ROTTEN TOMATOES: Michael Moore Talks "Sicko," Heath Care, Edutainment, Cuba Comments

Michael Moore Talks "Sicko," Heath Care, Edutainment, Cuba

by Tim Ryan | June 25, 2007

Summary

There isn't much middle ground on Michael Moore; his bromide-laden documentaries have earned him both an enthusiastic following from many on the left and unvarnished vitriol from much of the right. But as divisive as Moore's films can be, they've also been remarkable successful with audiences and critics. Back to Article

(1-26 of 26 posts) | Reply

Thundaar writes:
on Jun 25 2007 08:29 PM

Shocker! the critics love mikey moore.

(Reply to this)

Scarborough Fair writes:
on Jun 25 2007 08:53 PM

I have seen the first 45 minutes of this film from a website that somehow posted it. I live in Canada, I gotta say, this is a film that only Americans will get a kick out of. I don't care to hear about my own health care system that I know all about. It's being hailed as "SO FUNNY YOU MIGHT POP A STITCH"
no, it's not funny. it isn't funny at all, really. At least, not in the first 45 minutes.
I mean, if americans really don't know what our healthcare system is like, then sure. tune in. but it's basically just a long explanation of it. (again, first 45 minutes)

(Reply to this)

wilkiedriver writes:
on Jun 25 2007 09:59 PM

In reply to this comment (#871049)
I have a vague idea of what it's like, good and bad, and my Canadian friends says it's enough for me to know what goes on up there. So, I won't go see America's favorite liberal trying to make me "laugh 'cause it's true" spiel. I already did, it was "Knocked Up".

(Reply to this)

Admiral_N8 writes:
on Jun 26 2007 12:21 AM

Moores films are so one-sided, never showing anything that might disagree with his work, its just simply boring. Would be far more interesting if he had give and take, someone on the opposite side too.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Jun 26 2007 01:01 AM

What's ironic is that one of the biggest criticisms of Moore is that his documentaries are so one sided, but his style, which includes being so one-sided, is entertaining enough that far more people see his documentaries than any other. A more balanced documentary would simply not get the audience. Moore wants people to see his documentaries, and he knows how to get people to see them.

(Reply to this)

lockdicer writes:
on Jun 26 2007 01:33 AM

[b]Research[/b]
I heard Michael Moore did extra research this for this flim. This time he used both Google searches AND wikipedia.

It opens friday let's bust out the second grade intelligence and walk like lemmings into it

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Jun 26 2007 06:36 AM

The only time I laughed at anything Michael Moore did was when he blew up Team America's headquarters.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Jun 26 2007 11:02 AM

Well, I find his documentaries highly entertaining and enlightening. Do I believe everything in them? Of course not. But do they intrigue me enough to want to learn more? Certainly. And in most cases (especially with Fahrenheit 9/11) even if only 20% of it is true, it's still enough that action should be taken to corrct the issues.

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Jun 26 2007 11:37 AM

Everyone LOVES to blast Michael Moore for something. He aims his films at the general public, so they are blasted for being stupid (well, so is the general public). He tries to make them entertaining, so they are blasted for not being like other documentaries which the general public won't see. He's also blasted for not being truthful in his documentaries, and although he doesn't include both sides, I have never read anything that supports the theory that facts in his films are actually false. There's a very big difference between leaving certain facts out and lying.

Whatever Michael Moore is claimed to be, he seems to generally want to help people and make a difference and he does believe in what he is doing. It's hard to criticize him for that.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 26 2007 11:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#871056)
Fair enough, but my mama taught me a half truth is just a lie in diguise. I agree that we shouldn't right him off as the worst thing since Hitler, but we also shouldn't venerate him either. Just accept him as what he is, a guy who's figured out how to make a buck and is playing it to the hilt.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jun 26 2007 12:08 PM

Sure, maybe he's a bit one-sided, but there's no denying that Health Care in the US pales in comparison to the rest of the industrialized west.

I had the good fortune to catch a sneak preview of the film in Chicago last weekend and I was blown away. Maybe it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but it was still a well crafted piece of editorial journalism.

The fact is, our health care system is broken. My parents had fallen victim to it. My friends have too. It's not a revolutionary idea, but it is still very important.

(Reply to this)

wazzat writes:
on Jun 26 2007 12:27 PM

Cynicism often gets mistaken for intelligence on these boards.

