Very good review, upon casual reading; less so in mulling it a bit. In typically British (literate, understated) fashion (well, British of the old-school), you have elucidated why this film was so much more disappointing than it promised to be. Still, there are several flaws in your reasoning, and lacunae in your interpretation. First, if universality were uppermost in a filmmaker's (or at least producer's) mind, why tackle an inherently 'divisive' subject like immigration at all? There will always be endless variations on the old staples: romance, alien invaders (I mean the kind from other planets), parent/child conflict, rogue government agencies, deranged ax-wielders, etc. Second, no producer worth a week's salary would idiotically assume that the audience for a film starring 78 year old Clint Eastwood would primarily consist of teenage Hispanics, or non-whites generally (or even white teens). Today, Clint's audiences consist overwhelmingly of those of us middle-aged white men who were teens or younger during his glory days (in the 1960s-1980s), when his movies could hardly be called "politically orthodox" (I believe that is synonymous with "politically correct", which means something like "culturally New Leftist"), at least by then or now current Hollywood or global cinema standards. What is far more interesting, at least in considering this film, is the possibility that Clint himself sincerely adheres to the naively (and slightly old-fashioned) liberal 'assimilationist' nonsense, whereby all the peoples of the world are really just the same, if only we would all (in practice, the native-born; in reality, only the native-born whites of historically white nations) make the effort to 'get to know' each other, and hence basically demographically interchangeable, apart from some charmingly 'diverse' (and mostly 'enriching' - to the natives, that is) cultural eccentricities, which of course, must be treated With the Utmost Respect. Why would Dirty Harry make such piffle? Why do whites throughout the Western world continue to lack the courage even to admit to themselves, let alone to state publicly, that the Third World immigration invasion of our ancient fatherlands has constituted at once the greatest threat to our collective civilisational survival that we have ever faced, as well as, on the part of our 'leaders', the greatest series of acts of treason that mankind has ever witnessed? Yes, it would be nice to see a film EVER express the point of view or endorse the interests of a white majority somewhere in conflict with some kind of non-whites. To ask why such an obviously themed film is NEVER made is immediately to bump up against much more profound questions of, as intimated, a world-historical nature: why are whites the only race concerned about their own racism (which means in practice that we are the only race that is NOT overwhelmingly ethnocentric, or racist)? How has a race once proudly supremacist become pathetically unwilling even to defend its own culture? How has a formerly imperial race become unable even to discuss the obvious - that we are now the victims of 'reverse colonialism', that immigration = imperialism? What is wrong with us, how has this suicidal mentality captured a large swath of the thinking public (especially the thinking public), what is the morally legitimate response of an ordinary patriot, when does violent resistance to state-imposed 'diversification' become not only morally permissible, but mandatory, etc.? These are the real questions this ridiculous and mendacious film raises. Finally, on the subject of mendacity, the reviewer ought to have said something more about the structure of the film, and its narratively duplicitous conclusion. Watch the trailer, as I did several times prior to other films. Clearly the editor tried to instill in the audience a sense of suspense and incipient action (there were many scenes of guns, guns being fired, assorted violence, etc.) The intent was to trade on Clint's historic action-persona. More egregiously than the trailer, the movie itself is structured in a classic suspense manner, a series of worsening incidents and tensions, with appropriately portentous music, creating an expectation of a cathartic action finale. To call what finally occurs a "cop-out" is an understatement. Morally, politically, culturally, racially, and even cinematically, this film is a sell-out. Goodbye, Clint, and good riddance! At least we'll always have Harry Callaghan, and the Man with No Name.