I'd call the Coens' True Grit the better movie, though I'll confess that Wayne's "Fill your hand you sonofabitch" looms over Bridges' reading of the same line every time I watch it. But Mattie, the heart of the movie, is so much stronger in the remake that it's not really a contest.

One of two soundtracks I keep in my rotation. The other is Django Unchained, so take that for what it's worth.

I think it's noteworthy that even Blood Simple and Raising Arizona are very much grounded in the real world of their time. Some directors will muddle the setting, intentionally or unintentionally, by having people dress differently than you'd expect, drive older cars than you'd expect, by involving fictional…

All of their movies are linked in more than one way. They are unusually multifaceted film makers, but there's no question when something is a Coen brothers movie, which means that necessarily there are throughlines.

And also, knock next time, you know? I mean, I'm sitting in here, I'm 14 — I got a computer in here, you know?

So this entire thread has really just been one, long semantic form of public masturbation. Okay.

No, my position, as I have repeatedly stated, is that the label is a semantic and thus fairly unimportant point. If you want to quibble about whether media that dehumanizes women is more accurately described as "misogynist" or "sexist" or some other word, I don't really care to have the argument, because I don't…

And your position is that that's not accurate, right? Otherwise why are you objecting to the use of misogyny, which as you have repeatedly points out means literally "hatred of women"? Even if you accept that premise arguendo, it is a purely semantic point and it raises the question: is objectifying/dehumanizing…

I'm honestly not sure where the disagreement is here other than over semantics. I assume you mean "dehumanizing women is NOT synonymous with hating them," and I agree with that. I think, in fact, that the hallmark of the dehumanization of women is not really thinking of them as people at all. But so what? Is it…

No, it is not the "usage." It is the etymology. The usage is what I stated, which is also the primary determinant of meaning. I'm fairly prescriptivist as such things go—I will, for example, never let go of the difference between uninterested and disinterested—but misogyny has never meant literally and solely…

Misogyny, etymologically, means hatred of women. Homophobia, etymologically, means "fear of the same." Antisemitism, etymologically, means to be against Semites, a racial-ethnic group encompassing much of the Near East.

Counterpoint:

It doesn't need to be actual hatred for it to be misogyny. This is a problem with these words: they often carry etymological connotations that are not consistent with their actual meaning.

You're not looking hard enough. The moral is "don't help joggers."

"Fly just a bit off the radar." I see what you did there. Also, agreed, I wish they would get Thornton back in something.

Training Day and Gattaca aren't "all-the-way-good"?

That would make sense. I remember reading in the run-up to the 2004 election that there was concern that political poll samples were becoming biased because of the rise of cellphones. The conclusion then—borne out by results in forecasting the elections of the early and mid aughts—was that this wasn't a significant…

Put. That water bottle. Down. Water's for closers. You think I'm fucking with you? I am not fucking with you. I'm here from downtown. I'm here from Charles and David. And I'm here on a mission of mercy. Your name's Rubio? You call yourself a Republican you son of a bitch?

Just because everyone's got a smartphone doesn't mean that you can call walking into a Trader Joe's and then announcing your sexual exploits over the PA "telling the internet."

Yeah, so this is where we were before. Shine on you crazy diamond.