Michael Moore's "Sicko"

[KneeCo]

**SPOILERS** can you really spoil a documentary? I don't know, but I do talk about some stuff and theres a screen cap at the end of this OP, so proceed with caution I guess.

Watched it last night, briefly this is Moore's best in my opinion, which is saying something but not all that much. It's much more 'Roger & Me' than 'Fahrenheit' and he finally realized that he doesn't need to be on screen for 90% of his own documentaries. While his voice-overs are still ever present, we don't see his face at all in like the first 45 mins which helps keep the focus on the message.

If ever a Moore film had a chance to get his opponents to agree with him (that's a huge if) this is probably it. It wont be his most successful film financially but it might have a chance at being a political success (no matter how you feel about F9/11 there's no doubt that it was a primarily political undertaking aimed at the 2004 election, and as such is ultimately a failure).

And while he is too kind to other countries in the name of making his point (waiting rooms in my hometown of Montreal are killer), his indictment of the American system and hatred for the insurance companies is still spot on and done in a more humble, personal way than his previous attacks.

In terms of partisan fissures in the movie, there's is one point where he will lose a lot of right-wingers when he starts whats basically a serenade to Hillary as an intro to describing her fight for federal healthcare during Bill's first term, although Moore does follow this up by pointing out her radical move to the right on this issue in the last decade and the enormous money she's gotten from the insurance companies, still I'm sure the scene will still annoy people to the point of distracting from the message.

Will it work? Who knows, can one movie really shift decades of American political culture??
Should it work? Who knows, that's up to you.
Well that's a political debate and I guess out of place here. In any case, it's a good movie, a much better documentary than his last one and I would recommend it.

To elaborate, I said I don't think the movie will make nearly the box office, news coverage splash that F9/11 did. For starters, it's not as a controversial issue. Also, between F9/11 and An Inconvenient Truth, huge political movement documentaries on the top 10 chart just isn't the story it used to be.

[esad]

I find it funny that people still refer to Moore's films as "documentaries."

[Blarg]

Let the right-wing dogpile begin!

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that people still refer to Moore's films as "documentaries."

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that people still refer to Moore's films as "documentaries."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think as long as "Fox News" is allowed to call itself "News" then it's perfectly reasonably for Moore's films to be "documentaries".

For that matter, if you look at the fact/fiction ratio of the average white house news conference Moore is probably at a higher percentage of facts.

The reality is that across the board the entire dialogue in America is so permeated with lies and manipulation that singling out Moore as a fabricator is nothing more than a red herring.

[cbloom]

Anyway, the whole point of Moore's movies is to get people fired up about a topic that they've become complacent about, and IMHO he's incredibly good at firing up people on both sides of an issue, which is a good thing.

OTOH to date I'm not aware of any significant positive action resulting from his movies.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that people still refer to Moore's films as "documentaries."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think as long as "Fox News" is allowed to call itself "News" then it's perfectly reasonably for Moore's films to be "documentaries".

For that matter, if you look at the fact/fiction ratio of the average white house news conference Moore is probably at a higher percentage of facts.

The reality is that across the board the entire dialogue in America is so permeated with lies and manipulation that singling out Moore as a fabricator is nothing more than a red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol...a red herring. no, its not. something is either factual or it is not, there isnt "relative" factualness, and saying just because one "news" source isnt factual has no bearing whatsoever on whether another "news/documentary" is. moore is a socialist, hypocritical retard (this last statement has no bearing on anything, I just really hate that fat piece of [censored]. Moore, lose some weight tubbo)

[kemystery]

[ QUOTE ]
(no matter how you feel about F9/11 there's no doubt that it was a primarily a mock attack on the Bush administration to distract the masses from the real stories (One of which is the near shutdown of NORAD on 9-11, and the fact that Dick Cheney orchestrated that NORAD diversion.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that people still refer to Moore's films as "documentaries."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think as long as "Fox News" is allowed to call itself "News" then it's perfectly reasonably for Moore's films to be "documentaries".

For that matter, if you look at the fact/fiction ratio of the average white house news conference Moore is probably at a higher percentage of facts.

The reality is that across the board the entire dialogue in America is so permeated with lies and manipulation that singling out Moore as a fabricator is nothing more than a red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice post you idiot

just because most republicans are [censored] idiots doesn't mean that fat liberal retards like michael moore are any better

take a logic class

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the whole point of Moore's movies is to get people fired up about a topic that they've become complacent about, and IMHO he's incredibly good at firing up people on both sides of an issue, which is a good thing.

OTOH to date I'm not aware of any significant positive action resulting from his movies.

[/ QUOTE ]

They get people more involved in politics, and more skeptical of it, no matter what side they're on, which is all to the good.