hospital impact

by Tony Chen

Here's a roundup of Sicko reviews. Overall, everyone agrees that this is Moore's most "neutral" movie. In other words, he doesn't go as extreme in confronting people and he doesn't fudge as many facts. But he makes his point because it's an easy one to make: our healthcare system is broken. Obviously, this isn't exactly breaking news, but his method of storytelling (juxtapositioning "facts" and gut-wrenching stories) makes it real, entertaining, and memorable for the audience.

Washington Post: "Ladies and gentlemen, I think we can agree on two things: The American health-care system is busted and Michael Moore is not the guy to fix it."

AP: "Moore's 'Sicko' gives accused little say"

NYT: "Mr. Moore has hardly been shy about sharing his political beliefs, but he has never before made a film that stated his bedrock ideological principles so clearly and accessibly. His earlier films have been morality tales, populated by victims and villains, with himself as the dogged go-between, nodding in sympathy with the downtrodden and then marching off to beard the bad guys in their dens of power and privilege. This method can pay off in prankish comedy or emotional intensity — like any showman, Mr. Moore wants you to laugh and cry — but it can also feel manipulative and simplistic"

LATimes: "Moore is back again examining America's healthcare system in the aptly named "Sicko." It's likely his most important, most impressive, most provocative film, and it's different from his others in significant ways."

LATimes commentary: "Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina all have staked out positions sharply at odds with Moore's approach. But none of them is eager to have that fact dragged into the spotlight."

Chicago Tribune: " "Sicko" represents a subtle but distinct shift in tone for Moore. Realizing he has in his mitts a great and genuinely bipartisan issue, the writer-director from Flint, Mich., moderates his attack strategy for the better."

Boston Globe: "Whatever you call his movies -- agitprop, advocacy entertainment, Commie propaganda, the Truth -- "Sicko" is built to persuade. It succeeds by making us ill with laughter and with shame."

Rolling Stones: "Does Moore cut a few corners? Sure. Some of the European hospitals he visits might be spiffing up for the camera. The drugs an American patient buys in Havana (five cents there, $120 at home) might not be up to FDA standards. And maybe the French are pushing it by doing a patient’s laundry. But the weight of evidence Moore marshals for taking the profit motive out of medicine is overwhelming. In a summer of dumb, shameless drivel, Moore delivers a movie of robust mind and heart. You’ll laugh till it hurts."

Capital Hill Blue: "Michael Moore's new movie, "Sicko," should be called "Skipo," since it skips over so many facts en route to government medicine."

Salon: There's no other way to come at Michael Moore's "Sicko" than to state upfront that his essential argument -- that it's shameful that America, the richest country in the world, fails to provide healthcare for all its citizens -- is irrefutable. No matter how you feel about Moore or his filmmaking tactics, there's little here that any sane, reasonable human could argue with: We've fashioned a system in which big corporations get rich off our illnesses, or even just off the regular preventive steps that most of us take to avoid getting sick.

Anyone see it already? what's your take?