At least he's trying to do something of consequence and if you've seen the movie it's very clear that Moore's greatest flaws are his idealism and belief that american's are actually caring, decent people who aren't slaves to the almighty dollar.

(Reply to this)

bobtom writes:
on Jun 26 2007 01:53 PM

Moore is an idiot

(Reply to this)

highdough writes:
on Jun 26 2007 02:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#871061)
The ironic post of the day, ladies and gentlemen.

(Reply to this)

Herberbaly writes:
on Jun 26 2007 02:25 PM

I love what Michael Moore does, because it really angers the right side of the media and politics especially. When the right wing media gets a hold of Moore's viewpoints or documentaries, they tear it apart, when in truth, the right wing media does much more to bend the facts or flat out lie to get their point across. Case in point: Two weeks ago, Bill O'Reilly had a segment on his show in which he blast the New York Times for not putting an article on a terrorist plot on its front page; he showed an image of the paper, folded in half showing the top half of the front page. Surprisingly, the bottom half of the newspaper included an entire article on the plot he claimed the paper didn't run. For those who claim Moore twists the facts to fit his own agenda.... well that modern media, fellas. Everyone seems to do it, whether they are left, right, or center. I happen to agree with Moore's views, so I can see what is truth and fiction more easily than others. He is a smart man who, despite what many believe, wants whats best of the average American. The rest of the media is at fault for turning him into something more...

(Reply to this)

smartmoviekid writes:
on Jun 26 2007 07:15 PM

micheal moore may be weirdly overweight, and kind of ugly looking (this coming from a straight guy), but his docs always seem to be very critical on topics that do not get enough attention and his docs end up great topic starters.

(Reply to this)

Thundaar writes:
on Jun 26 2007 08:34 PM

I like how he tells us what to think.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jun 26 2007 08:40 PM

[b]Here's a fix[/b]
Get rid of ambulance chasers like Edwards, institute immigration reform (so we're not subsidizing everybody and their mother and brothers), and then, perhaps, you can socialize healtcare in a melting pot society like the USA.

For now, Mr. Moore (sniffing irony) should get on a treadmill and worry about his cholesterol (another reason that American healthcare costs so much -- b/c people expect that the healthcare system will save them after years of treating their bodies like shit).

Mr. Moore is not a trend-setter, topic starter -- he's a rabble rouser. A true visionary persuades people to a cause -- he doesn't incite those who already support said cause.

(Reply to this)

dastly75 writes:
on Jun 27 2007 12:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#871065)
Yeah MM shouldn't tell us what to think, that's the government's job.

(Reply to this)

FoxDragoon writes:
on Jun 27 2007 01:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#871066)
You sound smart, but you are not. Why should getting "rid of" Edwards precede social healthcare? What does the fact that we're supposedly a "melting pot society" have to do with socialized healthcare? This is just nonsense. You would have to be an American to be part of American socialized health care. That is why Americans now cannot simply go to Canada and demand Canadian health care. Illegal immigrants would at most get immediate life threatening treatment (as is expected to give anyone today, anyway, no matter their means), but none of the more usual long-term or non immediate life threatening treatments most people have to pay for through their medical insurance today, anyway. The government would pay for Americans for the treatment, instead of the medical insurance companies.

Poor, obvious and expected ad hominem/fallacious attack on Moore. Healthcare cost are increased by unhealthy lifestyles, sure, but that doesn't cover all reasons for its expensiveness. Here's another reason: Why do drugs in Canada and Mexico cost so much less? Because there are various trade policies and regulations supported by pharmaceutical companies through the FDA to keep the price artificially up. For profit, of course. That is why a $200 medicine in the US will probably be about $2 in other countries.

I do not find Moore's one-sidedness to be wrong (or boring). He is not trying to make a debate, but simply point out one side. He never pretends to show both sides of the argument, unlike a certain 24-hour news channel that rhimes with "Ox News." Someone else can, and will, make a debate of it. I think that the pro-universal healthcare side is a side Americans hardly get to hear anything about. That is why it might be painfully dull for a Canadian to watch, but not for an American like myself.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 27 2007 08:06 AM

Don't really care one way or another about Moore, but I do know that I wouldn't trust the NHS (British National Health Service) to bandage a papercut. Yes its' cheap, but when it's my life on the line I'm gonna go with quality everytime.

To Dragoon, I don't think he was saying getting rid of Edwards would solve the problem, I think he was saying getting rid of ambulance chasers and frivolous lawsuit lawyers like he believes Edwards to be would help fix our own system. I think that's a pretty valid point Edwards guilt or innocence aside.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jun 27 2007 08:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#871068)
[b]Apples and oranges[/b]
I won't insult your intelligence, because that's not the way one improves social order.

My reference to Edwards was as an example -- in reference to lawsuit reform against the medical industry (medical costs soar in this country b/c hospitals/doctors are so damn worried about getting sued). Healtcare can't be socialized when everybody in the US is so litigioius.

You cannot compare Canada to the US -- that's the melting pot reference. In a fairly homogenous society, socialistic reforms are more tenable (Sweden being a great example), but in a heterogeneous demography, it's not nearly as plausible (hence the immigration reform comment).

I'm not saying what Moore says is wrong, I'm just saying he presents it in a way that doesn't persuade anybody who isn't already drinking that glass of vino.

Yes, there are things that can be done to mitigate the healthcare problem, but until America becomes an "us" first society (as opposed to the consumerism, "me" first one it is), this won't happen... And based on precedent, it ain't gonna happen (People only care about what their country can do for them, not what they can do for their country -- unfortunately, JFK made a great speech, but his words have been filtered by time and human reality).

As for the "pro-universal" healtcare side being something Americans hardly ever hear about... perhaps if you don't live in a major metropolis... But here on the west coast, I hear about that a lot more than anything else.

Sincerely,

The Pedant :)

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jun 27 2007 08:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#871069)
Thanks for the backup on the Edwards point :)

(Reply to this)

FoxDragoon writes:
on Jun 27 2007 01:39 PM

In reply to this comment (#871070)
[b]Eat more Apples and Oranges[/b]
I agree that lawsuit reform needs to happen, but not first, necessarily. Lawsuit reform would actually benefit much from a socialized model. Simply put, the gargantuan amount of money demanded from lawsuits are mainly covered by the private insurance agencies doctors are required to have. When a government has control of the pool of money one can get form a lawsuit, it is more likely that a lower amount would be granted in court. Of course, this would happen not just because the court and the public health system are part of the government, but because laws defending the public health system against frivolous lawsuits would pass more easily, since it is the public's money (the voters' money), not a private insurance agency's.

Of course, homogeneity certainly helps a group's solidarity, but the need for a public health system is something that affects everyone, no matter the background. This is more of a sad realization that we are not able to see past superficial differences to get something that will help everyone.

I agree with the 'us' instead of 'me' point.

The way you just threw in Edwards there without explaining seemed injustified til now that you've explained what you meant. I am sorry about judging your intelligence. I hear too many of these quick Ann Coulter-like insults, but I suppose that is not what you were doing.

(Reply to this)

pandemonious writes:
on Jun 30 2007 02:36 AM

[b]What's the beef?[/b]
Moore lights fires under debates, and he does that well. Too many of his critics are overly stunned by his now well-known pyrotechnics. To those who love to rehash the same platitudinous faux shock and anger, shame on you and grow up. Stop trying to justify your dislike of his style by stating the obvious: exaggeration stretches the truth! Good, I am glad you understand the meaning of good showmanship and theatrics. Hopefully it has spurred people to re-examine this issue and it's important implications. If it causes people to seek out their own truth in research and debate, then his film will have done more than any of the more sedately accurate documentaries which one typically forgets within an hour.

(Reply to this)

chubbaraff writes:
on Aug 03 2007 06:40 AM

As an australian, I just don't get how conservatives don't agree with universal healthcare, our conservatives don't like it but they put up with it pretty uncontroversially. They do so because they can realise the benefit of having there labour source as uninterupted as possible. I just dont get how the richest imperialist country in the world, supposedly cant affort to look after its citizens. Some American here in Aus tried to explain to us that when you create the welfare state, that is socialised healthcare (keep in mind they are different things) all of a sudden no one wants to work... people start queing up at the doctors, all of the best brains in society suddenly start wanting to see a doctor instead of working. Its utter nonsense. In fact, what has happened here is that as people are becoming more educated and higher education participation increases (becaue the govt loans you the money) there is less need for healthcare as people look after themselves and the cost to society is reduced, im no right wing economist but its pretty damn obvious that social democratic norms in everywhere else but the US lead to better economic outcomes for everyone in a society.

(Reply to this)