Not a fan. He picks some interesting topics to discuss, but his films invariably become about his presence on screen; and his supposedly amusing gags, and the attempts at mockery of opposing arguments pretty much ruin any impartial and interesting findings he might make if he made a non-partizan film. He also often fails to deal with the issue in question, in films like 'Sicko', where he should be documenting and cleverly comparing how the two types of health systems work, as opposed to showcasing a bunch of slanted interviews promoted to show one side of the debate as perfect, and a set of crude skits and wisecracking which put down his detractors. He also has terrible technique for a documentary maker, and gets much blander and less telling answers out of his subjects than Errol Morris or Nick Broomfield. Oh, and his films have singularly failed to change any legislation he rails against, which shows his polemic arguments don't sit well with sensible policy.
His films are entertaining, no doubt, but they don't have the same thought-provoking quality that Morris, for example, would engender in his films; and they're more satirical than they are sensible, meaning that as an exercise in learning they're basically a waste of a good couple of hours (Moore's that is). His politics aren't too agreeable and are overly simplified, as the OP suggested, but the main annoyance is that he's incapable of producing a two-sided documentary, instead providing waves of tiresome diatribe lapped up by a simplistic audience. He's either manipulative or just doesn't know any better. Sometimes fun to watch, but essentially a shite documentary maker.
