Sicko is just a flat out terrific documentary. I’ve said this before… but when FOX comes out and gives a Michael Moore film a positive review… you know it must be good. For those of you who don’t know, Sicko is the documentary that looks at the American system of privatized, for-profit, health system in comparison to the health systems run by most of the world.
Anyway, because of the lack of “sexiness” to the topic (unlike Bowling for Columbine or F 9/11), a lot of people didn’t really think it would do much. Well… it did pretty well and has just become the third highest grossing documentary of all time. The folks over at Comingsoon give us this:
SiCKO, Michael Moore’s highly acclaimed and entertaining expose of the American health care system, has just become the third highest grossing documentary of all time grossing $24.2 million domestically since it debuted in theaters on June 29th. SiCKO, one of the most talked about films of the year, moved into third place taking the spot of previous record holder An Inconvenient Truth and behind Moore’s previous film Fahrenheit 9/11 and March of the Penguins.
The film really is terrific and lacks that smarmy sort of edge that Moore brings to most of his projects (I like his smarminess… but in a project like this one, it’s good he left it out of it). I really suggest you watch this one. Agree or disagree with it, it gives lots of food for thought and is a terrific launch pad for discussion.
Carlos, F911 was a documentary anomaly that wont happen again. that movie had all the free publicity in the world to propel it, and was a much more ‘must see’ movie for a lot of people.
Good news for Moore, indeed.
However a closer look would reveal that Moore’s new documentary is making considerably less then his previous movie(the infamous F9-11).
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=michaelmoore.htm
I should’ve added “wink wink” I guess.
That’s the guy I read. He must have some incriminating photos of Bill O’Reilly to be able to praise Moore under the FOX banner.
Hey Puft,
No, that’s right around where the studio said they were hoping the film would reach. They’ve already made more than double the production cost… not even counting world box office or dvd sales. They’re very happy.
And as for fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html
A plant huh?
I don’t think the numbers for the film are very impressive considering this was his follow up to Fahrenheit 9-11. As John already said, the subject matter isn’t sexy and 9-11 came out during a vicious election year. But I would be willing to bet the studios expected a better turnout for his followup, which has only made $24M to 9-11’s $120M.
As for the online (not on-air – let’s be clear) reviewer from FOX News loving it, this guy also loved 9-11. He’s a plant!
BROTHER sorry typo
Preach it broyher Goon
here’s what i think of Ayn Rand – atlasshrugged.ytmnd.com
lol, objectivism – the socialized medicine boogeyman and supposed proposals are put out there to fearmonger against the reality of the systems that are currently in place vs. the US system.
by no means is socialized medicine PERFECT, however the alternative in the states is basically a casino, and the house always wins. you cant vote with your dollar – you are either covered and can be screwed over by a for profit system, or you arent and can pay a shitload more if and when you get sick. its entirely unfair and unjust. it doesnt take into account the myriad of reasons people get and lose their health insurance, it is biased against those who are already sick – coverage isnt there for anyone who can afford it, coverage is there for those who are unlikely to get sick and can afford it. its absolutely ridiculous… and worst of all, its ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL and unethical to ask doctors to prevent treating ill people in this way.
But dont ask the Ayn Rand institute to actually take this factor into play. Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy is a corrupt capitalistic money cult, so far that Satanism was based off of it, that treats selfishness as a virtue and that there is no good reason to care for other people. I spit on Ayn Rand, a sick worthless shell of life. If there was a hell she’d be there.
Under Democratic presidential contender John Edwards’s “universal” health-care proposal, every American would be required to go to the doctor for preventive care in order to keep health-care costs down. In a similar proposal, a Tory panel in Britain suggested that, in order to control the spiraling costs of its socialized health-care system, Britons should be forced to adopt a government-prescribed “healthy lifestyle” or else be denied certain medical treatments. Britons who improve their health by, for example, quitting smoking or losing weight would receive “Health Miles” that could be used to purchase vegetables or pay for gym memberships.
“These proposals are the reductio ad absurdum of nanny-state paternalism,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “According to these politicians, instead of having a government that protects our right to live our own lives, we are to be treated like incompetent children who need someone to force us to visit the doctor and eat our veggies.
“Such proposals are the inevitable consequence of socialized medicine, where the only ways to control spiraling health-care costs are to cut benefits or attempt to reduce demand for medical services by forcing preventive care on individuals. Indeed, the fundamental justification for socialized medicine rests on the view that individuals are helpless to manage their own lives and so need beneficent bureaucrats to take care of them. Under socialized medicine, the government gives us ‘free’ health care–and in exchange, it gets to dictate how we live our lives. It’s like a parent who tells his child, ‘So long as I pay the bills, I make the rules!’
“But coercing people into ‘healthy’ behavior is not only destructive to individual liberty–it’s destructive to health. If an individual is to maintain his health and well-being, he must (in consultation with his doctor) make myriad judgments about what is good for his life and what is harmful, given the context of his knowledge, goals, and interests. When the government takes away the individual’s freedom to pursue his well-being as he sees fit in favor of coercively enforced collective judgments about what is healthy or unhealthy, it prevents him from making such judgments and the life-promoting decisions they entail. It also leaves him at the mercy of any errors the government makes in its declarations about what is ‘healthy.’ Imagine the destructive consequences had people been forced to abide by the USDA’s now widely discredited ‘food pyramid.’
“To protect our health and our freedom, we must reject socialized medicine in any form.”-ARI