Apply to a different fraternity

OLD SCHOOL (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2003)

So there are the typical gross-out, raunchy teenage or college-based comedies released every month - their gross-out factor (as in "Van Wilder") is what determines their success. Then there are teenage or college-based comedies where the raunch factor is at a minimum - mostly they want to get audiences swooning for a horny male and female to be together happily ever after. The latter may be a perfect description of "Can't Hardly Wait," the most innocuous of all recent variations of this tiresome genre. "Old School" is fairly raunch-less and features almost no gross-out gags. I suppose we can be eternally grateful for that, but there is so little humor in it that I am flabbergasted that anyone would call this a comedy.

The opening sequence has Mitch (Luke Wilson) discovering his girlfriend (Juliette Lewis) engaged in sexual blindfolding games with other people. Naturally, Mitch breaks up with her and moves into a new house. To celebrate, his buddies stage a party that is roughly the size of a rave, complete with rap singer Snoop Dogg performing for the party crowd. Mitch's buddies also decide to start a fraternity (this coming from 30-something men) at the local university and hold meetings and other nonsense at Mitch's new house. Of course, Wilson finds this idea ludicrous but that doesn't stop him from agreeing. To see grown men like Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn (who both play Wilson's buddies) is a little creepy to say the least - why would men with families want to get in touch with their inner college selves by running a fraternity? Somehow, the idea of Eric Stoltz as an aging college student in "Kicking and Screaming" was more convincing than what is shown here.

"Old School" has no real theme or value or any real laughs. Mostly, I watched ninety-minutes of this travesty without cracking so much as a smile. I liked the scene with "Crossfire's" James Carville on the debate team and Juliette Lewis is always a crackling presence (though her appearance is far too brief). And there is the sweet, pleasing presence of Ellen Pompeo (formerly cast in "Moonlight Mile") as Wilson's former college sweetheart. Sean William Scott's cameo as an expert on horses and tranquilizers is always good for a mild chuckle. Otherwise, there is not a single redeeming feature in "Old School." Grade D-. Class dismissed.

Mother Teresa, that clever little devil

HELL'S ANGEL (1994)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

British author with a sharp pen and sharper knives, Christopher Hitchens, came out full force against Mother Teresa in a BBC-produced documentary short called "Hell's Angel." Mother Teresa is normally equated with being a living saint, a woman who championed and supported the poor. Normally she is not considered anything remotely hellish, at least not in character. Hitchens has painted a damning character assassination of Mother Teresa, demonizing her and debunking her saintly demeanor.

From the start, we learn that a BBC reporter, Malcolm Muggeridge, went to see Mother Teresa and witnessed a miracle. The miracle shown in a newly developed Kodak film for the camera apparently shows the divine light, as if Teresa gave off this light supernaturally. In a headlong series of montages with repeated chanting heard on the soundtrack, Hitchens crucifies Teresa relentlessly, from her pro-life and anti-birth control stance, to accepting millions from some corrupt businessmen including Charles Keating (involved in banking fraud and racketeering), to the deplorable conditions of various Missionaries of Charity hospices, to her declaration that the world is being "much helped by the suffering of the poor," etc. The assumption from Hitchens is that Teresa did not believe in giving proper health care to the poor, though she received it herself. The conditions in these places is shown as unsanitary and deemed as such by witnesses, especially when you consider the use of unclean needles, no IV and nothing more than aspirin to curb their pain. Ouch!

"Hells' Angel" is incendiary times Hitchens 140 squared. Most of this short 24-minute film is compelling and there is ample evidence to support that Mother Teresa was a legend, a saint to the Western audience who were deceived by the media-created icon (through no fault of her own) who gave her life to the poor. The late Hitchens himself was an avowed atheist who doesn't blame Teresa as much as the media forces that surreptitiously clouded her with ethereal light. However, he has been quoted as saying the following: “She was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction." Although Hitchens speaks such words in the film, Teresa's own admission to such pronouncements in the film, more or less paraphrased, can give one pause. Perhaps it is indicative that Hitchens simply has a problem with how religion is practiced, that it is largely politically motivated, rather than Mother Teresa's innocent embracement of it.

