After pretty much dismissing Michael Moore because I really don't agree with his methods and think he's hell of annoying, I decided to go back to one of his earlier films just because. After all, it's not my contention that Moore is a poor filmmaker - quite the contrary, he's a really talented documentary filmmaker and whether or not you agree with his points or his politics, his films grab your attention. I'm thinking mainly of Bowling For Columbine - after that, I too, like so many others, were swept away thinking this dude really knew his shit and was sticking it to the man. I've changed since then, though, and have come to distrust the way his films are edited in particular. ANYHOW, Roger & Me is a very early film by Moore in which he focuses on the closure of several plants by General Motors in his hometown of Flint, Michigan (the town he rambles on about in every other film, too), and his Moore's futile efforts to meet with the chairman of GM. Watching this film, you really get the impression Moore just might be an egomaniac, because the film focuses to no small degree on him - it even starts out with childhood pictures and films of him, like I care! The other major problem is this. Obviously I don't expect the film to be objective in any way, he has a point he tries to make from his point of view. Which is something about the soul-lessness of the corporate entity for eliminating 30,000 jobs, moving the plants to Mexico (where the cars can be made much cheaper), and indirectly causing a lot of hardship and poverty. The issue is that some of the people interviewed who Moore places on the "evil" side of the argument (the corporation) make much more valid points than Moore does. Especially one GM representative in particular who is shown repeatedly. Moore obviously attempts to demonize him - but the whole time he's making perfectly valid, intelligent points to the effect that corporations are require by law and by their stockholders to maximize profit and not consider what effect its actions might have. This is how the corporation has worked since the beginning, it's just the way it is, so to try to demonize the corporation's representatives when they're doing what they are required to do, as it has been set out by law, is essentially pointless. This was really an unforgivable flaw to the film - if the main point of your completely objective documentary film has little to no validity, it doesn't help the effectiveness of the film. Obviously this was a very biased review, but I figure it's okay for a film by an incredibly biased (and obnoxious) filmmaker.