Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Apparently, Harvey loves 'Sicko'

Last week Harvey Weinstein visited the set of "The Great Debaters," which stars Forest Whitaker and Denzel Washington (director).

Since Harvey's movie du jour, Michael Moore's "Sicko," wasn't scheduled for a weekend release in the Shreveport-Bossier City market, he decided to give cast and crew a private screening.

Weinstein rented out a theater at Shreveport's Tinseltown this past Sunday and shipped in a print for such purposes.

This little tidbit might give followers of Moore a little hope that "Sicko" will make it to this market. Who knows?

It's not scheduled to come this weekend, but I'll keep you posted.

And, hey, Harvey! Next time around why not put your favorite movie reporter on the guest list?

Thanks for the tip, K.S.


Chris Lyon said...

(Can you spoil a Moore doc?)

"SiCKO" was very much like Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" which follows the correlation between gun availability and gun violence in different countries- specifically Canada. In the same respect, SiCKO follows the correlation of overall health in a country versus their style of health care. The interesting thing about SiCKO is that- while it starts off with a routine trip to the Canadians that Moore likes to pick to begin his documentaries- he ends up going across the pond to investigate other nations on the top of the health care list. England and France also make a large appearance in the film and are portrayed to smash our health care system to a pulp.

Moore also harps on the idea that our health care was privatized because a national health care was perceived as "socialist" in nature. He then proceeds to list already existing "socialized" systems in America- like libraries, community centers, firefighters and policemen.

To cut a long (and interesting) look at American health care short, everywhere else has better health care except the nation of Slovenia... and Cuba.

So the English, Canadians and French don't have to pay for hospitals and medicine. In fact, in England, no one pays for medicine unless they are employed and it is a flat rate of 6.65 pounds (around $10) no matter the medication and no matter the quantity.

It's well worth the watch. So if you don't have the opportunity to see it in theaters, reserve it on Netflix. It will be interesting to see if this film makes a nation-wide difference unlike Moore's other films that only change one corporation or a few mom and pop stores.

Greg said...

Wow, Alexandyr. Thanks for posting a "news" item about how a studio executive felt the need to shove yet another one-sided, psuedo-intelletual piece of garbage down the throats of people just trying to do their job.

That's just great... But, maybe one day, an exec will screen an actual documentary in this area, not just a fictional film that a lot of folks wish were true.

Oh, and Chris Lyon, just google a few of Moore's "facts." He's dead wrong about a lot of his "findings" (in every "film" he's ever made) and constantly lies about reports by organizations that either don't exist or were set up and paid for by people who made sure their perverted points of view were the end result. When the end result is assured, it's not science and it isn't objective. Oh, and just try to find the documentation of the US having one of the "worst health systems." It doesn't exist. In fact, there was just a report that listed the US health care system as one of the top ten, and it stated you are much less likely to die in the US system than in most of those "brilliant" systems Moore wishes were here.

Congrats to falling into the trap, yet again, of one of the worst filmmakers to ever roam this earth... Realize, please, that you can't sprinkle in 10 percent truth and have a documentary. Every time I hear another Moore film is coming out, I literally get sick watching so many smart people get fooled. It just amazes me that these people, including a lot that I know, can be so gullible and have an actual thirst for this guy. If he was telling the truth and making real documentaries, I wouldn't say a word. But if it was someone making a documentary from the opposite point of view, you can bet people like Harvey would try their damnedest to make sure it was discredited. Too bad they help Moore cover up his lies, and then sell more tickets to a movie based on as much truth as "Transformers."

Now, quit drinking the Kool-Aid and actually pay attention. You people are smarter than this.

Kathryn Usher said...

Haven't seen the movie yet but I plan on doing so. After seeing it I will make it a point to come back and post. Whether I love the movie or hate it, I will also make it a point to have the ovaries enough to come back and post under my own name. It's the least a life long Republican gal can do.

Chris Lyon said...


