on the (often financial) struggle many artists feel to get their message out. Spurlock puts his reputation at stake as he did with his health in Super Size Me. He also manages to be highly educational and its a must-see for anyone who studies marketing or aspires to be a producer.Overall, its good natured, fun movie-making that's enjoyable through every scene. Spurlock is a talented documentarian with original style and flair that gets plenty of laughs.

I'm still not sure what I watched after seeing this, but I liked it. Was it all just an exposé piece on the wheelings and dealings of commercialized movie-making? It was more like an "infinite-brand backscratch" of Ouroboros proportions. I thought learning about the binding, legal paperwork that Morgan received from each agreeing company was interesting. Also the CT scans of the brain releasing dopamine each time Coca Cola was mentioned says a lot about why companies are placing products in movies and TV shows all the time. Tricky bastards. Cameos by Ron English, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Outkast's Big Boi, OK GO, and Donald Trump were nice interviews to see as well. If you are avid fan of the Adbusters magazine, if you've been curious why Iron Man needs to be on a Dr. Pepper can, or if you're a fan of Spurlock's other documentary ventures, I suggest you watch this film today. It's not a clearly written documentary that you can envision easily, but it was an interesting watch.

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