It’s not often that a book written by economists would be read by a larger audience - that is, by anyone that isn't a student of economics, or other actual economists. In 2005 however, economist Steven Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner wrote Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. Its different take on economics was found to be quite appealing – to the tune of over 4 million copies in fact.

A film based on a book about economics hardly sounds exciting, but then who knew a book about economics would sell so well? Thankfully, Freakonomics doesn’t veer far from its source material. On top of that, it’s divided into four sections that are directed by some very capable hands.

Starting off on a light note is Morgan Spurlock’s look at the relation between the name you give a child and their eventual status in society. Spurlock made his name on the documentary circuit for piling on the pounds in Super Size Me. This time he doesn’t get in front of the camera, so it’s unclear if he’s managed to get rid of all that lard around his middle or not. His segment is more of a fluffy piece, rather than any kind of sociological breakthrough. It’s an entertaining start though.

Pulling fewer punches, or at least throwing more of its weight around, is Alex Gibney’s Pure Corruption segment on corruption in the Japanese sport of Sumo. Gibney (Taxi to the Dark Side) explores Sumo's dark underbelly, which is usually considered to be the most honourable of sports. It’s a fascinating look at match rigging that also leads to murder. It’s surprising and fascinating in equal measure, and is crying out to be adapted into a film.

So I like to play in my pants, anyone have a problem with that? If so, bring-it-on.

The weakest link in the Freakonomics – the Movie! chain is the third segment directed by Eugene Jarecki(Why we Fight). He examines the statistics issued in the US in the early nineties regarding some of the lowest crime figures recorded in the latter part of the 20th Century. Despite an intriguing premise, Jarecki presents his findings in such a dry and emotionally restrained fashion that it’s difficult to care much at all about it.

The final segment is directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady (Jesus Camp). They follow a curious experiment whereby a group of US ninth graders were bribed to improve their school grades. By meeting a certain criteria each month, participants would be rewarded with 50 bucks. But can such a financial incentive really drive students to study harder? Ewing and Grady really only have time to focus on two particular students – both of which are documentary gold – it’s just a shame that they didn’t have the chance to explore this section in greater depth and with more participants.

Although Seth Gordon (who was responsible for the excellent King of Kong) is said to be involved in the project, sadly his contributions are restricted to only tiny pieces buffering the main segments. It would have been interesting if he would have been given a segment of his own to have a crack at.

Considering that the segments are all filmed by different directors with their own unique styles, it’s understandable that some will be stronger than others. Where the concept struggles is in all of the diverse segments falling under the thin umbrella that is Freakonomics. Each one is so disparate in theme and tone from the next that it’s lacking any real consistency.

Still, it was a brave attempt at not only bringing some further attention towards some bright talent in the world of documentaries, but in also revealing that even economists - and their subject matter - can be mildly entertaining.