Dear Mick: What are your thoughts on the diverse career and numerous accomplishments of Robert Redford?

Robert Chapin, Monterey

Dear Robert: Redford is the most artistically consequential figure in American film in the second half of the 20th century. Period. (Sound of microphone dropping.)

Dear Mick: We agree that the academy often whiffs on best picture. Our most hated example of this is “Unforgiven” and not “The Last of the Mohicans.” Wondering if you agree.

Kevin & Leslie Patterson, Novato

Dear Kevin & Leslie: I’m not sure. I saw “Unforgiven” years ago and gave it a middling review, but I was so alone on that one that I suspect I was wrong. (I haven’t seen it since.)

Meanwhile, I loved “The Last of the Mohicans,” but I saw it again recently and felt that time and advances in technology had rendered the action scenes old-fashioned. However, the one element that remained fresh and impressive was Madeleine Stowe, who was on fire in the lead role. If Stowe were starting her career today, she’d have a lot more opportunities than she had then. As it stands, “Mohicans,” which should have been the start of her great career, was probably her pinnacle.

Hi Mick: My favorite movie of all time is “La Bamba” (1987), but I’m still baffled that the filmmakers went with Los Lobos covers instead of actual Ritchie Valens vocals.

Josh Rosenberg, Terra Linda

Hi Josh: Until you told me that, I’d assumed that was Ritchie Valens’ voice. I imagine they used the Los Lobos covers because of the poorer sound quality of the 1950s recordings.

For years, I’d avoided the movie, because in 1987, I saw so many commercials for it that the title song got stuck in my head, which made me start to panic, which made the song get even more stuck. Fortunately, while researching my book “Dream State,” about California in the movies, I considered myself mentally well enough to risk watching “La Bamba,” and it’s seriously good — and a real California story.

Dear Mick: We saw “You’ve Got Mail” last night and “When Harry Met Sally” tonight. Meg Ryan was brilliant in both. Why isn’t she listed among the great comic actors?

Jack Abad, San Francisco

Dear Jack: She has three things going against her. The first is that she’s still alive, which puts her at a disadvantage in terms of history. The second is that she has often worked in comedy, and people don’t take comedy seriously. In fact, some people even resent being made to laugh — it makes them suspect (usually correctly) that the comedian is smarter than they are. But the third disadvantage, which is, of course, an advantage in other ways, is that she’s very pretty, and there has often been a reluctance to admit the brilliance of really good-looking people — especially women.

Take, for example, Fleetwood Mac. The band floundered for years, barely on the radar, and then they brought in Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks and became huge. In retrospect, which do you think was the more important hire? I remember “Rhiannon” playing over the radio when I was in high school. Everyone was looking at each other like “Who is that?” We had no idea what Stevie Nicks looked like. We just knew that this was an entirely new and original voice, in both senses of the word. Yet reviewers at the time invariably lavished praise on Buckingham and Christine McVie and talked about Nicks as though she were some untalented poseur. Meanwhile, look at the body of work she’s created in the years since.

In any case, I believe that sooner or later, Meg Ryan is bound to be regarded in the same category as Carole Lombard — as someone great at comedy who could also do drama.

Have a question? Ask Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com.  Include your name and city for publication, and a phone number for verification. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.