But what really pissed me off was Denby's criticism that Moore had not bothered to investigate the many health care plans currently under development. Either Denby is stupid or a stooge -- as he himself does
[WS:] I am not holding my breath about those "plans" either, but that was not the main critical point in his piece. His main criticism was that Moore wasted a lot of footage to show what is already known - that other countries have public health care systems. Denby's argument is that Moore did not have to "pull trick" of interviewing people on the streets to demonstrate that other countries have public health care - as this is common knowledge. Instead, Denby argues, Moore could have used that time to say more about specific aspects of health care systems elsewhere.
I have not seen Sicko yet (I am planning to do it this weekend) so I do not know if this line of criticism is justified - but it certainly is not an attack on the film from the right. It is basically an argument that Moore could have made a more persuasive film about the need for health care reform than he did.
Wojtek