Moore or Less
Every week, I look forward to my issue of EW. My heart sank when I pulled your July 9 issue with Michael Moore on the cover out of the mailbox. Why would you elevate this obese charlatan to icon status by honoring him with a cover? And why give him such an unfettered forum to promote his stupid film? There were so many other pieces and personalities you could have highlighted. As a longtime reader, I'm disappointed you have chosen to jump on his creaky bandwagon. STEVE DANIEL email@example.com Sag Harbor, N.Y.
Now that ''The Lord Of The Rings: The Return of the King'' was the first fantasy film to win a best picture Oscar, I predict ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' will be the second one from this genre to win an Academy Award. With its stolen title, half-truths, misleading statements, and cheap-shot editing, this film is sure to get votes from Academy voters who love a good fantasy. ROGER W. PECK firstname.lastname@example.org Long Grove, Ill.
I'd like to thank you for putting Michael Moore on the cover. You referred to him as ''the most dangerous man in movies,'' and if that's because he's speaking his mind and questioning the president, which he has the right to do, then many people are ''dangerous.'' if Moore seems to have some sort of vendetta against the bush administration, it is justified by the means they have employed to get us into a war and to send our young people off to die and kill for ambiguous reasons. it is wrong to accuse Moore of being a traitor and of defaming the character of the U.S. troops. he is merely questioning the administration's motives to create something that has been missing from this nation for the past four years: open discussion between the government and the public. MARGARET L. ECKERT MugsActrss@netscape.net Minneapolis
Given the success of both ''The Passion of the Christ'' and ''Fahrenheit 9/11,'' it is time for studio execs to wake up and listen to moviegoers rather than their own misguided view of what we want (''Soul Plane'' -- I think not). Both of these movies were brilliantly produced, thought-provoking, and displayed the true passion of the filmmaker. Both were shunned by major studio execs as too controversial. Both opened successfully and have been embraced by the public. They are films that inspire and challenge us. We need more of them. NANCY ORSOLINI Rocklin, Calif.
Love him or hate him, Michael Moore has something important to say. His directing is interesting, tongue-in-cheek (at times), and thought-provoking. He has the guts to portray what he believes and stands behind it 100 percent. If only every director had that type of integrity. LYNETTE CARRINGTON email@example.com Gilbert, Ariz.
If you really need to put a frumpy, disheveled filmmaker on your cover, please choose Peter Jackson -- at least he is talented and worthy of discussion. I've been forced to see and hear Michael Moore on several occasions, and I'd rather be forced to watch reality TV 24/7 than see his face one more time. I consider myself not just a Democrat but an open-minded American, and if Moore wants to shove his agenda down my throat, well, I'm going to vote all right -- for Bush, just to piss him off. GINA LUGO firstname.lastname@example.org Baltimore