Why ever would you think I would stoop to discussing contentious pop-culture topics to lure readers in the door? What do you think I am -- the media, or something?

Yes, I've strayed off the Beyond the Multiplex reservation a little, obviously, and now I'm heading back inside the wire. I will argue that it's more or less a legitimate topic. For better or worse, TDK was virtually the only thing anyone in the film biz has been talking about in the last week. I'm ready to move on now, and it's notable that the Internets' ire has calmed down significantly now that so many people have actually seen the damn thing. I suspect even some people who love TDK are able to grasp why others experience it (in the words of one friend of mine) as "watching somebody else play a video game."

And thanks, Ryan Adams, for the friendly tips and links. I'll definitely check those out. Small, deserving movies coming soon! This week we've got the totally awesome doc about Philippe Petit's 1974 wire-walk between the Twin Towers, "Man on Wire," along with the excellent British melodrama "Boy A," a terrific documentary about Mardi Gras in Mobile, Ala., called "The Order of Myths," and the really cool, unclassifiable indie "Baghead," which I don't want to spoil but do somehow want to hype. It's not quite like anything you've ever seen before.

... but what's the point of snide and superior neocon sniping if the details are all wrong?

I know our conservative brethren have issues with understanding complicated facts, but >>Chick Vampire Television made into movie, something about George Bush and a gay Egyptian<< isn't even close. It's a Chick Vampire novel (or series of novels) made into a movie. And Youssef Chahine wasn't gay. He was married but widely understood to be bisexual, perhaps a concept difficult for the Manichaean brain to comprehend.

FWIW, readers, I don't fully endorse Michael Atkinson's take on TDK, or at least his larger take on superhero movies. I just thought it was funny: I used to be Mike's editor at Spin, and I know his tastes. As soon as I saw that he'd finally gotten around to that movie, I knew it'd be juicy. I think his description of TDK as a chaotic, semi-plotless pileup of incidents is correct, and I do see value in trying to decode why certain kinds of escapist entertainment predominate in different periods. But I have no huge problem with superhero movies, per se. I liked Tim Burton's Batman, and the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man was decent. Oh, and the first X-Men was cool, of course. Still haven't seen Iron Man or Hellboy 2 (too busy with those homosexual Croatian films!) but looking forward to both. I've always enjoyed the failed, just-above-B superhero movies that don't quite click; I can (sort of) defend the Ang Lee Hulk movie, and I remember liking Daredevil, though I don't remember why.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm agnostic as to whether the many problems with the 2004 election rise to the level of widespread theft and fraud. I say clearly that it remains possible but seems improbable, and that the election will always appear tainted as a result.

Nowhere do I conclude that the election was clearly "fair and valid" or refuse to consider other scenarios. A few letter-writers either never read my review or skimmed it, which is par for the course.

What I specifically object to in "Stealing America" is a total refusal to engage with any contrary or contradictory evidence. Dorothy Fadiman includes charges that have been fully investigated and debunked (e.g., the "secret" count in Warren County, Ohio -- which in fact occurred with four officials present, two from each party) and some essentially bogus issues (the discrepancy between the Census Bureau's report on who voted and the actual number of votes recorded) alongside some genuinely troublesome and unresolved issues (the exit-poll discrepancy and the anecdotal evidence of electronic vote-switching) and those that are far less controversial (like the long lines and the general incompetence, inadequacy and racial-demographic bias of the system).

She never at any point allows anyone who does not believe that the election was probably or possibly fixed to respond to any of these charges, leaving the viewer with the impression that there are no legitimate statisticians, computer experts, political scientists or pollsters who hold other views. That isn't journalism or documentary filmmaking; it's advocacy and pretty shoddy advocacy at that. If some right-winger made a film about the Iraq war that only featured its supporters and behaved as if other views didn't exist, (s)he'd be rightfully pilloried. (I know, that was the entire media up to mid-2004, but let's move on.)

Furthermore, this reflects a small but consistent current on the left that has adopted a dogmatic belief about that ugly and murky election (and about many other things too). I suppose it's reassuring to reject out of hand the possibility that a majority of voters actually convinced themselves to vote for Bush, given the questions that raises about our country, its two-party system and perhaps the nature of democracy. It may also be comforting to shove away the only certainty about that election: That it was a bad business, and we'll never really know how bad.