Movie Review
Sicko

By: Yannick LeJacq
2007-07-09



Posted 07/09/2007 - 08:13:41 AM by KyleMcConaghy:
 great review. it is nice to see someone rate the moviemaking, not what they actually feel about Moore's point of view. i agree with most issues he addresses, but feel his movies are pretty sensational and mediocre. he just picks a topic every pop-liberal feels passionate about at the time, so he is bound to get a positive reception. i rewatched Bowling for Columbine the other day and it is crazy how unfocused and under researched he is when it is not the hot political topic of the time.
 
Posted 07/09/2007 - 09:39:00 AM by ReichlJuice:
 I agree with KyleMcConaghy, for fans of Moore movies, its hard to find reason to argue with the film maker's point. But he sensationalizes his battles and makes it look like everyone should be on his side. He chooses who is the victim and who is the evil-doer for each movie by the questions he asks his interviewee.
 
Posted 07/09/2007 - 11:52:34 AM by jmp123:
 first, you're dead wrong about documentary film ("A documentary, in my mind, should be a thoroughly researched and inquisitive work that weighs an issue and observes a conflict from both sides.") The best documentaries resemble essays rather than "journalistic" pieces that feign objectivity. If you want that, I suggest that you sit and watch PBS television in the US on any given weekend. Blandly informative stuff. Michael Moore's work is very much in the tradition of polemical documentary film and should be seen as such. Now, this doesn't mean that he is very good at making documentaries. While I agree with his politics, I'm disturbed by his easily seductive style. And, I should point out, you are hardly the first person to make this argument about his films: I remember reading similar arguments (from both the left and the right) about "Roger & Me". I just wish someone had something new to say about his films.
 
Posted 07/09/2007 - 12:02:02 PM by J_R_K_:
 expecting michael moore to be fair & balanced is like expecting the same out of fox news.
 
Posted 07/09/2007 - 01:44:29 PM by badhaircut:
 "I'm hopeful that this hasn't started a new trend for all sorts of staunchly opinionated people with a large film crew and powerful charisma to make partisan devices." Totally. I miss the good old days when documentaries were could only be about retarded kids or the Holocaust.
 
Posted 07/09/2007 - 06:18:13 PM by badhaircut:
 Stylus writers have become unbearably cynical, in general.
 
Posted 07/09/2007 - 06:47:32 PM by karlkafka:
 no, this was a good review, very smart. what was cynical about it? you're an idiot.
 
Posted 07/09/2007 - 06:49:49 PM by karlkafka:
 oh, and btw, i don't say that to offend you or because i dislike you, i just say it hoping that it will encourage everyone to dismiss your opinion.
 
Posted 07/09/2007 - 09:59:09 PM by johnedowney:
 "You're an idiot. No offense, dumbass."
 
Posted 07/10/2007 - 02:34:55 AM by badhaircut:
 lol
 
Posted 07/10/2007 - 08:47:14 AM by PhilNichols:
 Every film has bias. Every documentary has bias. The way a director angles a shot; the questions he ask; the lighting; the sound; the b-roll; it all contributes to the bias of the filmmaker. Every time a filmmaker chooses to use a certain subject, he is showing bias by not using a different subject. The entire genre of documentary is based on bias. Moore is no exception - he's just more open about it. Where most documentary filmmakers adhere to principles of cinema verite (or cinema of truth - where the director tries not to be seen or heard in order to make the film seem unbiased), Moore has completely abandoned it by not only wearing his biases on his sleeve, but by becoming the central figure of his own documentaries (albeit in the form of a feax-naive character). Like him or hate him, he's an important figure in filmmaking, as he is partially responsible for the popularization of activist documentary (Super Size Me, This Film is Not Yet Rated, etc.).
 
Posted 07/11/2007 - 03:06:52 PM by Bertson:
 Michael Moore is essentially the same as anyoen writing an op-ed column for any newspaper. I expect the front page to take a neutral and unbiased look at the news; I expect the columnists to argue vociferously for their own point of view about the issue. You can argue that he doesn't present his case well, but to hold him accountable for what he isn't misses what he is.
 
Posted 07/11/2007 - 08:27:46 PM by ieatseeds:
 i really haven't liked anything moore has done since Roger & Me. Why? Because I appreciated it for it's cinematic pull, it's ground-breaking style of documentary film-making, and the compelling story he made out of basically nothing. Every film after that followed the same paradigm, and just got less and less interesting as time went on. He hasn't PROGRESSED in his film-making for a long time. I think he should really step out of the box on the next one. Perhaps delve into fictitious territory (or does he do that already!?)
 
Posted 07/12/2007 - 12:39:07 PM by jhitting:
 Michael Moore gets more ass than a toilet seat.
 
Posted 07/12/2007 - 01:13:14 PM by Utica5:
 "But he's only interviewing people that fundamentally corroborate his view on health care. Looking back through his films, you can see that Moore reserves the most eloquent outrage for those with whom he sympathizes." foundationally, this is the same argument as: "why doesn't anyone report the good news from baghdad?" further, your point is undercut by the fact that moore makes scant mention of the 47 million americans without health insurance at all. were he really the polemecist so many foolish media types seem to think he is, those stories might have been the centerpiece of the film.
 
Posted 07/21/2007 - 01:58:08 AM by Will_SB:
 "observes a conflict from BOTH sides." Isn't this one of the most vulgar cliches in American political culture? As if any issue of importance has only two viewpoints it can be examined from. And incidentally, thank god Chris Marker and Werner Herzog didn't get this memo about what a documentary should be.