s McD diet seems extreme, we can all relate to neglecting our health by eating out. Maybe the stats and numbers Ebert reviews help people realize that the film touches on a real issue that regular people can fall into.

Based on his irresponsible diet habit at McDonald’s in the past and his experience of losing weight with a decent nutritional program, he conveys his message that people should eat more responsibly.

In a review about a topic such as this one, which is essentially a personal experiment conducted by Spurlock, you need numbers to make the story. No one cares about Ebert’s opinions, we just want the facts of what Spurlock unlocked about McDonalds, a popular food chain we are all guilty of having eaten in. What this says about Ebert’s technique is that he realizes a good review of this documentary entails stats that the documentary gathered. His own story is used to contrast/balance out the review of the story, giving his own experience may help resonate with the reader better.

The reviewer speaks about his own life because he too is trying to gain a healthier lifestyle. The reviewer mentioned how her lost 86 pounds by going on a nutritional program. This film must hit close to home. The review must include statistics because that is the basis of this film. It is based on numbers revolved around the body, and food companies.

His personal story kind of shows his basis towards the film, because he went out of his way to make sure he was healthy and in shape from working out and eating healthy, and since he is about his health he he has a stronger connection to film since it is showing the side effects of McDonalds food.

I guess in order to come across his point, Ebert includes this many stats to highlight/emphasize the negative effect it has on one’s body to be living off of fastfood. The technique is sort of irrelevant in this documentary. We follow a person whose main goal is to prove that your health is at risk if your diet mainly consists of fastfood.

He includes his personal story to let the reader know that this had happened to him before, so he supports the stats as well as Spurlock’s experience.

I used to work at McD for 6 years in Denmark, and over the course of those 6 years I gained 100lbs. I was in physical bad shape because I would eat at least 10 meals at McD per week. for 6 years. I managed to lose 65lbs after I quit in 2006.

Ebert’s personal experience causes him to be more of advocate of the film compared to a viewer learning about the shocking facts. I think Ebert was aware of these statistics before he watched the film (since he talks about losing weight). Because of that, his review was in a way, skewed from the beginning, since he was aware of the facts and all this documentary does is prove those facts.

I would bet that no body goes to McDonalds thinking they’re getting any nutritional value. People know that McDonalds is bad for them, but they overlook the numbers. Seeing the numbers laid out the way Ebert puts them definitely makes one realize just how bad McDonalds is for them. I think the statistics tied in with the story his his personal weight loss is almost a warning from him personally to stay away from McDonalds.

This is one of those documentaries where since the content is about a man’s day to day life, technique is less noticed because everyone is involved with the story and what will happen to the man in his life while consuming something people are so familiar with. I think Ebert recognizes that, so he decides to focus on the content rather than technique

Morgan Spurlock is narrating facts and statistics about obesity within the United States calling it the” fattest nation in the world”. This provides the audience with the shock factor over this portrait of America which further engages them into the film for these statistics. However, he does not clearly distinguish these effects as a separate problem from McDonalds specifically. Using Michael Moore techniques, Spurlock creates his own character to tell a story. For example, by providing close-ups of his throwing up and forcing his audience to see crumbles of chewed up slime fall across his face, showing the appeal of fast food.

Ebert pulled statistics from the film to make his review seem more factual than it actually was. In the end, he ended up being a spokesperson for this film rather than a critic. Even when he did bring up arguments that others had with the documentary, he always downplayed them and used phrases like “this is both true and not true” to show two sides of the debate. But when it came to praising the film, it seemed as though he felt this documentary was the greatest discovery and would change the way everyone looks at fast food.

The film’s main story is about a man taking on this challenge to eat nothing but McDonald’s for 30 days. It’s a personal narrative that highlights what the film is trying to say about McDonald’s food. Ebert himself had been overweight for quite a number of years before he lost weight. This movie makes people take a personal look at themselves and their choices when it comes to food. By explaining everything that he did and has done when it comes to dieting and McDonald’s, Ebert is highlighting that exact fact.

Everybody has their own experience with food and how it specifically affects their body. This experiment although with most likely similar results would’ve had different outcomes if the subject was older, younger, male, female whichever the case maybe. It makes the audience realize how drastic the mcdonald’s sodium and fat numbers are compared to a “regular” diet.

Being a heavy set man, Ebert relates to the many Americans going through the struggle of leading a healthier life by eating healthy. He points out what worked for him was a creation Pritikin diet he followed and not only that but exercise. Leading a healthy lifestyle is not only about what you eat but how you maintain your body, which can be done with exercise also.

Spurlock makes this film personal by adding personal aspects to the film such as his wife and her perspective, his apartment building, his own apartment, and phone calls between him and his wife and the doctors. Also because this is a documentary that is being filmed in a diary style it gives is a much more personal feel.

The documentary is about him just as much as it’s about McDonalds or how fast food is detrimental. It’s filmed in a first person perspective – Spurlock is talking directly to his audience.

This film also creates an image of Spurlock. Even though the experiment is questionable, he wants to see what would happen. He’s a risk taker. Even when the doctors advise him to stop, he doesn’t. This also shows that he’s true to his word; he said he would eat McDonald’s for 30 days and doesn’t back down, no matter how disastrous it could end up being.

Through his journey, we can actually see how he struggles both physically and mentally. By acting as a model, his experience also reminds us how we can be experiencing the same thing.

It would be easy to just give the audience numbers – this is how much we’ve I’ve gained, this is how many calories I eat a day, this is my blood pressure before and after, etc – but a film wouldn’t be necessary for that. Spurlock could give us a spreadsheet with that data and it would have the same impact. What makes the movie really personal is when we learn about how eating the McDonalds affects him emotionally and personally, especially with his girlfriend. She says that the McDonalds has affected their sex life, and it’s comments like these that make the film much more than a spreadsheet.

It reveals personal information about himself like the amount of weight he has lost, and it allows the audience to have emotions for him, which is unusual for a reviewer to do for himself, since his job is just to talk about someone else’s film.