That is just not true. You can disagree with the specific arguments I make—for example, you can assert (oddly, to my mind, but whatever) that Sylvester Stallone "is" Rocky Balboa whereas Mel Gibson is not Mad Max—but I do in fact make specific arguments that are not broadly applicable to any role. There are cases…

Yes but repeating a statement is not an argument.

Not sure what you're talking about. The entire piece is a "real effort to prove my argument" (though "prove" is the wrong word, as this isn't a geometry problem; "make a case for" would be better). I don't just state the premise over and over again for 1000 words.

The Witch has an 84 Metacritic score and a C- Cinemascore, so…nah.

I'm used to complaining, but I never stop being taken aback by accusations that something I've written is a deliberate, insincere attempt to get a rise out of people. (Though I guess there's so much click-baiting now that people can't help but be cynical.)

If I admit that I have no idea what a Scrawler is, does that make it clearer?

Huh. Not only did this not strike me as a piece that would have tons of people complaining that they're being "trolled" (get a grip, commentariat), but when I told critic friends at Sundance I was writing it most of them expressed concern that its thesis might be too obvious/inarguable/duh. \_(ツ)_/¯

I don't write the headlines, but this particular headline accurately reflects the article's thesis, so it can't really be considered "baiting." All it says is that the film might have been "even better" with Gibson as Max. The film as it exists is fantastic and was my #4 for the year.

Did you read the piece, or just read the headline and then jump right down here to comment?

I don't care for someone insulting me and then taking the moral high ground repeatedly when I respond in kind (literally by just quoting back the insult). If you don't enjoy this sort of sparring, don't take issue with something I've written and conclude with a sarcastic "Jesus," implying that only an idiot would make…

Pretty much, yeah. But I feel like it's kinda designed to be a tonal disruption. It's one of the few aspects of the film I liked. Bold, at least.

I just find it hilarious that he keeps harping on me for being rude when all I did was quote his own obnoxiousness back at him.

It does.

That'd be a more effective trump card if I didn't stand by every word of that piece. Which I do.

Yeah, because you were a font of fuckin' civility in your initial observation. "JESUS."

Wasn't so much that they didn't share scenes together as that they're not both stars of those films. Only Donald stars in Dugan and neither plays a major role in A Time to Kill.

Didn't imply anything. What I wrote is accurate—this is the first time they've co-starred together in a movie. That's not the same thing as appearing together in a movie. (And as for smarmy, all I did was quote your own insult back at you.)

I didn't write that this is the first time the two have appeared in the same movie. "He had never, until now, co-starred in a movie with his father." As in, above the title, front and center, as is the case here. (And I have indeed seen Max Dugan Returns, albeit decades ago.) "Jesus."

The first hour is the hour to miss, for sure. You actually didn't miss much, narrative-wise.

Actually it's exactly what the sentence literally says, though the sentence could admittedly have been clearer. I should have realized that "those who claim to have been abused" would appear to refer specifically to the Satanic panic cases, when Flag On the Moon is correct that I meant people who make that claim in…