Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Dalbert Pringle So, guess what cornstarch, corn syrup, and, yes, America's massive, fast-food industry all have in direct connection with each other? (Believe me, the answer to that question should be pretty obvious to most thinking viewers) To be honest - It wasn't this documentary's subject matter (which certainly held some noteworthy potential) that this viewer found to be supremely dull and forgettable - No - It was, above all else, King Corn's pedestrian presentation and the lacklustre personalities of its 2 producers/stars (who injected themselves into the story) that promptly lost some serious points for this real-life investigation into fast-food's #1 ingredient.To say that King Corn could have been a helluva lot better, on all counts, would truly be an understatement of the highest order.By the time that King Corn's producers, Ian Cheney & Curt Ellis, had made their monumental revelation about corn and its connection with fast-food, this bored viewer had already figured things out for himself and had lost significant interest in this tired documentary well within the first 30 of its 90-minute running time.

MaximumMadness The film "King Corn" is a strong piece of cinema. It gives us a deep look at corn. Yes, corn. Many might think that something as simple as corn can hold no real relevance to the world, or any of its people. This film proves otherwise.It follows Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, as they are followed by director Aaron Woolf and his crew. After a scientist analyzes hair samples from both men, they find something pretty startling- their hair is made of corn? (Well, not exactly. But it's in there.) They go on an odyssey, traveling to Iowa, in order to grow an acre of corn their own, and trace it from first being planted, through its growth, to the harvest, and finally, to how it's processed… and how it ends up in our hair.The film is remarkable in its accessibility. Both of the lead on-screen talent are very engaging and likable. The film also tends to shy away from putting its foot down in the matter. It doesn't say "This is good" or "This is bad", or "blame this person or that organization" it merely presents the evidence and the reaction of Cheney and Ellis to said evidence and the situations that occur. It remains in the middle to an extent, and while it does present the modern corn industry in a negative light (rightfully so, I might add), it isn't too preachy about it. In addition, the filmmakers really try to make the documentary easy to watch and to comprehend, using simple tactics and design to illustrate some of the more abstract points, especially the political jargon and dealings that are brought up. Graphs and stop-motion animation are used to drive home these tough-to-understand concepts in a unique way. When talking about how political farming programs help larger farms grow and can negatively affect smaller farms, rather than seeing something as complex as the talk going on, we see stop-motion-animated Fisher Price toys scurrying about, visually representing what the narration is explaining. It was endearing, and actually quite effective in driving the point home. Quite brilliant, and without spoiling anything, especially touching when a poignant scene later on adds relevance to these stop-motion images.The film also takes a hard look at the negative side of some of the impacts and bi-products of the corn industry. It does show us how government farming programs encourage the mass production of corn by industrial farms. The sheer scope of this industry rewards the larger industrial farms, but over time seems to phase out and eliminate smaller farms, in essence nearly destroying the classical image of the family farm. It is also explained that corn isn't just used for consumption by humans- it's used for other purposes, such as feeding livestock that will eventually be slaughtered for consumption. However, the corn-based feed negatively impacts the farm animals, who aren't "built" to consume such foods, and harms the value of the meat, by dramatically increasing the fat content. Corn is also used for making artificial sweeteners (such as the infamous High Fructose Corn Syrup, which holds virtually no nutritional value), which are used as a sugar substitute in many different foods. The sheer volume of High Fructose Corn Syrup, while making foods cheaper, is arguably also poisoning people. It's financial perks are matched or even outweighed by the health problems it can cause. The parts of the film dealing with HFCS are deeply troubling. I find it hard to stomach that this topic doesn't get more coverage than it already does- our cheaper foods are killing us.For all that "King Corn" does properly, the film does do some wrong, though. It could be argued that a large portion of the movie is a moot point and ultimately pointless in the end- and that is Ellis and Cheney's growing of the acre of corn. While it was a nice statement and image, it is revealed that tracking their corn is a fruitless effort- it can not be tracked due to the sheer volume of corn harvested and processed. And so, Ellis and Cheney are left to mathematically figure out what likely happened to their corn. (They likely knew up front before planting that the corn would be untraceable, it seems unfathomable that they wouldn't have known) While seeing them grow their corn was interesting, the fact of the matter is, it could have been cut down somewhat (I would argue it is important enough to keep in the film, but at least five minutes could have been trimmed from the segments involving their planting, caring for and ultimately harvesting the plants), and the spare time used to further educate the audience on the subject. It just felt like a failed potential to myself.Also, the film does hit a few moments where everything dulls down for a couple minutes, and it drags on, but then again, this seems to happen with most documentaries I've seen, so I can forgive it.But these errors really don't detract much, they're more nit-picks from me, on how I would've changed the movie, and I will say, they didn't really affect my love for everything else. I adored this documentary!I felt "King Corn" was a great educational piece. It teaches much, and is also a fun experience. I give it an 8 out of 10.