Cracking the funny in Striped Tomato

STARSKY AND HUTCH (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2004)

I remember the TV series of "Starsky and Hutch" vaguely, though I recall enjoying it. I have seen my fair share of TV shows during the 1970's and the ones that stick out, "The Incredible Hulk" and "Starsky and Hutch" among others, are the most entertaining. I suppose that I am dumbfounded when Hollywood decides to take a crack at making a big-screen version of a notable TV show. Though some work ("The Fugitive"), just as many don't ("The Brady Bunch Movie"). "Starsky & Hutch" is the one I least expected to be made into a feature-length film (though I am sure someone will think of doing "Dukes of Hazzard" at some point). It has moments of humor, and some priceless sequences, but it is a largely bland, mediocre parody at best.

"Starsky and Hutch" is basically a prequel to the TV show, showing us how curly-haired David Starsky (Ben Stiller) and Ken "Hutch" Hutchison (Owen Wilson) became partners, thanks to their boss (Fred Williamson) who is bemused by their arguments over Starsky's hair. Their new case involves the murder of a cocaine dealer's minion whose body is found by the shore. The cocaine dealer (played with complete smugness by Vince Vaughn) has discovered a new kind of cocaine that draws no scent, particularly to highly trained police dogs. In one very funny extended sequence, Starsky almost busts the dealer at his house until he discovers that the cocaine is actually artificial sweetener, or is it? When Starsky is invited to Hutch's house, while having fun with two cheerleaders, he realizes that Hutch has no sugar and so he uses the artificial sweetener. Needless to say, it really is cocaine, and Starsky flies higher than a kite! At the disco club, Starsky is in a dancing contest where he dances better than John Travolta ever could (a similar scene took place in "American Wedding").

Perhaps movies today have become so ingrained in the postmodernist irony that nothing can be taken seriously anymore. Therefore, I shouldn't have been surprised that "Starsky & Hutch" was going to go the route of pure parody. The show was meant to be taken seriously with nuggets of humor supplied by Paul Michael Glaser's smart-aleck humor as Starsky. This movie starts off as one of the blandest police movies ever made, appearing like a truly bad TV cop movie with barely any humor. The whole cocaine plot is so boring that I almost fell asleep watching it. Eventually, the movie picks up some speed after the dancing sequence and some homoerotic humor, but for many that may be too late. Stiller and Wilson have some chemistry, but I think Stiller could've taken the humor quotient much higher, especially with the ridiculous disguises. Wilson almost appears too stoned throughout, and he has none of the charisma of David Soul, the original incarnation of Hutch. It is rather fitting that the real Starsky and Hutch do show up - any other duos are mere carbon copies.

Michael Moore: Rabble Rouser

MICHAEL MOORE: A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

Written by Jerry Saravia (Originally written in 2004)

The Saudi Arabian Royal Family has decried the American filmmaker. Former President George H. W. Bush has complete disdain for him. Rudolph Guiliani has said that the man in question has no idea what happened on that tragic day known as 9/11. Distinguished British author and journalist Christopher Hitchens has called his latest film a series of lies. Many refer to this guy as the master of propaganda, that his only intention is to be nothing more than a Bush hate-mongerer. Some also call him a leftist, as if that was a crime. Who is this man referred to as the most dangerous man alive, the one who supposedly mixes fact with fiction in his documentaries? Why none other than Michael Moore, the left-wing, radical rabble-rouser of politics - the man that the White House wished would just shut up. I don't think many government officials are happy that he read the entire Patriot Act in an ice-cream truck around the nation's capital when they wouldn't read it themselves.

