hamoo this movie was great, as evidenced by all the accolades and praises of the few that watched it. sadly, the people that need to watch it, which is everyone, don't, so Americans will live in oblivion as usual, and nothing changes. the one question that baffles me is how can they tell if a carbon atom comes from corn? i mean, as far as i know, one carbon atom is as good as another. i know how spectrgraphy and spectroscopy work. but the explanation of how they pinpointed where atoms come from was maybe beyond the scope of the movie, but should have been addressed somewhere

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.

mcmillen-2 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.

EinRand-1 Everyone seems to have missed the whole point of this eye-opening and noteworthy documentary. Folks in the corn belt will view this film as an attack upon their livelyhood. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals will only see this as an indictment of meat. Both hit the board but miss the bullseye by a mile.We have an obesity epidemic in America that is spreading to the whole world, and already some two-thirds of Americans are going to die an early death because they are either obese or overweight. The negative effect of obesity on productivity and enjoyment of life is monumentally more damaging to the soul of America than most can easily surmise.High fructose corn syrup is killing America. When carbohydrates are consumed your pancreas is signaled to produce insulin, and every calorie is stored as FAT. If you eat a high fat, moderate protein, and very low carbohydrate diet, you will lose about .2 lbs per day, and will become exponentially healthier. Take the zero carb not Peppsi challenge. Go to your local mart and actually look at how little food is low or zero carb. The government food pyramid is made of carbs. High fructose corn syrup has virtually replaced sugar because it is cheaper for the farmer to produce due to subsidies, and therefore has a higher profit margin.The Corn industry justifies its subsidized existence by touting how little money the average consumer has to spend to acquire sufficient daily calories (never minding the fact that a subsidy to a parasite is a tax on a producer). But as Gary Taubes in his new book Good Calories Bad Calories - using rigorous science and documentation, and as any follower of Atkins knows, one tends to eat dramatically less on a low carb diet to the point of almost rectifying the price imbalance.Had Morgenschiester from Super Size Thee, only ate Meat and Cheese at MickieD's he would have been sated far too early to finish the bun, fries, and high fructose corn syrup. How can we fault the farmer, FastFood, or the Consumer for taking the easy way out? We should place blame squarely on the shoulders of the Government for its communistic social engineering of our society that yields big bucks for big industry on the backs of a populace that will die an early death. But if you view the American population as one giant herd of cattle, then it makes sense that our reproduction and early death is preferred for its effect on GDP?Ketogenisis, D3 (4k+ I.U. /d), and SlowBurn weightlifting have the capacity to virtually end early death in America. Google it, do the research, stop relying on MSM and give this little gem of a documentary a chance. This film was brought to you by entrepreneurs working in the free market - reward them with your viewing dollars.As an aside; there is mention in the film about how healthy free ranged grass fed cattle are. That is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Some in the know have warrant for the belief that if we turned all corn acres into grass land for cattle, its effect on carbon sequestration would IMMEDIATELY remove enough carbon green house gas to completely reverse global warming. That is if you believe in that socialist wealth redistribution scheme. ;-)