jeffkjoe

With the DVD release of SICKO, I think the time is ripe for a true Michael Moore discussion.

I just saw SICKO, and I was truly moved by some of the HMO horror stories.


Am I just another gullible American, who buys his arguments and is easily maniuplated by his effective imagery and filmmaking tactics?


Just in general......All of his works - Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Farenheit 9/11, Sicko.....His TV show The Awful Truth.....

Brack

I support him. So he has an agenda? Why is that such a bad thing when Americans are so stupid these days. He's only being manipulative if you haven't done your homework.

Artman

Not really a fan of him personally but I do find him to be an amusing character. I've seen and gotten some level of entertainment from his movies. Not a lot of repeat value though imo...

dlinke01

He's a moron. He's a liar and a cheat.

yojimbo44

while i may not support all of his views, i do agree with many of them. i find it disheartening that there are very few people in the mainstream media - and despite what he may say, he is mainstream - movies with wide releases and box office/dvd sales, bestselling books, etc - that will take an issue to task. most mainstream media are more than happy and willing to discuss anna nicole and lindsay lohan and ignore the problems and issues which people face everyday, including health care. i don't see to many media figures holding a mirror to society, much like Murrow did a generation ago... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvest_of_Shame . while moore presents himself as a very polarizing figure, the issues he covers are real. they are his views, but i think they are shared by many people.

Brack

I'm surprised to hear you say that. *sarcasm*

Duality

Michael Moore is a filmmaker who obviously cares about America. Everything from corporate abuse of employees to the botched handling of pre-9/11 intelligence and our disgraceful healthcare system has been handled -- from his perspective. I certainly do respect that. If the lie that Hollywood is liberal were true, we wouldn't need Mr. Moore's work and Brokeback Mountain would've rightfully won Best Picture.

RichC2

His agenda is too obvious for my tastes -- I find myself entertained by his documentaries but am never moved by them. They're fun to discuss, which is one of his points, but sucks that most of my comments have to start with "That's not completely true..."

Lemdog

I saw Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11. Generally I don't think they should be considered documentaries, but op-ed pieces in the form of film. I haven't seen Sicko, so I can't make any judgments about it.

ben12

So instead of a documentary, you think it should be considered a documentary? Interesting.

PopcornTreeCt

I don't support him because I think he's just using exploitation to make money. I don't think he truly cares about anything he talks about in his documentaries. Al Gore on the other hand, he seems to care. Moore just picks a hot topic and then starts counting the cash.

Groucho

The first two movies were good, the third one had nothing to do with him, and the rest were crap. I haven't seen the Rob Zombie remake yet.

Brack

^^^

Artman

Can anyone else not help but think of Jabba the Hutt? I'm sorry it's just what comes to mind...

Brack

If that were true, he wouldn't have said that he doesn't care if people downloaded his movies for free.

Superboy

He cares about America in the way a teenager cares about their parent. They're not young anymore, so nothing they say is absolute anymore, but they're not old enough to understand and properly criticize their decisions.

And he never offers a solution to any of the problems he presents.

No, it is precisely because of Hollywood's liberal slant that his documentaries are released. And instead of Brokeback Mountain winning, it was a cliche piece on racism.

Doc MacGyver

It's a dodgy proposition, because I do find myself in accordance with much of his politics, but as a PERSON, he comes off as annoying, abusive and effite, and he fills out the negative stereotype that many have of liberals to a T. In this regard I think he can be somewhat harmful to the liberal agenda.

Strictly from a filmmaking standpoint, he manages to tackle complex and upsetting issues and manages to tell a narrative, make valid points and remain entertaining... even if he does overlook certain counterpoints and manipulate though camerawork and editing.

Case in point - In Bowling for Columbine (arguably his best), he confronts Charlton Heston. When it becomes clear he is on the attack, Heston walks out and leaves via a walkway alongside his estate. Moore - with his back to the camera and with Heston in shot walking away - holds up a picture of the child who was killed by gun violence prior to an NRA rally, repeating, "Mr. Heston - Mr. Heston!" The shot then reverses to capture Moore from the front so that the child's image is now on-screen as Moore continues to yell after Mr. Heston.

Anyone who knows about camera set-ups (or common sense, since there was no foreground camera visible on the narrow walkway in the previous shot) realizes that Moore must have cut, let the camera pass by to get in front of him and ordered action while he "acted" to a retreating Heston who was no longer there.

Unforgivable break in documentary "realism"? - No, but still... it shows that does tend to beef up the drama and edit the situation to get his point across.


-Doc

Norm de Plume

I support his apparent politics wholeheartedly, but I do think he should at least present his polemics with some semblence of balance (it's always better to bend over backwards to allow opposing viewpoints an airing), and he should do a better job vetting his assertions for unassailable truth.

ben12

Or the cameraman walked to the front of him, and Moore edited out the walking footage...

DoubleDownAgain

I despise him. I don't have a problem with his agenda or point of view, but how he bends the truth. While I would probably disagree with a good chunk of his opinions that isn't why I dislike him or his films. He is a very talented filmmaker that gets people to emotional connect with his films. But unfortunately he blends his opinions with facts and many of his audience has a difficult time separating the two. Just like those that rabidly attack him for his views others try and deny that his films don't blur fact and opinions just because they agree with his opinions.

But the main reason is that I think he is an arrogant loud mouth hypocritical prick who think s that he walks on water. But then again that is just my opinion!

Doc MacGyver

Same difference. Don't get me wrong - I think I'm coming off the wrong way. As I said, I think he genuinely cares and is trying to do good. I'm a lefty myself and I'm with him on a lot of issues. I just understand the argument my friends (also lefties) make against him and understand why they find him so annoying.


-Doc

printerati

Columbine really fell off the rails with the Heston segment. After being more or less unable to prove that the gun culture in America has anything to do with gun violence in America, he begins to take the film in a more interesting direction by discussing the culture of fear, which he promptly abandons, and instead closes the film by taking shots at Heston and the NRA.

I don't agree with his politics at all, but I can still be entertained by his films. I tend to research the topic he's tackling before viewing in order to balance out my viewing experience, however. I also don't need each film to remind me that Flint is still a shithole.

Pointyskull

I always like those rattle-the-beehive kind of guys, and Moore fits that type. I take him as being genuine, but who knows.

His films are entertaining, and they spark often heated discussion. Nothing wrong with that, if you ask me.

Brack

That's not true.

zombiezilla

ha ha