While fumbling through the wasteland of on-demand television one last week, I came across a documentary that Paradox Weekly readers might find worth watching. “The Greatest Movie Ever Sold ” is the brainchild of Morgan Spurlock, best known as the guy behind 2004’s “Super Size Me “ (a project which caused the filmmaker significant health-related complications as a result of eating McDonald’s three times a day for 30 days). That documentary played a vital role in altering the nutritional information and offerings of the quick service restaurant industry. This time, in 2011, Spurlock aimed his sights on product placement, advertising and marketing in the entertainment industry and set out to make a movie entirely about — and funded by — corporations’ product placement, advertising, and marketing.

Now, in the theme of complete transparency, the documentary is flawed, and is not likely to have the same reformatory effect of Super Size Me. Like many, partner Paula Rosenblum couldn’t get through the opening 30 minutes of the film, as Spurlock’s personality tends to overshadow the story he seeks to unfold. However, for those willing to persevere, it gets much more interesting as the movie goes on.

Spurlock approaches such major brands as Vokswagen, Coke, Target, Burger King — a litany of retailer and CPG who’s whos in attempt to attain their sponsorship. In return, their brands and products will be seamlessly displayed throughout the course of the movie based on the pre-established sponsorship tiers he’s made availalbe. For example, $1 million buys title sponsorship, whereby the company’s name will appear in the title of the film, its products will be the only of their competitors’ kind displayed in the movie, and 30 second pre-approved commercials will be woven into the movie, itself. Less money = less exposure in the film.

One of the most interesting sequences is when Spurlock visits Sao Paulo, Brazil, a city which, in 2007, banned all forms of visual advertising from the entire city. Billboards, placards, flyers, posters, advertisements on busses — all have been removed to create a clean city. While one look at its landscape makes one analyst’s heart yearn for a North American sister city, the most fascinating part is when retailers are interviewed to find out what they’ve been forced to do differently in the absence of glaring advertisements. The response? Better products, better customer service, and the resulting word of mouth that come from offering a better retail experience. Granted, this is only what Spurlock has allowed us to see through his directorial lens, but it’s still enough to make one wonder, no?

Other interesting sequences include candid sit-downs with such major Hollywood directors as Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds, Pulp Fiction), JJ Abrams (Lost, Star Trek) and Peter Berg (Friday Night Lights, Hancock), discussing how ubiquitous, awkward and forced many examples of product marketing in entertainment today can be.

The thread behind what Spurlock is really offering, however, is that the corporations who bite on the concept will be helping to expose the magnitude of product placement and advertising in entertainment today. This transparency is the halo effect we have to imagine the brands who signed on were truly hoping for. And it’s also part of the film’s fatal flaw: sure, we get to see a lot of the rejected pitches Spurolock delivers (none so entertaining as his self-designed story-boarding for title sponsor Pom Wonderful’s 30 second in-film ads). What we rarely see is the successful pitches. For example, at the film’s conclusion, in the marketing blitz leading up the film’s release, Spurlock appears on the Jimmy Fallon show to promote the movie. Here we learn (from the Nascar-esque jumpsuit he dons displaying all of the movie’s corporate sponsors) that he has been sponsored by such retailers as Target, Gap (Old Navy), Under Armour, and MovieTickets.com — but we never see how he got those retailers on board.

For some of the more alternative brands he gets to sign up (Amy’s Kitchens, Merrell Shoes), we’re forced to assume that the goal is not only product exposure, but to be associated with the transparency effect — almost as if to say, “We’re different from other brands, we want you — the viewer — to know that this type of marketing is out there. ” For some of the smaller brands, it might just very well be purely about the product exposure. Food and fuel retailer Sheetz, for example, seems to have bought in wholeheartedly, going so far as to allow Spurlock to design an entire collection of collector’s cups distributed at its mid-Atlantic chain locations. But we really don’t get to see why these brands agree to sponsor the movie, and just as importantly, we don’t get to find out for how much.

What we see an awful lot of instead is the director’s smarmy persona getting rejected, and as a small business owner, rightfully so. That’s what got Paula to tune out: “If he came looking to our brand, I’d throw him out, too “. And it’s probably also part of what has led to the film’s lackluster performance, both in theaters and on DVD. Some of the corporations had contractual stipulations that their payment would only be processed at sales performance milestones (POM Wonderful agreed to pay if when the film brought in $10M at the box office and 600 million media impressions). As of August 2011 — the film premiered in January and went for wider release in April — it had only brought in approximately $640,000. In my mind, it’s a valiant effort whose execution relies too much on its director’s self-indulgence to truly expose the underbelly of a growing issue in modern culture.

But enough film critiquing from me — you be the judge. And if you do, let us know what you think!