Thanks for pointing that out. But the Christian transmission mechanisms seem totally different: The Philippines were directly occupied by the US for a long time, while -- well, OK, South Korea was indirectly occupied by the US. But the Philippines are predominantly Catholic, while Korean Christianity seems to be various flavors of evangelical Protestantism. As several of you have said, Christianity in Korea clearly predates the Korean War by a fair piece. Anyway, thanks for all the feedback.

Pyramus, you're quite right: Male viewers of all persuasions may find the actors attractive. I did. Ascribing such an attitude to the "female gaze" was lazy, and I hereby retract. This film isn't perfectly realized, but its combination of super-good-looking stars, a pulpy plot, and the discipline and undertow of art cinema are what make it interesting.

Boy, that Wenders-Shepard film ("Don't Come Knocking") was in competition at Cannes? I hadn't checked, but didn't remember that. It was dull as dishwater and irritating too, but I guess featured the kind of stereotypical Americana that Europeans receive as authentic. (Which also explains the entire career of Abel Ferrara, as far as I can see.) I will correct for the record.

I agree that Alonso's film is a likely bet for "la Quinzaine" (Directors' Fortnight), and Kiarostami's experimental film may also show up in one of the sidebar festivals. I suspect the official selection may yet add "Blindness" and the Angelopoulos film. In fact I now incline to the view that "Blindness" will be the opening film; it's in English and has stars, but is a classier chose than SATC.

... or anything else on Salon, either. And you definitely haven't seen this movie, which was not produced by Bollywood (it merely borrowed a Bollywood director) and was carefully calibrated to appeal to a perceived upper-middle North American demographic.

@manos99: If you had bothered to read the review, you would have noticed that the title of the film is intentionally double-edged, and quotes dialogue from one of its characters -- an insurgent Islamic leader and possibly an al-Qaida member. Furthermore, the only thing American about this film is a certain proportion of the cast. The director, producers and financing are British, and it was made in Jordan.

@serai1: I'm sorry, but if you are a United States citizen then what has been done, has been done in your name (whether you think it was good or evil or some combination of the two). I marched in February '03 too, but that doesn't relieve me of all responsibility.

Bingo. I believe Broomfield has explicitly made the comparison, although I didn't bring it up in the piece.

I'm not being snotty. If you live in or near a major metropolitan area, I can probably point you toward a semi-nearby theater that plays something beyond Hollywood fare. If you don't, virtually everything I ever cover in this space will be available on DVD, sooner rather than later. And most of it through all the normal channels: Amazon, Netflix, Blockbuster and so on.

I just checked in on a really slow dial-up connection from where I am in the backwoods of central New York State -- and am totally blown away by the responses. Many thanks to all who have contributed. Even at a glance, I can tell my list just got a whole lot more interesting. This is a work of collaboration in the best sense, meaning that I've done nothing! I'm excited to read through these in detail, at least once I'm back in relatively close proximity to the 21st century. Thanks so much, everybody. Have a great week.

First and most critically, yes, "The Dead Pool" was actually the last Dirty Harry film, as unfortunate a fact as that is. M'bad.

Second, I'm very glad someone dug up that Guardian article where they interview black ex-servicemen who were on Jima. Although I clearly agree that Spike shot his mouth off without thinking (and without parsing every frame of Eastwood's films for black faces), what he's reflecting is a genuine sense among African-American WWII vets that they're not part of the story.

It's easy to pick on Spike Lee for his big mouth, but he is not a racist, neither personally nor in his films, and those who suggest otherwise are quite simply wrong. He can present a dyspeptic view of life, at times, but if anything his harshest judgments are always directed at the perceived moral and personal failings of his black characters. I think that's absolutely clear. His films have a wide range of complicated and diverse non-black characters, and off the top of my head he's made at least two films with hardly any blacks in them. Finally, as I said in the piece, he has made a black WWII movie, "Miracle at Santa Anna," and those who saw it in the Cannes market (which is outside the festival; I didn't possibly have time) were raving about it.

Appreciate the fantasy suggestions: Yes, Spike's "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" would be immensely better than Clint's. For that matter, he'd probably make a more interesting "Bridges of Madison County" too. Not that I saw it or anything.

"Common Ground" as a Lee-Eastwood collaboration is absolutely brilliant. Do we mix it up? With Clint directing the black-radical scenes and Spike the anti-busing white activists? (I didn't say the R word.)