Sicko is not just terminally ill but quite contagious too. A black buboes on stumpy legs that takes another legitimate issue for a partisan joy ride.

This time he targets our healthcare providers (read industry). But wait, shocking as this may appear, he doesn't appraise the WHOLE of our healthcare system, just the part that is . . . private. The independent sector, the part with the initiative, where the wealth to be plundered is at. Its the part that would be swallowed whole and subjected to his stomach acid treatment if 'universalized medicine' was ever realized.

Moore works in classic propaganda style. His well-spring is your bottled-up anger. He picks a spot, digs, and out gushes your indignation. Sadly and all-knowingly, he doesn't need to work too hard. For this film, he bounced around Western Europe and a certain Caribbean heaven-on-earth.

Our fathead auteur doesn't injure his eyes looking at the numbers too closely nor strains his field of vision by looking deep or wide. Let your fears be allayed.

His taste for a particular kind of warmed-over fact remains unblemished. Remember: he craves your fear and anger. Check out Metacritic's reader reviews for a view of that sadness. The messy stuff that doesn't jibe with his fun version of events never sees the lens of his camera.

Naive CNN finds his numbers accurate but his context lacking. I think they meant to say his CHOSEN numbers are largely accurate and the regions of information he blithely overlooks constitutes a universe in itself:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/28/sicko.fact.check/index.html

In summary: Our most controversial fathead auteur has disgorged another pile of fuming ideological poo onto the big screen. He is a rank exploitationist; a fear mongerer; a peddler of spliced-up half-truths. He is vile for for all that. Yes, he is a 'Sicko'.

Umm. Shouldn't this be on a movie thread?

hmmmm...sounds lots like our prez.

Syzygy. Why try to start a fight when there's none to be had? And, yes, this should be in the movie thread. Thank you, and, good morning!

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm not sure what you're argument,if any, is here Syzygy. I seems like a lot of Michael Moore name calling. Which is fine I guess, but based on your previous posts ( I know, I know, you're not a conservative ...and I don't like chocolate chip cookies), I'm not sure why you even bother seeing a film that attempts to show the inefficiencies of a privatized health care system and praises the benefits of socialized medicine.

Moore's films are notoriously one-sided. He makes no attempt (which even he admits) to be fair and balanced.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Moore's films are notoriously one-sided. He makes no attempt (which even he admits) to be fair and balanced.

??? You must be listening to another Michael Moore speak than I've ever listened to.

quote:

Originally posted by Trekscribbler:

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Moore's films are notoriously one-sided. He makes no attempt (which even he admits) to be fair and balanced.

??? You must be listening to another Michael Moore speak than I've ever listened to.

He's likened his films to Op-Ed pieces in numerous interviews. Op-Ed pieces typically aren't objective. Moore's documentaries have always been more theory and opinion than "just the facts".

I haven't seen the movie, but I'm very glad it was made. Not because I'm necessarily for or against public health care, but because health care in the US is in shambles. No, I don't mean the quality, but the cost of care here is ridiculously out of hand. Companies have gone bankrupt because they can't afford to pay it anymore, for crying out loud! The US spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare - the highest in the world.

syzygy, it feels as if you lent some poetry to the 3 or 4 reviews you read online, without having seen the movie. well done. i always like to criticize things i don't see - much easier that way.

and even if you have seen it, you might give a few clues to us readers that you have. might help your argument, whatever that argument was.

Honestly I'm not sure how to feel about the man. I did see him on TV when he was touting Fahrenheit, and he said on Good Morning America or some such the film is one-sided because he doesn't feel the media is being fair/balanced so it's the same. I mean anyone going to see this thing to get their information about health care doesn't deserve objective information as far as I'm concerned. And he does seem to like making money off bad situations...but he's bringing them to our attention at the same time, which is a good thing. Hmm. I guess I don't like him. Probably won't see Sicko, but I'll probably check out Bowling For Columbine at some point, seems a lot more interesting to me. If I don't care for that one either, I'll just give up on the fellow.

quote:

I mean anyone going to see this thing to get their information about health care doesn't deserve objective information as far as I'm concerned.

I couldn't have said it any better, Nhaz.

If as Michael Moore proclaims that tens of millions of dollars has been spent by the health care industry to keep their profits growing, to keep many people poor and in fear against their government in order to keep an important voting population at bay, then the approach of this movie cannot be a mere recitation of facts and figures, a logical, rational approach to a major policy issue. Health care policy, according to Michael Moore, has become more about image and impression by the mass media and powerbrokers. If this is so, then this movie needs to focus more on the human factors, the possible gravity of the overall situation, than proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a problem. I like the idea of a feature film as a opinion-editoral (op-ed) - a discussion piece. This movie isn't about about balance and neither does it need to be be. It's about revealing another side of a possible insidious dark, cruel underbelly of America that we more well-off and contented, health care insurance covered people would rather ignore. We can't be that evil as a people can we?

