Download Sicko movie

Sicko is a 2007 documentary film by American film maker Michael Moore. The film investigates the American health care system, focusing on its health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. The film compares the for-profit, non-universal U.S. system with the non-profit universal health care systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba.

Sicko opened to positive reviews, but also generated criticism and controversy. Some policy specialists have praised the film while others have criticized the film for its positive portrayal of the publicly funded health systems of Canada, the United Kingdom and Cuba, and for its negative portrayal of the health care system in the United States.

Sicko was made on a budget of approximately $9 million,[3] and grossed $24.5 million theatrically in the United States.[4] This box office result met the official expectation of The Weinstein Company, which hoped for a gross in line with Bowling for Columbine's $21.5 million US box office gross.[5]

According to Sicko, almost fifty million Americans are uninsured and those who are covered are often victims of insurance company fraud and red tape. Interviews are conducted with people who thought they had adequate coverage but were denied care, as well as former employees of insurance companies who describe cost-cutting initiatives that encourage bonuses for insurance company physicians to deny medical treatments for policy holders.

In Canada, Moore describes the case of Tommy Douglas, who was voted the greatest Canadian in 2004 for his contributions to the Canadian health system. Moore also interviews a microsurgeon and people waiting in the emergency room of a Canadian public hospital.

Against the backdrop of the history of the American health care debate, opponents of universal health care are set in the context of 1950s-style anti-communist propaganda. A 1960s record distributed by the American Medical Association and narrated by Ronald Reagan warns that universal health care could lead to communism. In response, Moore shows that socialized public services like police, fire service, postal service, public education and community libraries have not led to communism in America.

The origins of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 are presented using a taped conversation between John Ehrlichman and President Richard Nixon on February 17, 1971; Ehrlichman is heard telling Nixon that "...the less care they give them, the more money they make", a plan that Nixon remarked "appeals to me". This led to the expansion of the modern HMO-based health care system. Connections are highlighted between Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the lobbying arm of the largest drug companies in the United States, lobbying groups in Washington D.C., and the United States Congress. Hillary Clinton, a champion of the Clinton health care plan, is shown as a crusader for change, appointed to reform the health care system in the United States by her husband, newly elected President Bill Clinton. Her efforts are met with heavy-handed criticisms by Republicans on Capitol Hill, and right-wing media throughout the country, who characterize her plan as the harbinger of socialism. When she is defeated, her punishment is to "never speak of it again while in the White House." Seven years later, her silence is rewarded, as she becomes a Senator for the State of New York, a victory made possible in part by money from the health care industry; she is second only to Rick Santorum as the Senate's highest recipient of health care industry campaign donations.

In the United Kingdom, a country whose National Health Service is a comprehensive publicly-funded health care system, Moore interviews patients and inquires about in-hospital expenses incurred by patients, only to be told that there are no out-of-pocket payments. Moore visits a UK pharmacy, where pharmaceuticals are free of charge for persons under 16 or over 60, and subsidised in most cases for everyone else; only a fixed amount of £6.65 per item on a prescription is charged, irrespective of cost to the NHS. Further, NHS hospitals employ a cashier, part of whose job is to reimburse low-income patients for their out-of-pocket travel costs to the hospital. Interviews include an NHS general practitioner, an American woman residing in London, and Tony Benn, a Labour politician and former Member of Parliament. Benn compares a hypothetical attempt to dismantle the NHS with reversing women's suffrage and says it would result in a revolution.

In France, Moore visits a hospital and interviews the head of obstetrics and gynaecology and a group of American expatriates. Moore rides with the "SOS Médecins", a 24-hour French medical service that provides house calls by physicians.[7] Moore discovers that the French government provides social services, such as day care for $1 an hour and neonatal support that includes cooking, cleaning, and laundry services for new mothers.

Returning to the United States, interviews disclose that 9/11 rescue workers who volunteered after the September 11, 2001 attacks were denied government funds to care for physical and psychological maladies they subsequently developed, including respiratory disease and PTSD. Unable to receive and afford medical care in the U.S., the 9/11 rescue workers, as well as all of Moore's friends in the film needing medical attention, sail from Miami to Cuba on three speedboats in order to obtain free medical care provided for the enemy combatants detained at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. The group arrives at the entrance channel to "Gitmo" and Moore uses a megaphone to request access, pleading for the 9/11 victims to receive treatment that is on par with the medical attention the "evildoers" are receiving. The attempt ceases when a siren is blown from the base, and the group moves on to Havana, where they purchase inexpensive medicine and receive free medical treatment.[8] Providing only their name and birth date, the volunteers are hospitalized and receive medical attention. Before they leave, the 9/11 rescue workers are honored by a local Havana fire station.

