Sicko

User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 236 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 42 out of 236

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. MattA.
    Jul 4, 2007
    4
    Let's be reasonable here people. The people giving zeros are ridiculous, but so are the people giving ten's. The guy who gave it a 3 and then backed up why gave the most intelligent post here yet. I am currently living in Japan, where there is public health care, and as others have noted, yes, it is a lot cheaper and sometimes has great benefits. However, I have heard of at Let's be reasonable here people. The people giving zeros are ridiculous, but so are the people giving ten's. The guy who gave it a 3 and then backed up why gave the most intelligent post here yet. I am currently living in Japan, where there is public health care, and as others have noted, yes, it is a lot cheaper and sometimes has great benefits. However, I have heard of at least three instances since I have been here (It got here in May), where people had to wait several days or even weeks for treatment on something that should have been looked at within hours, a day or two at the latest. The quality is also suspect as there are many people who mysteriously pass away in Japanese hospitals in spite of the fact that their condition was stable. I know Moore is making a movie and so there is inevitably going to be a bias, but because it's a documentary it's not fair to only present the good of public health care and not the bad. People who just blindly believe that this is the way it is based on what Moore says, sort of the like the people that believes everything Al Gore said about global warming in his film, really should read credible journals and books on the subject. There are so many different opinions by credible professionals--why should we trust a filmmaker who clearly has an agenda? Expand
  2. ChrisC
    Jul 1, 2007
    5
    Moore is so smug he irritates me even when I agree with him. And while I definitely agree that the health care system needs to be reformed, Moore conveniently glosses over the fact that the socialized health care systems he lauds kinda suck. Instead of socializing everything, we need to find a way for all people to be able to afford the health care they need while still giving patients Moore is so smug he irritates me even when I agree with him. And while I definitely agree that the health care system needs to be reformed, Moore conveniently glosses over the fact that the socialized health care systems he lauds kinda suck. Instead of socializing everything, we need to find a way for all people to be able to afford the health care they need while still giving patients and doctors control over their medical fates, and while still making it profitable to be a doctor. A balance between the two perspectives rather than Moore's wholesale rejection of personal profit and capital freedom. Expand
  3. DerekA.
    Nov 10, 2007
    6
    I think that he does highlight the problems with healthcare in the USA, but glorifies the health service is the UK which if you live here, like I do, you would realise that you have to waith weeks or even months to see a doctor. If you need to see a specialist or need an operation in hospital, you would be waiting months. Good movie though
  4. Riren
    Jun 24, 2007
    4
    Let me save you the price of a movie ticket right now: insurance companies and HMO's aren't helping an awful lot of people in this country, and socialized medicine is helping a lot of people elsewhere. If you actually care about this, get involved. Read a book on the subject, donate time at a free clinic - either seriously educate yourself or do something. Don't watch this Let me save you the price of a movie ticket right now: insurance companies and HMO's aren't helping an awful lot of people in this country, and socialized medicine is helping a lot of people elsewhere. If you actually care about this, get involved. Read a book on the subject, donate time at a free clinic - either seriously educate yourself or do something. Don't watch this movie and pretend you've done your part. I can't remember a single statistic Moore presented as fact, though there were a few that he or a guest mentioned as something they believed to be true, or something they'd heard. Instead of relying on statistics, he gives us anecdotes: these three people had this bad experience, these eight people in France had this good experience, this nanny works for the French government, this man had a $600,000 medical bill in Hawaii. Is it normal? Were there unusual circumstances? We don't know, we won't know, and Moore doesn't care to give us a hand. He plays on your emotions rather than your reason to keep you from disagreeing with him. You can't disagree with the mother of a dying child, you can only feel horrible for her, and resent the insurance company that didn't help. And before you can analyze these anecdotes, he's off to make whimsical jokes about how great another country's medical system is. The movie doesn't rely on a bibliography like a book would, and makes no effort to be as informative. It's not like Moore is the first person to publicly criticize our healthcare system, and he's certainly doesn't do the best job of it. Please, if you care, read a book about it. This movie is really only good for convincing the stupid or reaffirming the beliefs of people who already agree. Expand
  5. DanB.
    Jul 15, 2007
    6
    It's definitely worthwhile but it teaches me nothing because he doesn't even try to prove anything he says. He cherry picks horror cases from the US and suggests they are representative. And then he presents his version of foreign systems and suggests he is being fair and representative. But why should I trust him? Who is he to me? He also contradicts himself on Cuba. On the It's definitely worthwhile but it teaches me nothing because he doesn't even try to prove anything he says. He cherry picks horror cases from the US and suggests they are representative. And then he presents his version of foreign systems and suggests he is being fair and representative. But why should I trust him? Who is he to me? He also contradicts himself on Cuba. On the list he himself sites and puts on screen, which says America is 37th in health care in the world, Cuba is right there two notches down, at 39. And then he tries to tell us Cuba is the best of the best, meds-wise. I am not averse to universal healthcare or government-run systems, and as far as I know the systems in France and Britain and Canada really are as great as the film claims, but this movie is not at all convincing because it employs only trust-me reasoning. Expand
  6. Nov 2, 2010
    5
    Just like many of his work, Michael takes a very real issue and uses exageration and a pretty childish approach that only hurts the people trying to push for these changes.
Metascore
74

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 39
  2. Negative: 1 out of 39
  1. Moore's most assured, least antagonistic and potentially most important film.
  2. 25
    The silliness of Moore's oeuvre is so self-evident that being able to spot it is not liberal or conservative, either; it's a basic intelligence test, like the ability to match square peg with square hole. His documentaries are political slapstick that could have been made by a third Farrelly brother or a fourth Stooge.
  3. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    75
    This is a movie, not a position paper, and Moore aims to entertain as he informs.