Say what you will about Sicko director Michael Moore's politics or his methods of creating movie moments, which may include ambush tactics and set-ups of questionable veracity. The man knows how to put together a movie. However he gets his footage, this guy can assemble it into a wry, entertaining, brisk and humorous package, with skillful editing (thanks to a three-man team of Chris Seward, Dan Swietlik, and Geoffrey Richman) and an understanding of timing.

And of course, the idea is to be able to present an argument and be convincing about it. Those who gripe that Moore ought to be tackling his subjects with some level of objectivity may be missing just how mischievously gleeful his storytelling techniques are. He has no interest in giving a balanced perspective -- he only wants to give his perspective, but he also wants to do it with a sense of dramatic/comedic ebb and flow. He's an entertainer with a message, and his strengths don't necessarily come from the facts he gathers, but more from the way he shapes their presentation.

In this sense, Sicko is something of a guaranteed home run. His object of attack is the U.S. health care industry. An easy target? Maybe. But Moore has a little more in mind -- he wants to convince us that taking care of the sick should be a common right; that, at the issue's most stripped-down level, readily accessible health care is simply humane. To illustrate his point, he visits various people who actually have health care insurance and finds that they often face obstacles in getting the care they need; he also then visits various foreign countries who have free health care, making the U.S.'s corporate system look bad in comparison.

This approach happens to be a smart way to balance the moments when we are aghast at the system, and the moments of humor, when Moore expresses mock shock at how good places like Great Britain or France have it. Moore himself seems to have dialed down his tone, but this works because after a while his target seems to have no logical stance from which to defend itself. By the time the movie is over halfway through, we're not really sure what argument there is for corporate health care anymore. Moore is more easily convincing this time, frankly, because health problems have no political bounds.

It takes some skill to present a topic most people might agree with you about already, and actually still be able to move your audience with your story. The finale, which I won't spoil, is particularly affecting. Even if I wondered how honest its depiction was, even if I thought about how much Moore might've had to work to make the entire section as manipulative as possible, I have to admit I was moved. In the end, the point was driven home -- freely available health care should be able to be an implementable possibility, one that any of us could appreciate.

Although I agree with what Moore says on this issue, I've done my own analysis of why it might be too difficult to create a free health care system in the U.S. But I don't mind that Moore didn't present any of my reasons. I'm more impressed with how effective Sicko is as a movie, one that understands emotional beats and ultimately displays a grave concern of humanity. And, yes, I do wish these films could make some kind of difference in the end, but even as my cynical self can't see anything changing, at least the movie does the best job it can in holding up a questioning mirror to the country.

(Released by Lionsgate and rated "PG-13" for brief strong language.)

Review also posted at www.windowtothemovies.com.