When I heard that Michael Moore was focusing his lens on none other than the President of the United States, I knew he was going to face more controversy than anyone ever could in Hollywood or in politics. Let's face it: the last time anyone faced such a heated debate in entertainment and politics was film director Oliver Stone, best known for his mixology of facts and fiction in J.F.K. Afterwards, Stone was pegged as nothing more than a leftist paranoid with delusions far beyond any reasonable truth. Time will tell if Michael Moore will face such stiff criticism. Still, after more than two months of its release in the U.S., not to mention winning the prestigious Golden Palm award at Cannes and big U.S. box-office, Fahrenheit 9/11 has become not just a film or a documentary - it is a political phenomenon. It is media-blitzed propaganda but for a good purpose (not a sinister one like the infamous Triumph of the Will), to make sure no one ever makes a mistake again in the voting booths on Election Day. In other words, the purpose of the film, as stated by Moore, is to be sure that current President George W. Bush is not reelected. Who can blame him? President Bush has appeared as a laughable buffoon, changing his facts weekly as his defense for the war in Iraq grows weaker (of course, this is also true of John Kerry). We criticize a man that wears a baseball cap, glasses, dresses in normal, workaday clothes for questioning this leader's purpose in the administration, yet we can't bear such scrutiny on the leader himself. Who is more important, Michael Moore or the President?

Michael Moore may have been a troublemaker from the start. Springing from Flint, Michigan, the site of the General Motors shutdown, Moore focused on the need for attention to such a crisis. Thousands of people were laid off and jobs were nonexistent, yet the story barely got much attention outside of Michigan. Moore, who once ran his own paper, made a film to justify the attention needed, to understand that people were being forced out of their homes for nonpayment of rent. But what can someone do for a career if the only available job is at McDonald's? 1989 brought this subject to the surface in the highly popular Roger and Me, Moore's first film that garnered critical hosannas and some decent box-office. Ostensibly a comedy at times, it is also deadly serious and morose about its subject. Shortly thereafter came the relatively unfunny Canadian Bacon, Moore's only fictional feature film (unless you consider his body of work to be fiction). But then Moore bounced back with The Big One, a truly fascinating documentary that details how Americans were steadily losing jobs, working for almost less than the minimum wage. Many telemarketer jobs were going to jailed prisoners, and Nike was delivering manual labor jobs to Mexico for 80 cents an hour. Outside of stints on television that included The Awful Truth and T.V. Nation, not to mention a few bestsellers like Stupid White Men, Michael Moore finally entered the mainstream with his comical (some say purely fictional) documentary called Bowling For Columbine, a biting, provocative essay on gun-control in America, the media's desire to instill fear in all of us, our own nation's history with guns, the NRA and, last but not least, the tragedy of Columbine. The film won Best Documentary at the Oscars, inspiring Michael Moore to lambast Bush and the Iraq War in his acceptance speech (his speech was cutoff almost immediately). He spoke out against the war as it had just started, something no one dared to do except for anti-war protesters. If nothing else, Moore came to the forefront of the mainstream. He is possibly the first documentarian to be lambasted by critics and politicians for embellishing the truth, maybe even lying and making up facts. All this from a Flint, Michigan native who represents the working class. A millionaire representing the working class? Well, sure, I mean, we have a Republican leader who is also a millionaire and says he represents everyone in the country, including the working class.

Granted, Michael Moore has an agenda and will do anything to fulfill it. Case in point is "Fahrenheit 9/11," possibly the most controversial documentary ever made, which has already caused more debate and debacle than even Oliver Stone on a good day. There is already debate over the facts in "Fahrenheit," especially the fact that 142 Saudis were allowed to leave the U.S. when the airspace was reopened after the September 11th attacks. According to Moore, one flight did leave before the airspace was open, even if it didn't include all 142 Saudis. But was it really Richard Clarke who allowed them to leave, or the White House? The naysayers say it was the White House. Well, didn't Clarke formerly work for the White House?