Finally, Moore addresses the audience, emphasizing that people should be "taking care of each other, no matter the differences". To demonstrate his personal commitment to this theme, Moore decides to help one of his biggest critics, Jim Kenefick, webmaster of MooreWatch. According to a blog posting, Kenefick was planning to shut down his anti-Moore website because he needed US $12,000 to cover the costs of medical treatment for his sick wife. Not wanting the U.S. health care system to trump Kenefick's ability to express his opinion, Moore sends Kenefick the money anonymously.

Release

Sicko premiered on May 19, 2007 at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, receiving a 15-minute standing ovation[9] from 2,000 people at the Grand Theatre Lumiere.[10] The North American première of Sicko was held in London, Ontario (where some scenes from the movie were filmed) at the Silver City movie theatre at Masonville Place on June 8, 2007, with Moore in attendance.[11] It also had an early première in Washington D.C. on June 20, two days before its U.S. release, with Moore appearing at a Capitol Hill press conference to promote the film.[12]

The European première was held in Great Britain on October 24, 2007 at the Odeon Leicester Square as part of the 51st London Film Festival. Moore was to introduce the film, but remained in America due to a 'family issue,' sending a lengthy letter to be read in his stead. Part of the letter gave thanks to the Rt Hon. Tony Benn, featured in the film, who delivered a succinct speech before the showing.

Box office

Made on a budget of $9 million USD,[13] Sicko earned $4.5 million on its opening weekend.[14] In 441 theaters, it took in an average of $10,204 per theater, the second highest average gross of the weekend. As of February 24, 2008, Sicko has grossed $24,540,079 in the United States and $11,105,296 in foreign markets. It has been named the third-highest grossing documentary in the USA since 1982 excluding concert movies, reality films, and "large-format" documentaries.[15]

Critical reaction

The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 93% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 181 reviews.[16] Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 74 out of 100, based on 39 reviews.[17] After its Cannes release, Variety described Sicko as "an affecting and entertaining dissection of the American health care industry".[18]

In an early review a week before the premiere, Richard Roeper and Michael Phillips gave the film two thumbs up. Roger Friedman of Fox News called the film a "brilliant and uplifting new documentary" and praised Moore for the way in which he lets "very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies" and "criticizes both Democrats and Republicans for their inaction and in some cases their willingness to be bribed by pharmaceutical companies and insurance carriers."[19]

British film magazine Empire praised Moore's filmmaking and personal artistic vision, exclaiming "Sicko is the film that truly reveals Moore as an auteur."[20]

David Denby of the New Yorker called the film "feeble, even inane"[21], but film critic Stephen Schaefer of the Boston Globe described Sicko as "a very strong and very honest documentary about a health system that's totally corrupt and that is without any care for its patients."[22]

Marjorie Baumgarten of The Austin Chronicle named it the 8th best film of 2007.[23]

Awards

The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Documentary Feature.[24] Sicko was commended in the Australian Film Critics Association 2007 Film Award for Best Documentary.

Response

News media

John Stossel wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal that claimed Julie Pierce's husband, Tracy, featured in Sicko, would not have been saved by the bone marrow transplant denied by his insurer. Stossel also questioned whether this treatment would have been given in a socialized system, citing rationing and long waiting lists in Canada and Britain.[25] Julie Pierce claimed Stossel never contacted her or her husband's doctors, and that the insurer denied other treatments as well and questioned Stossel's assertion that Tracy would not have received this in a socialized system, arguing that they are performed more frequently in Canada than in the U.S.[26]

In a 20/20 report Stossel provided evidence that typical Cuban citizens receive poor health care, and only richer ones who can pay for the care shown in Sicko receive it. Moore cited a United Nations report that contradicted this. Stossel also presented testimonials that lower Cuban infant mortality rates are due to pregnant women receiving abortions if the fetus shows any sign of problems, and that infants who die hours after birth are not recorded in mortality rates. When Moore claimed the C.I.A. corroborated his assertions, Stossel responded that the C.I.A. denied this, and that their data contradict Moore's assertion.

