That the film makes omissions is not a fault against it, as it would be impossible and boring to list ever argument or component implied in the healthcare crisis. In addition, while some may believe Moore's film to point out the obvious, it addresses an issue that many do not want to think about.
Question Two
It is the job of reviewers to make a rhetorically persuasive case for their opinion about a book or a movie. While reviewers have made me think more deeply about a particular film, and perhaps even consider other opinions, a review has never changed my opinion about a film. This is primarily because reviewers of films typically discuss areas of the film that were not responsible for forming my opinion.
For instance, when I viewed the film Sicko, I found it to be a well put-together film that underscored my preexisting belief that healthcare in the United States is suffering. What most convinced me to form a favorable opinion...
In addition, the testimonies of former healthcare workers convinced me to accept them film. But the reviews I read barely addressed these issues. The issues that they brought up were certainly interesting, and the caused me to think more deeply about the film, they did not address those issues that convinced me to agree with Moore.
Even when reviewers manage to discuss those exact parts of the movie that did cause me to like or dislike a film, they often do not change my opinion because they simply identify different aspects of these issues. For instance, if a reviewer states that Moore's movie gave poor information because the woman who sought healthcare in Canada was a minority, I would not be convinced of the reviewer's opinion because I would still believe the desperate case of one person makes Moore's point.