Michael Moore has faced major criticism of his facts before. In Pauline Kael's unfavorable review of "Roger and Me," she stated that Moore did his share of shifting the time sequence of events. For example, she states that the film shows that President Reagan visited the unemployed workers in Flint, Michigan in 1980 at a restaurant, telling them to find work in Texas and other states. The problem is that Reagan was not President yet, only a presidential candidate. After viewing the sequence myself, Moore never says in the voice-over narration that Reagan is President - he refers to him only as Ronald Reagan. The other fact misinterpreted is the cash register that was taken out of the restaurant - does it matter if it was taken prior to Reagan arriving or after? The fact remains it was taken! What Kael should've discussed was what Reagan was telling the unemployed workers - to move out and find work elsewhere. This is cause for ridicule, as an unemployed mother states in the film that she has kids and can't just pack up and leave, not without any money! The truth is that the late Pauline Kael, a wonderful film critic and probably the most influential, took her facts from Harlan Jacobson's article in a late 1989 issue of "Film Comment" magazine. Moore has said the following in response: "Film Comment is a publication of the Film Society of Lincoln Center. Lincoln Center had received a $5 million gift from GM just prior to publishing the piece trashing 'Roger and Me.' Coincidence? Or just five big ones well spent?" You be the judge.

The criticisms over misuse and misrepresentation of facts didn't end with "Roger and Me." The more recent accusation is actually a visual, probably not lasting on screen for more than a few seconds in "Fahrenheit 9/11," of an Illinois newspaper, the Pantagraph, showing a headline that reads: "Latest Florida recount shows Al Gore won election." The headline existed but not on the front cover page of the newspaper. Rather it appeared as a headline over an editorial! Still, one can surmise that such a headline existed anyway - whether it was the front cover of the newspaper or not is not nearly as important as the fact itself. So did Moore doctor the image? Time will tell since he is being sued for a million dollars. Looking at the headline itself, I can't say for sure that it looks like the front cover page of any newspaper. I will give credit to the member of the Pantagraph staff that took the time to analyze every frame of this visual, but suing Moore for an alleged copy-and-paste job is simply ridiculous.

Scott Simon from the Wall Street Journal had this to say about Moore: "Mr. Moore ignores or misrepresents the truth, prefers innuendo to fact, edits with poetic license rather than accuracy, and strips existing news footage of its context to make events and real people say what he wants, even if they don't." Now, correct me if I am wrong but isn't that what ABC, CBS and NBC news does all the time? How about CNN? Do we really believe we are hearing the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the evening news? Can we honestly say that their news segments are sometimes not taken out of context? It is news but it is also a business, and editing is one of the most useful tools of any news format. We know accuracy is never 100 percent - witness the New York Post's front cover page declaring Richard Gephardt as Kerry's vice-presidential nominee - was the Post taking poetic license based on an untruth?

As for editing, the only news shows that do not edit would be live news, such as Lou Dobbs or Crossfire (though "Lou Dobbs" features taped interviews with guests). In fact, not long ago, 60 Minutes was known for editing comments from journalist Christopher Ruddy, who strongly believed that Vincent Foster, Bill Clinton's former White House Deputy Council, was a homicide not a suicide. "60 Minutes" journalist Mike Wallace, who has been known for lies and untruths in the past, had purposely edited the interview to make the journalist seem like a threat to the Clinton administration. The purpose was to belie the truth, insisting that Foster had committed suicide (when, in fact, no blood was found at the crime scene and no bullet). Having said that, you can't edit what a person says to make them say what you want. What can you do, with some fine tuning, is to take certain lines out of context, but you can't change the words. A good example is Charlton Heston's speech to the NRA in Colorado days after the Columbine incident in "Bowling For Columbine." Heston is seen saying the line, "From my cold dead hands!" Then Moore cuts to a billboard advertising Heston's upcoming rally. Then he shows Heston saying that he is not wanted in town, using free speech as an excuse (gee, I suppose only Republicans are entitled to that freedom). So what is the problem with this scene? Nothing except that Moore used Heston's opening mantra from another rally. But that shot is introductory, considering the cut to the next shot of the billboard. It doesn't mean that Heston said it at that particular rally nor was Moore suggesting as such.

More errors have been reported, or rather errors in judgment in Michael Moore's work. For example, in "Fahrenheit 9/11," President Bush is shown playing golf while discussing his plan to "get those terrorist killers." Apparently, Bush was referring to Hamas, responsible for a suicide attack in Israel only hours before. No matter. What does the phrase "terrorist killers" exactly mean? Isn't the word terrorist enough to strike fear in anyone, particularly in this post-9/11 climate? Was Carlos the Jackal known as a terrorist killer? Saddam Hussein? Bin Laden? Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime? Moore's detractors spend more time criticizing the use of footage as opposed to the footage itself - Bush's comments seem like rehearsed words to be used as a soundbite.

