Fox news likes Michael More's "Sicko"?

Apparently it's a bit less partisan than his usual fare and that was well recieved by some republican officials according to Moore.

 

He usually has good points, but he has an idiotic way of coming off as a smug smarta$$, his gun movie would have been better if he advocated gun control and safety rather than banning them, and his 911 movie would have been better if he would have showed how good communication in the government improves efficiency and enables all the branches instead of turning half the movie into a demo of blunders and missteps. Its easy to point out faults with anything when you dont offer solutions. Which is why Gore's movie works.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Jun 3 2007, 05:36 PM) [snapback]454648[/snapback]</div>

Or... it could be Fox news giving another one of their brilliant "Fair and Balanced" news reports and letting us decide.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(morpheusx @ Jun 6 2007, 10:48 PM) [snapback]456869[/snapback]</div>

Have you actually seen the the film? :blink:

Just lifting some quotes from Wikipedia's summary:

 

Of his first three documentary feature presentations, Bowling for Columbine is easily Michael Moore's worst. He has a very bad habit of slanting the facts to fit his views and, unlike other, better, documentary film-makers, he's none-too-subtle about it. Plus, his tactics can be reprehensible. Ambushing a friendly (and probably pre-Alzheimer's) Charlton Heston after Heston had cordially invited him into his own home is definitely one of the sleaziest things I've seen in his movies.

Another example of how his editorializing diminished a scene was in Fahrenheit 911 when he showed Bush's reaction after being informed of the 9/11 attacks while seated in a Florida elementary school classroom. Moore edits the scene to shorten it, all the while commenting on what Bush must have been thinking. It would have had infinitely more impact if Moore had simply introduced the scene and showed the entire period of time Bush just sat there (it was something like seven minutes), looking befuddled and reading My Pet Goat, before he finally decides maybe he better get off his nice person and go do something.

While entertaining, Moore's movies are far from being real documentaries in the strictest sense of the genre.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jun 7 2007, 04:52 AM) [snapback]457256[/snapback]</div>

I would argue that his tendency to present his views in an editorial fashion on top of the most rediculous actions by those who espouse the antithisis of his views is completely intentional. I would also argue that they're quite effective in doing what he means them to do. Moore is a propagandist, and a darn good one, for liberals.

If instead of Fahrenheit 911 he made an unbiased documentary of the 911 response no one would have watched it. Centrists and liberals would find it too horrific. Conservatives would call it propaganda anyway. Moore embraces the cynical truth that in this day and age the worlds largest 'democracy' isn't comprised primarily of critically thinking voters, but instead of people who complacently believe whichever story they like best. His documentaries are an attempt to make his story, that story. While almost all documentaries take on some sort of 'bias' Moore never intended his films to be anything else. I, personally, find his intent to be pretty upfront compared to his conservative contemporaries.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Priusamp @ Jun 7 2007, 03:53 PM) [snapback]457539[/snapback]</div>

I agree that he is upfront about his views, but if he is really passionate about a cause you would think that he would offer solutions and not place blame. Fingerpointing never solves problems, demanding changes that are realistic alternatives do.

His new movie if done right could make tremendous waves through Washington, and get something in motion that both Bill Clinton and Bush 2 said they would fix. 14 1/2 years later hmmm..... not much has changed