I remember lots of awfuls stuff from my years working in a hospital. Thre were a few physicians who were true human beings, many who just did their job and compentently, and several who were in it for ego and $$$$$. The later group was sickening. I remember one of them who had several patients in isolation. While the rest of us wore isolation gear, he walked from patient to patient, room to room without donning his isolation garb. This was, of couse, unhealthy and against all rules. What a jerk! I saw stuff like this repeatedly. No wonder people get sick in hospitals. I don't have much good to say about physicians in general, but have praise for a few individuals who were and are remarkable people. HMOs are a joke and if you believe they are humanitarianly based than you are deluding yourself. The amount of money these outfits make (throw in pharmaceutical companies) is astounding. Should they have a good profit? You bet, but not at the expense of proper and appropriate health care to those of us paying the $.

Moore's films are frustrating.

He starts out really well. The arguments are well constructed, the interviews are engaging and you're all out to support him.

Unfortunately, he always stumbles after a fantastic opening. Mid way through the film, he will introduce a 'sub-plot' (a bizarre feature in documentary). This consists of befriending a 'victim' and taking their cause to the powers-that-be to demand justice.

The ending in every Moore film I have seen puts me right off the bloke. In particular, The interview with Charlton Heston on 'Bowling for Columbine' was uneccessary and sensationalist. By that point in the film, we all knew Heston was a prick - there was absolutely no need and it only served to boost Moore's ego.

As for Farenheit 9/11, A far better deconstruction of Neo-conservative philosophy (and Isamic radicalism) exists in a 3 part BBC documentary called 'The power of Nightmares'. It used to be available as a streaming video. If I find it, I'll post the link here.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
He starts out really well. The arguments are well constructed, the interviews are engaging and you're all out to support him.

Unfortunately, he always stumbles after a fantastic opening. Mid way through the film, he will introduce a 'sub-plot' (a bizarre feature in documentary). This consists of befriending a 'victim' and taking their cause to the powers-that-be to demand justice.

The ending in every Moore film I have seen puts me right off the bloke. In particular, The interview with Charlton Heston on 'Bowling for Columbine' was uneccessary and sensationalist. By that point in the film, we all knew Heston was a prick - there was absolutely no need and it only served to boost Moore's ego.

I agree with you Duncan. Columbine was pretty solid, and he had some good arguments, but as you said, it pretty much fell apart in the third act. Going over to Charlton Heston's house to berate a grumpy old man was pretty unnecessary.

I disagree that the Heston interview was unnecessary. Heston is the very public face of a very dodgy organisation, so for Moore's political leanings, it made complete sense to shine a light on this dirty little corner.

I didn't think the "Blame the NRA" argument was all that compelling. Canada's gun laws are comparable to the US and they don't have anywhere near the gun related deaths we do. I thought Moore's best argument was the whole "culture of fear" argument -- what spawns violence in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaels coffin:
I disagree that the Heston interview was unnecessary. Heston is the very public face of a very dodgy organisation, so for Moore's political leanings, it made complete sense to shine a light on this dirty little corner.

I understand that, but I think the documentary had already succeeded in doing so.

The interview itself showed 2 people with very static viewpoints and didn't achieve much. Heston came across as a bigot (we were already aware that he was) and Moore shoe-horned in lots of things that had already been said. It didn't add anything constructive to the film and actually damaged both parties.

I felt that Moore wanted justice and having Heston humiliate himself on-screen seemed like a good way of achieving it - it didn't change my views on anything or enlighten me on the NRA.

With the afore-mentioned 'Power of Nightmares' they used existing truths. The whole programme runs as a history lesson on interesting and little known political facts. You leave the film feeling enlightened. There's a fantastic interview with a neo-conservative explaining why they felt it neccessary to fabricate Russia's nuclear threat - it's explained in a sinister matter-of-fact fashion and the interviewer does not provoke at all. I learned a great deal about the manipulation of society and I believe the film won many accolades.

By contrast, Moore has a tendency to put his own political agenda on a pedestal, and it can get in the way of what is potentially a great documentary.

Moore hasn't made a good movie since Canadian Bacon. Simple.

This is just a classic case of "grass is greener on the other side" that Moore made into a political attack on the right. What else is new?

Mate, Moore has his faults, but this doco is making an airtight case against an increasingly broken, ineffective and corrupt medical system.

Once you get past the rhetoric, left and right both can see his point is valid.