Another key scene in "Fahrenheit" revolves not around an error but an omission. In the scene where Michael Moore attempts to get congressmen to sign their sons and daughters up for the War in Iraq, he comes across one congressman, Minnesota Representative Mark Kennedy, who looks at him quizzically. What is omitted from this moment is what follows: Kennedy admitted to having two nephews in the service already, neither one was in Iraq though one was already in Afghanistan. I would have liked that scene to be intact, at least to show that someone who had voted for the war had a relative already in the service, whether you agree with the actual war or not. And there is only one member of Congress, South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, who has a son on active duty in Iraq. Somebody may dispute this after all, but it seems to be an acknowledged fact.

"Bowling For Columbine" has faced the most staunch criticisms. My favorite has to do with the famous opening sequence at North Country Bank and Trust in Michigan's Traverse City where Moore was able to receive a rifle after opening a CD account. The bank is a licensed firearms dealer, and the woman clearly states that 500 firearms can be found in their vault. Moore applies for the account, receives a rifle and walks out of the bank. There is a background check and you apparently need to open an account with no less than $5,000 dollars. But this is Michael Moore, a well-known figure in Michigan, and perhaps the whole thing was arranged so that he could get his gun and give a little publicity to the bank - a gun rack can be seen displayed in the walls, which would already give me pause. Ironically, I do believe that the bank teller gave him a gun from the rack. You can bet that no other customer would get away with that unless they were celebrities.

I am not making a case to support this disgruntled, angry filmmaker and his search for the truth. You'll never hear me say the following: "Either you are with Michael Moore or you are against us!" The fact is I admire him more for taking a stand, for choosing to explore an issue, even if it isn't 100% factually accurate. Michael Moore is no different than any other journalist on any news program. He is being attacked, left and right, for making accusations and pointing fingers, perhaps stretching the truth to bring forth more debate and speculation. Or possibly the real reason he is being attacked is because the guy is so darn successful - he is about as well-known as Spider-Man and that can raise holy hell for the Republican Party. If the U.S. is making this man a success, what does it mean for President Bush in regards to the average voter come Election Day? Who knows what the President was really thinking when he sat in the classroom for 7 minutes after being told that America was under attack. Michael Moore doesn't know either, he only suggests (as he did in his book Dude, Where's My Country?) And like many of his films, his suggestions spring with humor and emotion - as he said in a recent Entertainment Weekly interview, he interprets the facts. Michael Moore wants the country to be the America he remembers. He'll take on anyone, right or wrong, and isn't that what people used to take pride in - the concept of freedom of speech?

Footnote: The newest misinterpreted fact has arisen from Michael Moore's true birthplace - he is actually from Davison, Michigan. This is a little affluent suburb in Flint, so I suppose he is still from Flint, isn't he?

America, Inc.

CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY (2009)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There are two popular directors who continue to dismantle and re-energize the national dialogue in American politics, Oliver Stone and Michael Moore. Stone is more serious, perhaps more heavy-handed but never less than explosive, both in fictional films and documentaries. Michael Moore is a rabble-rouser in the guise of an average joe who wears a baseball cap and innocently asks to enter establishments where he is unwanted. As in the case of his latest film, he loves America but he hates what has become of it, what it has transformed into - namely, as my wife put it, America, Inc. "Capitalism: A Love Story" is a powerhouse of a documentary, a tale of how the corporations took over and treated everyone who wasn't rich into a statistic. Coming from Moore and his band of researchers, the results of how this developed can be devastating to watch.

"Capitalism" deals with corporate mentality that began with Ronald Reagan's presidency and the former Merrill Lynch CEO Don Regan, the President's Secretary of the Treasury (he tells Reagan on camera to speed up his speech). Regan helped to stimulate economic growth with "Reaganomics," as well as relieving tax burden on corporations and granting them more power. Thus, greed and financial deregulation, the essence of the 1980's Reaganomics plan, took over and spilled into everything from GM's bankruptcy and various closings of their manufacturing plants to thousands of people getting laid off (there is an abundance of Flint, Michigan footage here, as well as recaps of Moore's doc debut, "Roger and Me"), to the eventual bubble bursting with the 2009 economic near-collapse and near-repeat of the Great Depression. Real-estate went into a downward spiral leading to record numbers of foreclosures, loss of jobs, and bailout money given to the big honchos that we, the taxpayers, were expected to help cover.

Most of the financial disaster is complemented by scenes of several police units ready to bust through someone's house. In the opening scene of "Capitalism," a family member records on their camera the arrival of several police cars arriving at their property. Are the people inside the house inside traders, drug dealers, killers on the lam? No, they just couldn't afford their mortgage and the police are only there to enforce their eviction. Later, we see a real estate vulture looking to buy people out of their homes and condos.

In addition to evictions and real estate vultures (the one shown in this film loves his job a little too much), there are also some startling facts regarding the current work force under Wall Street dominance and capitalism at its finest. There is a "dead peasants insurance," which means the employer can take out a life insurance policy on an employee without the employee's or the spouse's knowledge, meaning you are worth more dead than alive (these payouts are sometimes in the millions category). Walmart had practiced this immoral act and then quit.

Most agonizing and unclear are the "derivatives." I can't fully explain them but I would say it is legalized gambling and the Wall Street investors are always in a win-win situation when it comes to investments - even if the investments fail, the investor wins (as in the still-current housing crisis). It isn't so much that the economic near-collapse happened - it is simply a wonder and a bit of a relief it didn't happen sooner.

Michael Moore is clearly all over the map here, but his radical conclusion is that capitalism should be changed or replaced, modified in some way so that we can have the old American dream where one job would take care of a family and a home (not to mention more paid vacations, as demonstrated by Moore's own family upbringing in Flint). But a corporate mentality has taken over and is making all the decisions for the people, not Congress and certainly not the President. Yeah, we got President Obama, our shining prince whose mantra was "Change we can believe in." Though Moore omits President Obama as any sort of culprit in our current state of affairs, the implication is that Goldman Sachs and various other banks and corporations gave donations to his election campaign - they fully expect Obama to play the game that Dubya and others before him played. In other words, keep America at bay with financial failures and catastrophes so that the fat cats can get fatter and the poor get poorer. Yet, as Moore also makes it clear, the rich are 1% of this country, and the rest of us make up the resulting 99%. We are on equal footing with the rich when it comes to political votes. We can make a change, as evidenced by one scene where protesting workers decide to stay inside a plant and get a small pie of the bailout mostly taken away by corporations.

"Capitalism: A Love Story" is one hell of a firecracker of a film that leaves us with more questions than answers. It is rigid agitprop that is nicely balanced by humorous episodes, such as Moore's trademark tomfoolery like placing police tape around the Goldman and Sachs building. But there is one moment, a rarely seen moment, dignified and quite potent, that features lost footage of F.D.R. recommending we get a Second Bill of Rights where every American would get free health care, a job, social security, an education and, most importantly, freedom from unfair competition and monopolies. F.D.R. died before implementing this new Bill of Rights. Had it passed, we might not be in the precarious situation we are in now.

Health Insurance? Go to Guantanamo

SICKO (2007)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally viewed in 2008)

There is no dispute (except among pharmaceutical CEO's) that the health care system in America is a joke. Nobody needs Michael Moore to remind us of that either, yet Moore does something unusual here. In his former, incendiary documentaries, he would attack the establishment for not catering to the needs of the helpless and less fortunate, whether it was a former GM employee or the outsourcing of American jobs to the Mexicans who make next to nothing. Moore tried to get cooperation from the pharmaceutical companies to find out why they need to profit from our misery. They declined any participation. Thankfully, this sheds a new light on a pressing problem - Moore gets to hear stories from American citizens who have been defeated by the health care system. Wise move.

