Critic Review - Salt Lake Tribune

Bell makes some good points about the dark side of the American dream, but much of his argument about steroids is muddled.

June 27, 2008 | Comments (7)
Salt Lake Tribune

Comments

memarosie

Rosemary Bell

muddled???? obviously your the only one that thinks that. Tiger Woods is a wonderful person, but cheating is cheating, WHY didn't he get his eyes fixed to be 20/20? WHY get it fixed to be 20/15 and then go on to do commercials for lasix surgery? Just wondering.

Jun 27 - 08:15 PM

GBake

Greg Baker

The movie doesn't really have to make point about steroids, unlike a lot of documentarists, Bell doesn't care if we walk away buying what he pushes, so he never really tries to sell us anything. His is the most effective of media styles. He introduces a world to which most of us are oblivious and then shows how it exposes the hypocrisy of the things we consume by the bowlful. He portrays beautifully his own ambivalence towards the subject, leaving the viewers to answer the hard questions on their own. He doesn't abandon us though; he provides plenty of information to allow us to answer those hard questions, or at least contemplate them intelligently.

Jun 28 - 08:55 PM

zzzaxzzz

Victor Nguyen

lol. this was in the top 15 or so of the best of all time for rotten tomatoes until this person came in.
lol.

i don't have a problem or anything...i'm just sayin'.

Jul 1 - 06:18 PM

legman8

Jared Wilsey

Two comments: First, Bell did interview "experts" who thought steroids were dangerous. The point that was raised in the film is that almost all evidence of the extreme danger of performance enhancing drugs is purely anecdotal. Second, this was not the main point of the film (the safety of anabolic steroids). The point of the film was the role of these drugs in American culture and a case study of one family's moral dilemna with these drugs.

Jul 2 - 05:59 PM

legman8

Jared Wilsey

Two comments: First, Bell did interview "experts" who thought steroids were dangerous. The point that was raised in the film is that almost all evidence of the extreme danger of performance enhancing drugs is purely anecdotal. Second, this was not the main point of the film (the safety of anabolic steroids). The point of the film was the role of these drugs in American culture and a case study of one family's moral dilemna with these drugs.

Jul 2 - 05:59 PM

legman8

Jared Wilsey

Two comments: First, Bell did interview "experts" who thought steroids were dangerous. The point that was raised in the film is that almost all evidence of the extreme danger of performance enhancing drugs is purely anecdotal. Second, this was not the main point of the film (the safety of anabolic steroids). The point of the film was the role of these drugs in American culture and a case study of one family's moral dilemna with these drugs.

Jul 2 - 06:00 PM

Blank Frank

Jeremy D

From what I understand, it's supposed to be muddled. It's not trying to spoon-feed you an opinion (a la Michael Moore) or tell you the obvious (Morgan Spurlock), it's supposed to point out how the debate itself is muddled--how exactly is Barry Bond's potential (though likely) steroid use more immoral than uppers for Air Force pilots, or Tiger Woods' corrective-and-then-some Lasik surgery?

Also, it seems odd to me that 2.5 out of 4 stars is a "rotten."

Jul 7 - 12:58 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile