One of the few hard rules of docu work that Moore chucks out the window from day one. You're exactly right about TV Nation being his real peak.

A very good review, by the way.

He's a socialist. He promotes socialism by cutting his films to show US capitalism always failing against socialized programs in any country, on any debate. And because his disdain for the US runs so deep, he cannot help himself show it fail in even the most absurd cases, like Cuba.

If Sicko was an honest film he would have shown health care in China, which is the real dark side of socialized medicine. Even PBS/NPR have covered how scary that shit is. But Moore couldn't bring himself to do it, because it would take the hate off the US.

If the man was about questioning his government, he'd be a Libertarian. But he's far, far, far away from that.

However, as has been said, if you need anything above and beyond that (consultations, drugs, whatever) then good luck to you, as people have DIED waiting to be seen by the NHS doctors. The beauracracy and waste has to be seen to be believed, and believe me I've seen it.

A two-tier system is best. Those who can afford to pay for their own healthcare should be encouraged to do so whilst the state takes care of those who can't.

Docu's are not, were not, meant to be advocating one thing or another, unless they are retrospectives. Contemporary - meaning of the moment - docu's are supposed to be objective and let the occurring material speak for itself. They are not supposed to start with a conclusion and reverse engineer because of a "purpose". That is propaganda.

And how is it unfair to judge Moore's films as docu's when he accepts an Oscar over other docu's? How is it unfair when the only way a person is legally allowed to travel to Cuba is if they are a journalist? If Moore's not making a docu by journalistc standards, then why is he using that framework? You're the one trying to change the parameter, because it's the only way to justify his agitprop as advocacy and not call it that.

As for your generalized fictional examples, how many shows do I have to list where the corporate white guy is the villain? Sum Of All Fears, 24, The Day After, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, X-Men, Day After, Syriana, V for Vendetta, Die Hard, etc...

I would have preferred that the whole trip to Guantanomo Bay had been cut out of the movie, and he had just gone straight to Cuba, but again, like other's have pointed out, Moore isn't claiming that Cuba is a better country than the United States, or that those European countries are better, but rather that countries who are inferior economically to the United States still do a better job of taking care of their citizens when it comes to health care.

He's PT Barnum with a camera and a political agenda. There's a certain dishonesty to the way he presents his films, as if the truth isn't as important as it is for Moore to needle those he doesn't like.

For Moore, I get the impression that the controversy he causes is more important than the message. Which is a shame, as he's tackled several crucial issues facing our nation, and added absolutely nothing to the dialogue, aside from giving his opposition a Michael Moore-sized club to swing at his Left-leaning compatriots.

As a liberal, I really do think that Moore does just as much damage as he does good. Because of his previous work, there is now an organized resistance to any message he presents. And the issue is forever colored in conservative thought as involved with Moore. Thus, there's to be no meaningful dialogue about gun control anymore. We can't discuss the failings of the Bush junta in the fictitious War on Terror. And now, we can't bring up healthcare without the omnipresent threat of discussing Michael Moore.

I really want to like Michael Moore. I try. And, much as I appreciate the humor he occasionally brings to the table, I'd just like him to shut the hell up so the facts can win the day.

But they'll fight you, looking for some holes in your applications to prove you lied about something, or they try to argue with the results of the tests, etc. The insurance companies make mountains of money and cry when expected to actually pay out.

As for Moore's integrity, I agree with Mori. He doesn't need to make shit up or leave out facts. The truth is damning enough. The showman in him makes him do these stupid things occasionally, but at least his films start debate. God knows you cannot count on the MSM to raise these issues.

Moore is just a guy who has the means to speak to alot of people. And we worked hard for that and he deserves it as much as anyone else who works for it(AICN).

I will see this on monday, but from his other movies, I think Moore communicated more with emotion than with statements. Like films are supposed to. Show it not say it.

We all went to war because we thought we were saving our lives. Well, maybe we can fix health care... because we are saving our lives. I think it is possible.

People need to think for themselves NOT take YOUR advice. If people can't think for themselves THAT is THE problem.

The solution to that problem is NOT to encourage people not to listen to people YOU disagree with. That's the fucking problem with this country and this world... people NOT listening and thinking for themselves... or just plain not listening and thinking.

You are telling them to figure this out for themselves... while telling them that they should just do what you say and ignore what Michael Moore says.

How does that not make YOU exactly what you are calling Michael Moore?

The funniest comment in this thread is the one who referred to Moore as 'un-self servingly' helping people. He is the biggest self-promoter around. He doesn't have to star in his movies, he can do what documentaries used to do before they became star vehicles. The problems he addresses can be presented without lying about other countries, and he doesn't need the stunts.

Does Moore still own stock in Haliburton? For such an avowed socialist he runs his personal finances on a very conservative basis. Like most rich liberals.

Supermans, perhaps you should ask your overpriced HMO for some more brain pills...

Bottom line: how many people suffer and die because of waiting in a line for health care and how many suffer and die because they can't afford health care? do the math. pick the one where we suffer and die LESS. it's not hard to figure this one out.

It's utter BULLSHIT to argue about whether things are quite as good or quite as bad as Moore says because at the end of the day we ALL know that there is FAR more good than bad to switch to national health care.

Why is it that the focus is on the little shit that's wrong when the only thing peoople will get from this movie is that there's a BETTER way than we have now. Not perfect. But WAY the fuck better than people dieing because they don't make enough money to pay for health care.

I'd rather die waiting in line than after morgaging my house and then still not being able to afford care and having my family broke while I'm dead. Yeah, think that line arguement thru guys.

I personally think that Moriarty is technically correct what he fault's Moore in this film but what the real tragedy is is that people who disagree with him won't actually consider what he's saying they will just gravitate to the little shit he says wrong and use them to dismiss what he's really trying to say. It's standard political fucking bullshit. It's too bad too. But face it... Moore's purpose isn't to do anything but open up the possiblity of US having a better health care system. Mission accomplished.

and by the way, you win the prize as the 10 millionth idiot to make a fat joke about Moore because they can't make a cogent argument against him.

I'll wait while you look up the word "cogent"...

And let's face it, the Wingnuts will organize an attack on anything they deem contrary t their agenda. Witness AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. Now THAT's a documentary whose style and substance you'd prefer Moore to embrace. But the Wingnuts still attacked it with falsehoods up the ass.

and not for nothing, but Moore does talk to Smith in Roger and Me, and he talked to him before ever making the film, and he did receive letters from his office. but to think that he sat down for a full-on interview with the man, actually getting to confront him finally, then DIDN'T put it in the film, and that GM didn't release that to the public to try to discredit Moore...well sir, for lack of a better word, that's just dumb.

and the allegation about the fictional interview implies that the reason the interview took place at the hotel was that Smith was staying there.

pesky facts keep ruining everything, huh?

not surprising a Reaganite can't quite figure much out on their own...

While the US boycotts Cuba, nobody else does, so there's no reason for them to live in such poverty.

If Michael Moore lived in Cuba and tried making one of his films, he would soon join the other journalists, writers, filmmakers and other outspoken critics in jail, dead, or 'disappeared'.

and as for the gun thing, honestly. I really don't think in the grand scheme of things, it's such a huge CAPITAL LETTERS PROBLEM as you make it out to be. it wasn't a major thing in the movie, just an intro, basically. and it was much more about the idea of giving out the gun with the bank account, than where and how he got it. just because normally they mail the gun to you, doesn't lessen the fact that they handed him a gun, IN the bank, lol.

and honestly, things like this, where the reality of a situation is compressed, or manipulated, in the service of the point of the film, or for time or whatever...it happens ALL the time, believe me. I have worked on documentaries before, I have worked producing TV and news segments, and it's always done. granted, the majority of the time that I was a part of it, it was almost always done in service of brevity. lumping things together, implying things all happened at once, when really it was a few different days. combining interview segments from different days into one, etc.

if for some reason it REALLY irks you, then so be it. it smacks of a preconcieved notion of Moore and/or an inherent disagreement with his politics, but whatever. it's your choice. the point I'm making, and it is simply the truth, is that Moore is NO MORE GUILTY of this than almost any documentarian. Errol Morris, whom I consider a god of documentary filmmaking, I'm sure does the same thing, if the need arises. you shoot it, then you take the footage you have and tell the story. if you have 400 hours of footage, and the movie is 2 hours long, do you honestly think there is no manipulation of small facts, massaging of dates and times, etc.?

it's the truth, ruth.

In March 2003, John Fund reported in a Wall Street Journal diary page that the bank employee who handled Moore's account, Jan Jacobson, claimed that Moore had arranged the transaction weeks in advance, and that customers have "a week to 10 days waiting period" before collecting their guns.[8] Moore later responded to these criticisms, writing,"Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account." He also states that the background check took less than ten minutes and he was handed the rifle five minutes later. Moore posted a compilation of out-takes from the documentary to support his version of events. This video shows Jacobson explaining the process to Moore, including that the rifles are held in the bank's vault.[9] The footage in which an employee states that the guns are stored in the bank's vault appears in televised broadcasts of the film.

so before you call someone a hack, you better make sure that the real "hack" isn't the person feeding you the false info...

now, considering you've mentioned 2 specific points, and both of them are false accusations, are you at least willing to investigate more, the claims that you have so readily bought into about Moore?

I... I had no idea?!

Thank you, uss cygnus

Thank You for the Truth!!

societies are supposed to be more advanced than simple jungle instict. we agree to behave according to rules so life isn't just about survival.

BUT... if society is getting in the way of life or death... then it's failing. That is what is wrong with the fucking dipshits who can't get social health care around their fucking brains. They can't see that the primary purpose of a society is to preserve the safety and wellbeing of it's people so they can pursue a happy life. it's not WRONG to come to the simple conclusion that if we pool our money together to pay for health care that it's better than going it alone... just like living together is better than going it alone in the fucking jungle.

pooled medical health care is the promise of insurance. BUT insurance only works if you are fucking healthy enough to afford it. and they get to make their own rules. nobody gets to vote about how insurance works(except the board who make money off of it and vote accordingly). and insurance gets to fucking tell people that the sicker they are... the LESS they get fucking covered? the whole fucking thing is fucked up the ass because people are getting rich off of insurance. and there's not a goddamn thing any of us can do about it. except of course... vote for socialised health care mother fuckers!

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE UP HIS WORTHLESS MATERIAL SHIT TO SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE. It's not like it's asking anyone person to give up everything for everyone else.

but Shock, your subsequent comments about welfare (which sounds suspiciously [read: exactly] like comments Limbaugh used to make about welfare people stealing from the government and the taxpayers) kind of prove what I predicted earlier. you were predisposed to find flaws in Moore's filmmaking because you find flaws in his opinions. if someone is as liberal as can be, and agrees wholeheartedly with Moore's films, they're obviously not going to be looking for every little inconsistency, that they can then blow up into LIES and MANIPULATION, etc. etc. but on the other hand, if you are bothered by Moore (like the brain donor above claiming he's as detrimental as the suicide bombers on 9/11...which I'd love to hear him say to the widow of a firefighter lost that day), then you're going to be more ready to believe it when someone tells you HE'S LYING!!

unfortunately, if Moore ever really did any of that, he could be sued for libel, discredited, publicly blah blah blah...but all we have is a documentary made by a couple people that were bitter they couldn't get a one-on-one interview with Moore? that, and a bunch of right wing propogandists, that can't go 2 seconds without mentioning his weight, and think that any type of dissent in the political spectrum means the person has to be a lying commie bastard, and they treat him thusly.

it's a dangerous thing, when a country so in love with our freedom, we're trying to beat it into other country's, can't seem to handle a guy making movies, quesitoning how our country could be better.

man, he's just like the 9/11 bombers!

your point is that it shouldn't be the responsibility of everyone to make sure everyone else gets health care.

and I'm a 33. "welfare is stealing" is the 13 year old "that's what my dad says" statement here. my "fuck assholes who want to take but not give back to their society" statement comes from maturity.

would be funny to watch a Lost vs Heroes debate in congress. lol

Sorry Drew, but if you're going to cite "half-truths" you need to back that statement up with the truth and some evidence. Just saying "He's lying" isn't enough of a critique. You need proof that he is lying, or half-lying, for your review to be taken seriously.

Is he heavy-handed? Oh, yes. But this is Michael Moore, and you have to expect that. When you go into a Paul Verhoeven flick, you expect him to be over-the-top satirical, a little cheeseball, and ultra-violent; Complaining that a Paul Verhoeven flick is snarky, cheeseball, and violent is not a critique, because THAT is what he does. Same with any director. If you review Transformers and say it's "loud and nonsensical" you're not really reviewing the movie- You're reviewing the director, who is known for being loud and nonsensical and still makes entertaining movies out of that formula.

So the question is, from a documentary filmmaker's point of view, did Michael Moore accomplish what he set out to do? Did he make a documentary that was compelling, influential, and memorable? Did he give the facts he wanted to give? Did he bring the topic into the American dialogue?

I think the answer is "yes" on all points, with the exception that-- while factual and accurate-- Moore omits facts that might take away from the point he's trying to make. Is that a cardinal sin of the documentary as a format? I think so, but it's something every documentary filmmaker does.

The job of a documentary film is to influence viewers and teach them something they didn't know. Documentary films are best when they're two parts education and one part propaganda. Moore does this masterfully.

When judged on it's own merits as a documentary, it's a well-made, compelling film with largely accurate data presented in an entertaining way. He did his job, and he will rake in the box-office cash once again because his viewpoint, and this topic, are on the minds of Americans this year and he presents one side of the argument in a style that makes us see his point.

I doubt anything from the AMA or opposition to universal health care would be nearly as entertaining, compelling, or fun-- And yet I *know* it would be just as much propaganda, and perhaps moreso than Moore's effort.

Fuck it, man! After as long as I've been here at AICN Talkbacks, I should be on your payroll. You know it's true; Whether I was Sherlock_Holmes (banned and banned again whenever I'd oppose Moriarty's viewpoint) or ZeroCorpse, I have put in better reviews in the Talkbacks (half of them deleted when I was banned) than half of you guys have put in the main article!

It's the truth. Even if I've slacked off over the past few years, it's only because you fuckers won't man up, offer me a job, and pay me like you pay that fourteen-year-old girl Herc, or the oft-self-aggrandizing Mori.

You hear me Harry? I want res-tit-too-shun! I want some respect. I want that sweet pay-per-talkback-post deal!

I'm OK now. Mori-- sorry about that "self-aggrandizing" comment. Herc-- Uh, nevermind. I meant that one.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid eo/health/2007/07/01/gupta.sic ko.911.worker.cnn

fact of the day- A 16 year old single mother takes home about £400 per week in benefits- Most jobs pay about £300.

Coughlin, glad to see you saw the point. I have health insurance, I pay my own premiums every single month, so I fulfill the obligations of our agreement monthly. It scares the shit out of me to think they would not do their part when the time needs it and they fuck me over. So yes, even for people who have insurance, there is something to address. The problem is that corporations can afford to be corrupt. The common person can't afford to battle that corruption. We need legislation that safeguards covered patients from illegitimate denial of claims that have ruined so many lives and families.

The Post reviewer also brought up Moore's 'methods' as a way to discredit him. If you watch Sicko, you'd be hard-pressed to care much about his methods, because the facts are so overwhelmingly real and frightening.

The £400 per week figure is a total of all benefits, tax credits etc. The figure is not mine (obviously) but came from the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago. It is actually more than a married couple with one working parent take home (kids or not). To propogate some socialist agenda whilst denying the actual facts of current life in the UK is laughable- especially when you blame these ills of society upon (surprise surprise for a socialist) the media.

just to correct a couple of asinine and simplistic "facts":

1) "which you are quite clearly a part of,"- possibly the most repellently elitist comment I have seen in a while- bad spelling/grammar is de rigeur for a talkback. You should be ashamed of yourself especially as you display an inability to use capital letters yourself.

"will exist in perpetuum whilst the monarchy continues to be tolerated"- What has the monarchy got to do with this? nothing- that is a pathetic attempt to sidetrack debate.

"two-tier systems of health/education co-exist"- why are there 2 tier systems? because of the vandalism done to education by the comprehensive system and the inability to recognise that children develop at different speeds and therefore need to be taught at different speeds.

Socialism is not the answer. Neither is outright selfish is as selfish does capitalism (or we'll end up like America), but extremism of your sort does not help.

Before you call me a tory- I'm not I hate all of them equally, and I am, politically, somewhere in the middle.

I also fail to understand why you think that a debate on asylum/immigration is racist. It isn't.