Its obvious that there was no more people to interview. If there was more people it would have been stupidity to not interview them. The conclusion then is that either are the producers stupid or there was only 10 people. (My guess is both)
Sicko was an amazing work of investigative journalism, doing something American journalists have stopped doing, for fear of their careers. Who really cares if he owns stock in these companies? His films raise valid points and awareness towards issues that should be addressed. Michael Moore should keep up the good work.
And some believe they know everything while being under the effect of a massive brainwashing activity.
why are people seeing his movies? why would I want to spend money and two hours watching his explanation of why america is crappiest place ever? Specifically, Sicko says the healthcare system isn't as great as it could be. Well thanks. I'm glad I learned some new information there. Are there any answers? Is seeing this movie going to change anything? No to both.
If that is the way that you view documentaries then you simply shouldn't watch them. Like it or not, Sicko has been received to a ton of critical acclaim. Moore will survive whether you tune in or not
I don't. But I don't want people punching me in the face with how this fattie is the 2nd coming and his movies gospel. There are lots of things that aren't as good as they could be. If people stopped going to the movies and started working to make them better, things might change. These movies do nothing but get people's attention on a subject for fifteen minutes. Nothing is changed or made better by them. Columbine was about guns, I can still go to Walmart and buy a gun. 9/11 was about Iraq. Last I heard we are still over there and at war.
I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I certainly never said that the "fattie" was the "2nd coming" or that his films were "gospel". And you're still wrong - your argument says that, because these films only make people aware of the subject for 15 minutes, they are harmful? That's ridiculous. Even if that 15 minute claim were true (obviously it's far too broad to be true), what's wrong with that? That is 15 more minutes of thinking about the issues then would have occurred without the film, which is a technical positive point considering your argument.
you take my argument completely wrong. I'm not saying people are getting harmed from seeing these movies. The only harm that happens is people lose two hours and get bitchy/preachy for a while. What I'm saying is that his movies don't do any good. Healthcare is not an issue that people aren't aware of. Every single person in America has gone to the doctor. Most were born by them. And at that time healthcare became an issue to them. where is the increased awareness?
If you're argument is that his films simply aren't good enough then this debate isn't worth either of our time; you're simply talking opinions here. The truth is that many companies and groups have responded positively to his criticism and his films have brought about change in many ways. Regardless, I'd simply suggest that you don't watch his films. The rest of us can educate ourselves and learn the finer points of the social illnesses that we know exist and you get to save yourself the two hours.
I appreciate your suggestion that I don't watch a movie I have no intention of watching. I'll do that. I'm not saying his films aren't good enough. What good has come out of his films? In what way are things better because of these movies?
That is a crazy statement. People should not be told that there is something wrong ??? What actions do you suggest that should be taken for telling people about stuff then ? If you dont like movies, are news papers better? or radio? And if so, why is that better?
so what should I be googling? This is your argument. If you don't have an answer as for why you support this dude that doesn't bode well for your side.
people aren't being told that something is wrong. people are being told things aren't as good as they could be. does the movie show all the downsides of public healthcare? oh, so the movie is one-sided? that's weird.
I don't have a side, I'm simply telling you the facts as they exist. I wouldn't push too hard for a career as a film critique, you'll never make it
yes, because debating the effects of a movie is the same as critiquing it for the purpose of advising others to see/not see it.
Listen man, anyone who takes such great offense to what may or may not be missing in a film isn't open to any facts. When I see a film, documentary or otherwise, that I don't enjoy, I simply don't see it again. It's a movie. If you watch a film and then see it necessary to bash the director despite the fact that millions of other people enjoyed the film, then you are obsessive. I don't mean to insult here, but I just don't have the same drive to debate this topic. I wish Moore no ill and I enjoy his films, but if he dropped dead tomorrow I would not be effected. So long as that's true I may as well spend my time debating something that I care about.
I didn't start the thread. I just joined in. An obsessive person is one who starts several threads about the topic. And if you think my repeated posting on this topic is obsessive then I ask you this: How is anyone supposed to have a discussion about something without being obsessive about it?
I agree with you fully, however i don't subscribe to religion. Just look how MM made it seem that the USA were basically going about the Iraq war without any help & support from other countries. That was a totally false & inaccurate way of presenting false information by MM, although many people who subscribe to the anti-war or anti-american feelings lap this shit up as fact, his docs are made up of baseless facts, real facts but leaving bits out or straight up misrepresenting people thoughts.