tedg Modern documentaries fascinate me.In theory, the documentary category is an investigation, explanation or essay on something, presumably something both real and true. Because there is the supposition that the thing is interesting of worth hearing about for some reason, one assumes that most documentaries would be compelling things. All you have to be is a good enough storyteller and let the truth take over.You have to pick the right story though. Al Gore's story should not have been that the planet is going amok and will kill us, but that it is doing so not because of corrupt government or greedy corporations, but because of us, and things we think are reasonable.Rather than trust the story, most modern documentarians add in another story to grab our attention, and then slip in the real story under it. Thus, in a documentary about unhealthy fast food, we have the primary story about a goof who tries to eat nothing but fast food. I'm interested in these things because this is a modern phenomenon, and is made possible — I think — because of our desire for layered (I prefer folded) narrative.To the movie. Here is the real story: The US constitution allowed two senators per state, and that was carried over to the new states regardless of wisdom. So we have some states with disproportionate power over the public purse. As they are farming and ranching states, that power transforms into huge, irrational farm subsidies. There are all sorts of unintended consequences, noted here. One is that food production has shifted to the creation of biomass for the sweetener, meat and ethanol industries. Each of these has its own subsidies further distorting the balance. Another is that food has become extraordinarily cheap — the lowest cost ever in the history of mankind. This in turn has modified consumer habits allowing unnecessary luxury items not possible before. This film only deals with the massive health problems from bad meat and sweetener. It uses two devices.One is the story of two young guys, how they "came home" to Iowa and leased an acre on which to grow corn. They noodle about, discovering what will happen to "their" corn, and thus reveal the facts, usually as told to the boys by an expert. Its rather obvious that most of the interviews are rehearsed, and that they would be precisely the same without this framing story. Unfortunately, the two guys — who are two of the several writers for all the fiction — aren't interesting or appealing. Their host apparently goes bankrupt at the end, an extraneous unexplained fact. We leave the boys playing on an acre of grass in the midst of a vast corn planting — their acre ostentatiously withdrawn from the system.The other device is some stop-motion animation involving kernels of corn, a map and sometimes a toy farm set — which cleverly appears in the disposal auction of the displaced farmer at the end. This animation adds no information or explanatory value. Its there simply to be cute, and perhaps to break the monotony.It is a strong story, this meat and sweet disaster. It could have been a strong film. It could have used folding effectively.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

tsancio King Corn is an excellent documentary of the entire process of the corn kennel, from its genetic origin to its final use in food. The young protagonists start out from their worry that the junk food they eat will make them live less years than the previous generation and use this energy to investigate the main column of American food which is corn. As they decide to grow an acre of corn in IOWA, they interview people from all stages of the process and make sure that their work is not seen as a all-out criticism of corn. Reading between the lines, you can conclude that although the corn subsidies have made food much cheaper for Americans, it has also reduced its quality. Of course, you have to figure that out yourself since they don't propose a solution. However, they interview enough people to allow you to think. For example, when talking to a farmer that operates a cattle feed lot in which cows are given antibiotics so they can process the excessive amounts of corn that will make them fat, the man replies bluntly: "yeah, we can have our cows eat grass, but that would make it more expensive".They also give a primer on high-fructose corn syrup, the preferred sugar in the USA food industry. Heck, it's sugar. But since it's so cheap, tons of food products contain it.King Corn is an excellent movie for those who don't understand farm subsidies and why they were put in the first place. It's also very balanced and does not cast any of the participants as evildoers. It's just the final (baseball) scene that lets in their youth idealism and pretty much disowns the extensive work they did for the past hours.