We hear several sad stories in "Sicko." One person accidentally severs two of his fingers while working on a saw. He is told that re-attaching one finger is worth less than the ring finger (Perhaps a representative from a pharmaceutical company would've told him that he shouldn't have been working on a coverless saw). A child has problems hearing, but only one ear can be remedied because surgery on both would be "experimental" (a term you hear often in the film). A young woman has to pay for ambulance fees because her insurance doesn't cover the ride to the hospital - she should've let her insurance know she was using an ambulance despite being unconscious. Two working adults, one a schoolteacher, have to move into their daughter's house and use a room not big enough for a rambunctious 4-year-old, all because they lost their mortgage thanks to skyrocketing medical costs that didn't cover such anomalies like cancer!

Michael Moore swings between America's health care crisis to the socialized medical care in Europe. Who would've thought that a visit to a hospital would be free in Britain, Canada and France, regardless of procedure or operation? Who would've thought that a cashier's office in a hospital actually provides reimbursement for transportation? And to top it all off, there is a doctor that makes house calls to any called-in emergency, like a taxi service. Most unbelievable to anyone living in the United States - if you are sick and need time off from work, you will be 100% covered in your paychecks. Depending on where you work in the U.S., 65% is all that is covered if you are on medical leave.

Recently, an episode of "Oprah" had Michael Moore and a CEO of a pharmaceutical company going at it. The CEO merely said that she hoped nobody would ever get sick, like have any liver disease or any cancer. God forbid, because such diseases would suck you dry financially. But it is only fitting that we never hear from any representative of a pharmaceutical company or any American hospital explaining why they are in the business of profiting from people's misery. They couldn't possibly answer why this crisis is ongoing, but we know why. Thus, Moore focusing on the people affected by the crisis makes this his most emotional documentary since "Roger and Me."

There is one harrowing scene in "Sicko" that I will not soon forget. An elderly woman is dropped off by someone and left in front of a clinic/homeless shelter, walking around in her hospital gown, pacing back and forth on the street. Eventually someone from the clinic takes her in. All of this is captured by a surveillance camera. The woman had no insurance, thus left to rot in the outside world. The moral of "Sicko" is that America considers you worthless if you have no medical insurance, even if you volunteered to help firefighters dig through the asphalt rubble remains of the World Trade Center and have asthma. Cuba will take better care of you than the U.S., and they take excellent care of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners which include terrorists. Prescriptions in Cuba cost next to nothing (and don't email me with comments like their medicine is not FDA-approved. Neither are the medicines doctors are prescribing now with such memorable names like Cialis). America can't treat health care as anything but a business venture, a luxury that fewer than 50 million Americans can afford. This explains why there are so many lobbyists in Washington giving donations to senators, like Hilary Clinton. The mind boggles.

Moore has no answers in "Sicko" except give us socialized medicine. Of course, this means more taxes which Moore avoids pointing out, and the last thing Americans want is to pay more taxes. However, you will get better health care than what you have now and the government will even do your laundry. Now that's progress.

Michael Moore Bashing Bush

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia and his alter-ego

Viewed on June 26th, 2004

The following interview took place between me and my alter-ego.

Jerry Saravia: "So what did you think of 'Fahrenheit 9/11'?"

Alter-Ego: "Shameful. How dare Michael Moore make yet another polemic statement about America and misrepresent facts."

J.S.: "Misrepresent facts? Sounds like he was pretty much on the ball with accuracy."

A.E.: "Oh, please. The whole bit about 142 Saudis, some of which were relatives of Bin Laden, being flown out of the country without being interviewed. Who is he kidding? The FBI did interview them."

J.S.: "Well, the mere fact that they were flown out of the country in the days when planes were still grounded is fairly interesting. Some do claim it was long after September 13th, after the planes were allowed to fly. Either way, more than 30 of them should have been interviewed."

A.E.: "Yeah, but that is common knowledge. It is even in Moore's book, 'Dude Where's My Country?', so it is no major revelation."

J.S.: "Yes, but the media carefully avoids mentioning such information nowadays, particularly the relationship with Bush and the Bin Ladens."

A.E.: "Why should the media report this now when they already have in the days following 9/11? And who cares about Bush and the Bin Ladens and Prince Bandar sharing the wealth, as it were. The fact is that the al-Qaida group was responsible for 9/11. That's what people should try to remember."

