Well, Yes, but I would say that wouldn't I, since I wrote the Recomputation Manifesto. about this.
While the recomputation manifesto focussed on reproducibility, I think if anything it's more important for Open Science than for raw reproducibility. Because you can see inside the experiments behind some claim, and see if they are valid experiments or not. Also - and this is a point not emphasised enough - making available experiments and code etc behind a paper in a VM (i.e. in working form) enables people to build on them and stand on the shoulders of giants.
Reproducibility by VM has been criticised as a very limited form of reproducibility, see e.g. Titus Brown's blog post. That is indeed true, but I would also respond: "Sure, but if we can't even bother to reproduce the exact experiment done, what hope is there for richer reproducibility?"
Also I would argue that even this relatively poor form of reproducibility could be critically important. For example, if we could do the physical equivalent of recomputing the exact original Cold Fusion experiments, we might know what happened to cause those results.