Sicko Review

One of the most polarizing figures in all of entertainment, Michael Moore, goes from criticizing President Bush in Fahrenheit 9/11 to being critical of the American health care industry in Sicko.

There's always a lot of talk even before a Michael Moore film debuts. With Fahrenheit 9/11, some right-wing organizations attempted to get the film banned in certain theatres and while they did have an effect in a couple areas, if anything, they provoked even more people into going and seeing the film, as it became the top-grossing documentary of all-time. With Sicko, the pre-film talk came in regard to Moore's trip to Cuba in attempt to garner aid for some 9/11 rescue workers. Without permission, the Feds claimed Moore would have been violating the trade embargo. Although, I have not heard any updates on the predicament for a few weeks now, so I haven't the slightest idea of where it stands currently. While I agree that Moore may have been better served in taking the rescue workers to Canada, France, or Britain, it seemed that he and the workers were on the same wavelength with what he was trying to prove. The only place on "American" soil which practices universal health care is that on Guantanamo Bay for suspected terrorist masterminds. It was indeed sad and ironic that these 9/11 heroes could receive the same kind of aid on American soil. So, they resorted to their next plan, Cuba. America has countless more resources and finances than Cuba, but only ranks two spots above the third-world country by the WHO in health care (#37 and #39). That fact speaks volumes right there.

Just this past week, one Dr. Sanjay Gupta claimed that Michael Moore fudged some facts in Sicko. Wolfblitzer and the gang at CNN spoke to Gupta right before Moore was scheduled to be on the program. At the allegations, Moore spoke out and often on the matter, wanted the records to get straightened, and for CNN to issue him an apology on the matter. Not until just over the past 24 hours did CNN do such a thing, where they admitted two errors in Gupta's alleging that Moore fudged facts in Sicko and they apologized for these slip-ups. Moore has been scheduled to speak to Wolfblitzer again tomorrow. That should be a smoother conversation than before, but we'll have to wait and see.

So, as usual, there's a lot of talk swirling in the air in regard to Sicko. There should be, for it may be Moore's best film to date.

One thing Moore has been criticized of in the past is that he's on camera too often. This could be said in his first three films: Roger and Me, The Big One, and Bowling for Columbine. He's hardly visible at all on camera through the first half of the film and overall, I'd say he makes the fewest appearances in this film than any other he's directed.

Another common critique of Moore is that his film's are too one-sided. I could see this with Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore, in no way, shape, or form attempted to depict any counter-arguments. But, one has to remember. At this time in our history, the mainstream media were common cheerleaders in President Bush's background, so while F-9/11 was in and of itself a very one-sided film, in the grand scheme of things, it balanced the overall media scale. If it had been produced now, then the scale would largely be tilted in favor of Bush bashers, as his approval rating range is anywhere between 26% and 33%. But, that wasn't the case when Fahrenheit debuted. In Roger and Me and The Big One, Moore had a slated goal, journeyed to achieve that goal, and the viewers traveled with him. In Bowling for Columbine and now with Sicko, Moore's ideology may be seen on camera or heard in the tone of his voice, but the goal is to ask thought-provoking questions and find answers to those questions. Why did the school shootings occur? Why is there so much gun violence in America? What can be done to improve on this problem? In Sicko, the same process unfolds, as the questions are asked, why do countries such as Britain, France, Canada, and Cuba, amongst others have less problems with babies dying during birth? Why do citizens live longer, on average, in those countries? What are the pros and cons of socialized medicine? Who are the biggest winners and losers with the system we currently have and likewise, who are the biggest winners and losers in countries with a socialized health care system? What can Americans do to help improve their system? While I can understand some people's arguments, especially in relation to Fahrenheit 9/11, of Moore's one-sidedness, I don't understand that as much with his other films, especially in regard to Bowling for Columbine and Sicko.

The strength of this film, as is the case with most Moore films, is how it draws the audience in with individual's personal stories. From a man having to pick between his ring ($12,000) and middle ($60,000) fingers after chopping both ends off in a saw incident to a woman getting into an automobile accident but being rejected for the ambulance ride to the hospital because she wasn't pre-approved for it to a woman's child being rejected from aid at a hospital and dying as a result a short time later to many other stories, Sicko pulls the viewers in emotionally and I admit, it was difficult to hold tears back on several occasions.

Another strength is also common amongst Moore films, as he has a way of balancing the seriousness with humor to compile a very entertaining film. Even many anti-Moore die-hard Republicans that I know admit that he makes entertaining films. The humor is needed more than ever in Sicko, as it is the most emotionally charged of his five films.

One thing I noticed about this movie which made it difficult to view at times were the sudden and drastic changes in mood. While the movie was very funny in some portions and it was very powerful in others, the alterations in mood were so sudden and drastic at times, that it made for quite the rollercoaster ride.

While some like to state that Moore fudges his facts, many times I notice that these "fudging" of facts are misinterpretations of opinions and wisecracks. The biggest problem, I think, is the fact that Moore doesn't delve into black-and-white topics. It's almost impossible to do so. Gun violence. Corporations. War. Health Care. There is not a definite answer to any question surrounding these topics. Moore picks the facts from typically "legitimate" sources to complete his story and make a strong persuasive argument or to draw the audience in as far as humanly possible. Are there counter arguments that need to be heard? Of course. But, again, national health care is not a black-and-white issue. It needs to be pondered, researched, compared, and discussed. I don't think it's Moore's job or others like him to create yes-people to their ideologies, but to provoke thought and in the end, potentially provoke change. With these gray issues, one can only research from as many sources as possible, contemplate the topic thoroughly, and through all of that information, common sense, deep thinking, and logic, come to their own conclusion. He expressed many facts throughout the course of the film to compare the U.S. with such countries as France, Britain, and Canada and also to express the downsides to our current system here in America. The numbers were compelling, to say the least.

I think Michael Moore has one-upped himself with Sicko. I viewed the film in a rather small theatre and I haven't heard that many laughs and that many tears shed during one viewing of a film in a very long time.

Grade: 9.5/10 - Sicko was by no means perfect, but I think it's Moore's best work to date. It's full of laughs, tears, thought, and should provoke numerous discussions after viewed. I recommend everyone to see it, but also recommend everyone to do further research, thinking, and discussing after viewing the film.