Here is what's wrong with your statement. First, Moore didn't give any "facts" that you claim to have gotten wrong. The only list he ever gave in the film is the list of average health, life expectancy, etc which has a direct correlation to the kind of health care the country has. And that list does exist...


Information extrapolated from WHO (World Health Organization) can lead to an average ranking that can easily be made into a list. It's not hard, it's just takes time.

It seems to me that you have rejected this Moore documentary without seeing it. That's like saying you don't like salsa and having never tasted it.

My grandmother is from england and she is aware of exactly the things Moore points out in the doc as true. Like not paying for health care, a singluar fee for medication, etc.

You need to take off your anti-Moore hat in order to properly look at this film (or any film for that matter). It might behoove you to know that Moore doesn't even harp on Bush in the film. He talks about the fallacies democrats AND republicans of all things!

Why is it that in Shreveport, we have so many anti-film people here who would rather see something with a "3" on the end of it than something interested (however controversial). Greg, you probably won't see this film arguing the fact that seeing it would perpetuate it's seepage into the american culture. But that kind of attitude is rather harsh and ends up making you look less educated than you really are. I'd rather perpetuate a controversial film and use that controversy to "expose the truth" as you might say than to let it seep quietly into the American consciousness. That is, if you really feel that way after watching it. But you won't- so nevermind.

Chris Lyon said...

And, for the record, I don't have a thirst for Moore films. I have a thirst for films period- rather than just movies. If that means seeing a Moore film, so be it. If we had more films here that were more educated (like what the film center is going to do soon enough) then we would have a choice not between SiCKO and 1408 or Pirates 3- but between SiCKO, Iraq in Fragments and oh,say Jesus Camp then you would probably have more room to complain.

So stop complaining about docs coming to Shreveport or the distributors wont send any at all.

Chris-Brad said...

I have to get a few things off my chest.

First, so what if the poster doesn't use his real name? That shouldn't have anything to do with his views. I've read this complaint in several posts in several threads because some post under a general name or anonymously. Heck, I don't even use my real name because I don't have a LJ account (and I don't want one!). A real name doesn't change anything! If I wanted to post using the name DumDum101, or Sir Wimbley Wright III, that shouldn't make anyone think I'm hiding behind a name. Then again, if I ever post under DumDum101 someone please refer to me the nearest asylum.

Second, did you actually read his post? Sure he has a few, dare I say, inaccuracies himself, but as a guy who has seen all of Moore's movies (except Sicko), he is right about a lot of what he was TRYING to say (I think). Every one of Moore's film uses a little bit of truth wrapped in a hint of out and out lies. That's just what Moore does.

For me that is what makes me not like the man. Like I said, that is just my opinion. It doesn't stop me from seeing his films (not documentaries, but films). When Sicko comes to town or DVD I'll catch it so I can find out what new inaccuracies Moore is spreading, and I'll try to educate my friends with an alternate point of view. I think that is what the Greg guy was getting at (not just bashing to bash). Let's face it, most people think documentaries are based on facts and are therefore more keen on accepting everything as presented without questioning it. Sure, that shouldn't happen, but a lot of people accept Moore's "facts" without finding out if they are true or if he just wished they were true.

Now, Chris Lyon, you said that the WHO complied a list of life expectancy. Fine. And I will even grant you that the list is relatively free from political influence. But, as a smart guy that took lots and lots of science courses in my life, I can say that life expectancy doesn't necessarily have the biggest impact and most direct correlation with how good a nation's health care system is. It is a factor, rest assured, but not THE factor. Like I said, I haven't seen Sicko yet, but if that is what Moore is basing this new flick on, then I can say he's already misleading the audience. There are too many variables other than (and including) life expectancy that go into determining how good or bad a nation's health system is.

Also, does Moore even attempt to show the other side of the story? I know in his previous films that he has done a poor job doing this. I've read so many articles from well respected people that say he doesn't point out that voluntary surgeries which can be performed within days in the US take weeks or months in most "universal" systems. Some have said he doesn't point out that the level of income taxes and other fees required to pay for universal health care sometimes result in people paying more for their health care than they do under privatized systems. I'm just asking, did he point any of this out? Did he even try?