In response to criticism that only well-to-do Cuban citizens receive a decent standard of health care, Michael Moore adduced on his website the result of an independent Gallup Poll in which "a near unanimous 96 percent of respondents say that health care in Cuba is accessible to everyone".[27][28]

In an article published in both The New Yorker and Reason magazine, Michael C. Moynihan calls the film "touching, naïve and maddeningly mendacious, a clumsy piece of agitprop that will likely have little lasting effect on the health care debate".[29] Surgeon and Associate Director of Brigham and Women's Hospital's Center for Surgery and Public Health Atul Gawande commented, "Sicko is a revelation. And what makes this especially odd to say is that the movie brings to light nothing that the media haven’t covered extensively for years."[30]

MTV's Kurt Loder criticized what he perceived as the film's cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews, and unsubstantiated assertions, such as the assertion that 18,000 people will die each year because of no insurance (although other sources corroborate this figure).[31] While admitting that the U.S. health care system needs reform, Loder criticized Moore’s advocacy of government control, arguing that many services controlled by the government are not considered efficient by the American public. Loder points to a 2005 documentary, Dead Meat, by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg, which documents long waiting lists for care in Canada. Loder points to calls for reform in Britain and France due to the same rationing.[32][33]

WBAI Radio, part of the Pacifica Radio Network, reported that Sicko was revitalizing the debate for universal health care within the United States, calling the film "adrenaline for healthcare activists."[34]

Healthcare industry

In a letter responding to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by David Gratzer that was critical of the film,[35] Robert S. Bell, M.D., President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto, said that while Moore "exaggerated the performance of the Canadian health system," it provides universal coverage of a similar quality to that enjoyed by only some Americans.[36] Michael Moore posted a leaked memo from a Capital Blue Cross employee about the likely consequences of the film. The memo expresses concern that the movie turns people against Capital Blue Cross by linking it to abuses by for-profit HMOs.[37]

A July 9, 2007 broadcast of CNN's The Situation Room aired a "fact check" segment by CNN's senior health correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Sicko.[38] Immediately following the segment, Moore was interviewed live on CNN by Wolf Blitzer.[39] Moore stated that Gupta's report was inaccurate and biased. Moore posted a point-by-point response on his website.[40] After a debate with Moore on Larry King Live,[41] Gupta posted a message about his position on Sicko and CNN's coverage.[42]

Think tanks

The free market think tanks, such as the Manhattan Institute, said that Sicko misrepresented the health systems of Canada, the United Kingdom and Cuba, and criticized it for its negative portrayal of the American health insurance system compared to these countries.[43][44] Brett J. Skinner of the Fraser Institute said that healthcare in these countries is characterized by long waiting lists.[45] The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative American think tank, has also been critical of Moore's claims, focusing particularly on alleged lengthy waiting lists and purported unavailability of new treatments in the publicly-funded health systems of the United Kingdom and Canada, an aspect of those systems which they allege Moore failed to address.[46][47]

The non-partisan Urban Institute (UI) largely agreed with Moore regarding the need for a universal health care system and failure of the current system. Urban Institute economist Linda Blumberg stated that Moore correctly provides evidence that the current system fails and a universal system is needed, adding that any system will face budget constraints. Overall, Blumberg stated that "Americans as a whole have yet to buy the philosophy that health care is a right and not a privilege" and if Moore succeeded in popularizing the idea, he "will have done the country a tremendous service." Bradford Gary agrees with the main points made by Moore but criticizes the film for making various omissions and lacking attention to detail, stating that "though Moore is not interested in the details behind the outrages he has assembled, many of his fundamental points are nevertheless accurate."[48]