J.S.: "Nevertheless, there is some damning evidence, like Bush sitting at the class for 7 minutes after being told that the second plane hit the towers."

A.E.: "Hardly damning at all. It's like Moore says in his voice-over - what the heck was the President supposed to do? He wasn't ready for this."

J.S.: "Well, correct me if I am wrong, but the actual words were: 'Mr. President, America is under attack'. After hearing those words, we expect the leader to take notice and flee that classroom."

A.E.: "Yeah, okay, but it still doesn't prove anything."

J.S.: "What do you think about Moore's presentation of the war in Iraq and the days leading to it?"

A.E.: "Sorely lacking in any real weight. Showing a poor woman sobbing over her son's death is not going to make me squirm or cringe - Moore is simply exploiting this woman and the war...and making needless insults at our leader. If there is someone to blame for all the whining about the war and Bush, it is Michael Moore. I, for one, look forward to the film 'Michael Moore Hates America'."

J.S.: "So that is it. You have nothing else to say."

     A.E.: "That's it."

J.S.: "Do you think one should approach this film as a polemic of the times, something to think about and ruminate over, like 'Bowling For Columbine'?"

A.E.: "People can watch CNN for the endless war coverage and the Bush/Kerry paranoia of the upcoming election. They don't need a leftist with no real ideals and unsubstantiated facts to do that for us. Particularly someone who put down Bush so vehemently at the 2003 Oscars in just a matter of days after the war started. Now why the hell did you like it?"

J.S.: "I found it emotionally gripping, even for a documentary, and always compelling. It was like watching an adaptation of Moore's book 'Dude, Where's My Country?' Moore has the ability to tell a story with the comic precision and zeal of a real filmmaker, thanks in large part to the editors Kurt Engfehr and Todd Woody Richman. The film rattles your nerves, shakes your own emotions and forces you to think about what is happening to America. Though the brunt of all jokes and accusations are directed to the Bush administration, it also considers America's own position on worldwide affairs. For myself, I found the elaborate Saudi connections with Bush insightful, as well as a scene where Al Gore presides over a joint congressional session where not a single senator comes forward and contests Bush winning the election. And scenes of the deceased soldier's mother, Lila Lipscomb, shown firstly to be a supporter of the war and later in opposition, are heartbreakingly emotional. Moore doesn't shy away from the effects of the war in Iraq and its Iraqi citizens - and we have an Iraqi mother crying over her relatives' deaths as contrast to Lipscomb's grieving period. In short, Moore's film provides a point-of-view, unmistakably anti-war and anti-Bush, and asks you to consider your own opinion of all the hell that broke loose since 9/11. Now imagine British author Christopher Hitchens, one of Moore's detractors, creating such fuss with his own documentaries. And Hitchens doesn't have the knee-slapping humor of Moore, as when Moore asks congressmen to enlist their sons in the war, or when he reads from the Patriot Act on a loudspeaker, the very same document that the congressmen have not fully read."

A.E.: "Yeah, cheap lowbrow humor, if you ask me. Regarding Hitchens, you are basically saying that he doesn't provide links to his facts in his articles. Like the fact that Saddam may have secretly been negotiating with North Korea to buy nuclear weapons? Moore conveniently omits that fact, or the fact that America was indeed threatened by Iraq prior to the war. Need I remind you of the Gulf War?"

J.S.: "Moore may leave out a lot of crucial facts, but so does Hitchens. The point is that Moore is like most documentarians in that he observes and criticizes his subjects, and there is no doubt he can exploit them as well. Yet he is just as harsh, angry and as un-objective as he was in 'Roger and Me'. Consider him the equivalent of Oliver Stone of the wake-up-America call for the truth. He may only offer shards of truth but it is considerably more articulate and devastating than whatever President Bush says during his press conferences."

A.E.: "You should be more supportive of the President than of this poorly made film."

J.S.: "If we live in a democracy, we can criticize the President for any of his actions. It is also a democracy if someone like Michael Moore can make his statements and we can listen to them, whether we agree or disagree."