And about the Bush thing. I didn't read a single comment in Greg's post about Bush. Where did that reference come from? Just because someone doesn't like Moore or his films doesn't automatically make him or her a Bush supporter (or detractor for that matter). People need to understand that a like or dislike or Moore and his films do not correlate to a person's political thought.

And, finally, let me harp on this. I HATE when smart people try to do the "why don't people here want better movies or documentaries to come to town" thing. That is nothing more than a ridiculous, over-the-top, and false generalization.

There are no such people as "anti-film" people.

What there is are folks who don't want to see those movies. Simple. That doesn't make them anti- anything. It just makes them consumers who don't want it. If they would rather see Pirates than Sicko, or Spiderman than Fragments of Iraq, that is fine by me. They are no better than me and they are no worse.

Besides, who am I to say that 1408 is really worse than some Moore flick? And who are you to say it's better? As a film geek I would love for more independent films and documentaries to be shown locally. I would love it. But if they aren't, I am smart enough to find where these things are playing and see them there. Now, I try to see as many of the foreign flicks Centenary brings in that I can, and I've made it to the Boardwalk to see a few of the flicks the Robinson people have screened. And I love them. I wish the new film center only success.

But, if the Center fails it will have nothing to do with the local community being anti-film. Remember that. It will simply be the fault of the quality of films shown. I've seen a lot of indie flicks in my days and from personal experience most of them are not my cup of tea and weren't worth the cost of admission. I hope the Center finds a nice balance of indie and major-but-out-of-the-mainstream flicks. And when the Center chooses documentaries, keep this in mind --- people want to be entertained, not really lectured. I hope the Center will screen docs from all kinds of points of view. I'm not going to judge anything yet. But if there are nothing but anti-this and anti-that films shown, count me in as a film geek that will be firmly seated at the local multiplex.

I guess I'm really trying to say the "anti-film" line is a crutch. And a useless one at that. If a movie isn't successful it is the fault of the film and filmmaker, not the audience. It is the absolute pretentiousness of the "anti-film" phrase that makes me mad, and makes potential movie-goers run for the hills. Let's try to make people want to see more films, not try to berate and belittle them when they don't. Then again, that's just my two cents!

Chris Lyon said...

I used 1408 as it is a film in mainstream theaters. Probably a bad choice on my side for naming films. I used Bush because the other Moore films are anti bush and since he appeared to not like Moore, I wanted to point out that SiCKO was different in that respect.

Moore did point out that not all "socialized" medicine is perfect and it does have its flaws. However, it wasn't a big part of the film. Of course, he was making a point to the contrary so why would he harp on it. But he did mention some of the points that do exist. He didn't set out (or so I felt) to say that one way of providing medicine is better than another- just that other people have better benefits overall than we do and can't be turned down due to one reason or another. He talked a lot about that- rejection. Socialized medicine can't reject people unless they don't pay taxes which, relatively, aren't much higher than ours. Especially if you count in how much we pay for medical expenses.

I didn't mean to insinuate that Moore said that health care is the reason for the longer lifespan, infant mortality rate, etc. But there are some less fortunate countries that have a lower standard of living and sanitation that have higher life expectancies. The correlation between health care systems and overall health is almost universally in agreement despite the country's location, poverty level and other factors.

Even looking at WHO outside the context of the film the numbers are kinda odd to look at because we rank so low for one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

And, as my last note for this post, I don't like Michael Moore. He is a forceful guy and a pusher. But like I said in my first rebuttal, that doesn't determine whether I see a film or not.

I don't mean to beat people into submission because they aren't seeing films. I just don't want them to toss their negative opinions in on the subject matter of a film they themselves haven't seen. It's just asking for someone to jump in and tell them otherwise.

Greg, I respect your opinion, just not when you assume things about a film you haven't seen.