Moorewatch

Regarding Moore's donation to Jim and Donna Kenefick of Moorewatch.com, while Donna Kenefick thanked Moore, saying his money "paid for our health insurance premiums and gave us the financial breathing room to both deal with our debts",[49] Jim Kenefick disputed Moore's account of these events, saying that his insurance would have paid for his wife's needs, that the danger faced by his sites occurred at an entirely different point in time than what was implied by Moore, and that his sites were in operation again thanks to reader donations long before he ever received Moore's check. Kenefick accuses Moore of presenting his words out of context in order to defame him, and both Kenefick and his co-blogger, Lee, criticize Moore for claiming to make this donation anonymously, only to highlight it in his film, for which they accuse him of being motivated by a desire for publicity and self-aggrandizement rather than altruism.[50][51]

At a Cannes press conference, after the identity of the donor was revealed, Moore said: "I had to ask myself, 'Would you write this cheque if this wasn't in the film?' I decided this is what I would do, and what I should do, and this is the way I want Americans to live."[52]

Legal controversy

Piracy

The film was leaked onto the Internet two weeks before its official release on June 29, 2007.[53] Moore denied leaking the film for publicity, and an investigation was made into the source of the Internet leak.[54] When asked about the leak, Moore said, "I'm just happy that people get to see my movies. I'm not a big supporter of the copyright laws in this country…I don't understand bands or filmmakers…who oppose sharing, hav[ing] their work being shared by people, because it only increases your fanbase."[55]

Treasury Department probe

In a May 2, 2007 letter, the Office of Foreign Assets Control informed Moore that he was the subject of a civil investigation stemming from the filmmaker's March trip to Cuba. In the letter to Moore, a Treasury official noted that the department had no record of Moore obtaining a license that authorized him to "engage in travel-related transactions involving Cuba," alleging that Moore violated the United States embargo against Cuba.[56][57] A duplicate master copy of the film was being held in Canada should an attempt have been made by American authorities to seize the film as part of the investigation against Moore that arose from taking the American 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba for medical treatment.[58] Moore has said that if any trip to Cuba is for journalism reasons, the U.S. allows it. Moore states that his intentions were to travel to the US Naval base in Guantánamo Bay. Upon Moore's arrival at Guantánamo Bay, a siren was sounded and Moore decided to turn around for safety.

On The Tonight Show, Moore reported that he was notified that a subpoena regarding his trip to Cuba had already been issued. According to an anonymous source at Reuters, Moore has not been served; rather, the government contacted his attorney, David Boies, to discuss the logistics of serving a subpoena.[59]

Deleted scenes and extras

The DVD release includes deleted segments that Moore filmed but did not use in the theatrical release. Several scenes from the section about health care in the United Kingdom feature footage of a homeless shelter where people received acupuncture and foot massages. Discarded scenes in France include an interview with an employee from General Electric, who tells Moore they get benefits in France that GE employees don't receive in the United States.[60] Scenes depicting an overview of the Norwegian health care system, which is supervised by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision were removed from the film because its health care system possesses numerous benefits similar to the French system. Like the French health care system, Norwegian patients treated for illnesses such as psoriasis or rheumatism are shown eligible for two weeks' paid vacation at a spa in the Canary Islands.[61] In these scenes, Norway hires a government ethicist to determine how to invest government funds, because they want to do it in an ethical manner.[60] A scene where Moore visits Bastøy Prison, a Norwegian island prison, was also deleted. Here, inmates reside in small group homes and focus on rehabilitation through manual labor and farming.

Deleted American health care scenes include an uninsured woman who was offered a 50% discount for treatment of spinal cancer. She still could not afford the initial consultations, so she held a fundraiser to pay for it. After the initial visit, the 50 percent discount was revoked when the hospital discovered that she had obtained the money to pay for her treatment through fundraising, which the hospital considered to be earned income. An interview with Marcia Angell was also deleted. The former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine criticizes various practices of pharmaceutical companies and the Food and Drug Administration. Executive producer Harvey Weinstein asked Moore to remove a scene critical of Hillary Clinton, but Moore refused. Weinstein, whose company provided financing for the film, is a friend of the Clinton family.[62][63]

In the DVD edition of the film, Moore added a segment called "Sicko Goes To Washington". This extra promotes the United States National Health Insurance Act, legislation that would create a single-payer health care system within the United States.

