Okay, I've read over Tom's Michael Moore article. I've also read over his and other writings from selected back issues I picked up before leaving last week.

I'll start with the most recent.

Webster's dictionary defines documentary as " designating or of a motin picture, television program, etc. that dramatically shows or analyzes news events, social conditions, etc., with little or no fictionalization.

Many, especially in film, would contend that Michael Moore's use of fiction, or at least his blatant misportrayal of actual events in a cut-and-paste, manufactured image sort of way, more closely resembles the "reality" of MTV's The Real World or worse.

And it's not that he's out to portray Flint as decrepit and useless; Flint does that for itself. GM, as a smart business practice, has tried many times to evacuate this sinking ship. The UAW has made it consistently harder and worse for ANYONE to operate here. A decade of fraud and embezzlement by Woodrow Stanely certainly didn't help. Michael Moore's not killing Flint. Flint killed Flint.

But I'll move on to Mr. Hall and his writing. If he's going for objectivity, he fails miserably most times. This particular writing isn't even about any one film so much as just lavishing praise on Moore himself. Indeed, I go so far as to say that if there's not already a club akin to a Michael Moore Appreciation Society, I'm sure Tom Hall will soon found one. To compare Moore to Welles, Fellini or Kurosawa and keep a straight face is nothing shy of Oscar-worthy acting itself, unless the speaker believes what he says and is then merely delusional.

His "cut-and-run" political attack at the Fox News Channel has no bearing on what the article is supposedly about either. If he wants to be a political commentator and spew his views no matter their slant or lack of understanding, that's one thing, but to hide it under the guise of film praise is an act of cowardice.

Even last summer, when writing about X2 and a Matrix film, he felt it necessary to interject political commentary as cause for comparison.

However, I will say, that when he DOES write about film, he does a mostly decent job. The content is there, though half the time he seems to cover material and use unnecessary language in an attempt to be more elitist, like the guys in "High Fidelity", only worse. The senetence structure needs an overhaul of an English class or two, but he at least displays enough comptency to write at all, which is more than can be said for many these days.

Thanks much for your time,