380 Comments »

Pages: [76] 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 … 1 » Show All

Very well done but completely biased

Obviously this movie was very well done in order to achieve its goal.
However, would someone care if the facts are true? I cannot say how
good or bad the US health care system is even if I have lots of friends
living in US and some of them being doctors and what I know from them
is far from being as things are depicted in this movie. But I know very
well how things are in Canada and a pretty good idea how they are in
Cuba and I have to say that regarding these 2 countries Moore
completely mystified the reality. In Canada things might be OK as long
as you don't need to go to Emergency or you don't suffer of cancer or
other life threatening illnesses. For instance if you go to Emergency
over night (to a large hospital in Toronto) you have best chances not
to see any doctor until morning comes. Even if you are during the day,
it will take a minimum of 2 hours to see someone (who will assess if it
is an emergency or not). If you are suspected by cancer or something
else and need an MRI or CAT scan you will have to wait at least 3-4
months to do one. If you need appointment with a specialist you need to
wait for months too. For cancer surgery you have to wait even longer.
For cancer suspected patients, summing-up all these waiting times it
would take up to 2 years until they will go for surgery but the problem
is that within this time they may die or their cancer becomes
inoperable. Even if you want to pay for these procedures you cannot do
it. So many such patients who can afford it, chose to go to US where
they pay and do the tests within the same day (i.e. why I did not
appreciate at all the "joke" with the US cancer patient coming to
Canada to cure her disease). Regarding Cuban health care system, as one
who leaved in a Communist country all I can say is that is laughable at
best. First of all you cannot make a movie in a Communist country
without being authorized and you can film only approved places. What
they filmed was for sure the clinic dedicated to Cuban Nomenklatura.
All other hospitals, for ordinary people are like this: you need to
find and bring your own drugs, food and you have to tip doctors and
nurses. Even if you do this, you will not be able to bring the
equipment they miss. I would never wish someone to end-up in a Cuban
ordinary hospital - I guarantee it will be a nightmare. However, I
don't deny they don't have good doctors the problem is that a good
doctor without proper equipment and drugs is powerless. Why should I
really believe what he said about the other country health systems if
in these 2 cases he was just lying? So this is a good movie as long as
you realize is a fantasy. But if it is a science-fiction movie, can it
still be called documentary?

adlisita from Toronto, Canada - 18 June 2009

"Sicko" is Moore's grandest effort and believe it or not, his least controversial

It wouldn't seem easy for any documentary filmmaker to tackle an issue
with as broad and universal (pardon the unfortunate pun) a scope as
health care, but Michael Moore, the United States' most famous and
controversial documentarian, strikes again with more poignancy than
ever before. "Sicko" is multi-faceted, strongly organized, emotional
and thought- provoking. Best of all, it's Moore's least controversial
film to date. He continues with his liberal sense of humor, but "Sicko"
poses more questions about what it means to live in America than it
does to assign blame.It is clear that Moore also has more help than ever before, with
financial backing by the Weinstein Bros and a team of researchers to
find the most compelling personal stories from the tens of thousands of
if not millions of health care tragedies to be told in America. Armed
with these resources, "Sicko" goes into the history of health care and
HMOs in the U.S., gives countless examples of people denied insurance
or denied coverage of certain operations at the deadliest of costs and
then ventures up north to Moore's favorite country and overseas to both
the U.K and France, to inquire about the effectiveness of their
universal health care. Lastly, its final thirty minutes involve Moore
taking a handful of 9/11 emergency workers who were not adequately
treated in the U.S on a journey to Guantanamo Bay, where America's
worst criminals receive free treatments.As usual, Moore lines this film with moments of shock, where we have to
laugh at how painfully obvious his points are. He also brings back his
leanings toward satire and exaggeration for humorous effect. And just
like always, Moore merely addresses the other side with an example or
two, never really digging deep into opposing viewpoints. For example,
we've been told time and time again that universal health care in
countries like Canada comes at a cost — lesser quality, longer waits
for treatment, etc. and instead of surveying hospitals all over Canada,
he merely takes us to one. He would better silence skeptics if we knew
with 100 percent honesty that he didn't just pick the hospital with the
responses he was looking for.Still, Moore's documentary is not about converting to Canada or
Britain's system, but about the principle of universal health care. The
mentality from talking to these countries is that everyone should be
helped, that when it comes to health — to life or death in many cases
– that nobody should be deciding whose worthy or not worthy of
treatment, especially not billion-dollar HMO corporations. Everyone
values his or her health, and it's so distressing to know that our
country is stuck in a rut where too many dollars and jobs are at stake
to just flip our health care system over and shake it out. This is an
issue where everyone's livelihood is affected and Moore offers plenty
of insight into the emotional factors, the everyday person.Moore has a tremendous responsibility as a filmmaker. After "Bowling
for Columbine" shot to critical and box office fame, he's become the
most visible icon of the documentary craft out of thousands of others
like him who will never be known in the slightest. Add that to his
choice of social topics and his tendency to have a sense of humor about
him and he will always be a controversial but crucial American figure.
No one dares to upset establishment like Moore and as much as he
becomes a social pest to many people for it, democracy requires it of
us and Moore simply has accepted the responsibility.

scchait from IL, USA - 9 June 2009

Wish I could go to Cuba right now…if only for a moment

This doc literally made me cry. Although I caught it towards the middle
of the program, I found it heartfelt and also made me disappointed in
our health care system. I could not believe the story of the lady who
was paid 5cents for an item should would have spent more than a hundred
dollars for in the U.S. I can relate as I have been without a
medication that although is not a necessity, would make my way of life
a lot better. All because it cost $130 for a one month supply. I called
my boyfriend this morning who work as a medic in the U.S army to let
him know that I would like to go to Cuba one day just to see if there
is something we can do for a country who gives so freely to others in
need.One thing about living in a country such as Cuba that was NOT hit on in
the documentary was that although they might recv free health care in
places like Cuba, there are still not many more places on this earth
that gives you as many opportunities as the U.S. I lived in Brazil were
meds. cost almost nothing (not quite as cheap as the ones in Cuba). The
downside of this was, the country was filled poverty and corruption. I
wish this doc focused, if only for a moment at the negative points on
countries such as this one…not just on the fact that the health care
system was supreme.The most important thing about this touching movie was that there were
100% right about our American Health Care system. It is very much
flawed and it hurts me to see how so many have suffered that really
have no need to.

shay3624 from United States - 1 June 2009

seems like a guy that just wants to rock the boat

Michael Moore seems like a guy who wants to just stick it to the man,
without taking ALL sides into consideration, so many other opinions and
perspectives have come out since this movie relating to sicko's claims,
i personally have no idea what is true to be honest, like the Cuba
hospital which MIGHT not have been a typical Cuban hospital, just a
hospital for the elite and tourists, off limits to average citizens but
the movie made it seem like it was a typical public Cuban hospital.. i
dunno if Moore is so intent on finding stuff to stick it to the USA
government to the point he totally never comes across any other
opinions or perspectives, or if hes purposely keeping other
perspectives or opinions out to make more of a anti government WOW
factor in order to gain fame and sell movies and try to convince people
the government sucks.. either way he does add a lot of perspective to a
very important issue, even though it seems a lot of it MIGHT be
mis-information which doesn't hold a very valid or worth listening to
argument or perspective.. i really don't know, but i did enjoy the
movie, and it was interesting watching this particular perspective on
the subject of health care.p.s. being Canadian, i enjoy universal health care, and its nice
knowing its always there for me, sofar i haven't experienced any
negative aspects of free health care.

grewelgrewel from Canada - 25 May 2009

Typical slicko Michael Moore fare still strikes nerve

To say that Sicko tugs at your heart strings is like saying an aircraft
carrier leaves a wake. Moore is a master of both sob-story revelation
and factual selectivity in the service of powerful messages, whether
it's corporate perfidy (Roger and Me), national politics (Fahrenheit
911)[1], gun policy (Bowling for Columbine), or health care issues
(Sicko). Sometimes, as with the Charlton Heston footage in Columbine[2]
the selectivity is outright fraudulent. But even when he crosses the
line, Moore excels at generating sympathy for real people.[3]The primary technique for creating misimpressions that I've seen,
however, in Moore's movies and other mockumentaries from left or right,
is to trick the emotional-perceptual mechanism. For example, the movie
The Corporation I reviewed had a sequence describing a plant that was
generating toxic waste… …For my complete review of this movie and for other movie and book
reviews, please visit my site TheCoffeeCoaster.com.Brian Wright Copyright 2009

Brian Wright from United States - 12 May 2009

Pages: [76] 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 … 1 » Show All

Leave your Impressions!