I think a western would be even better if it had a woman in it. Better yet, a girl. No, it doesn't make a movie with a girl leader in the wild west. It's too organic, too ridiculous. Yes, society since the beginning of civilization has been arranged in such a way that women were more disenfranchised. History cannot be changed by imagining that it might not have been so. And if the story of a young warrior in a skirt crumbles, then what to look at and admire in the film?
The film itself is secondary. You can say as much as you like that this is not a remake of True Courage (1969), but a new reading of the literary source, but it is impossible not to compare the films, since their scripts closely coincide. The Coen variant looks, of course, richer, the picture is more beautiful and stylistically better. Only working with color is frustrating. The grayness is overflowing. On the other hand, 1969's "Clutch" had a colorful Wayne character that diluted the narrative. Bridges's hero is inferior to him. Bridges is more like some devastated old man. Interestingly, most of the films diverge in summing up the line. Both refer to death. The old "Snatch" end is more lyrical. It emphasizes the continuation of life. For some reason, the Cohens come to the fore of the inevitability of death. We're all gonna die. A bandit and a murderer will just die a little earlier than a good man. In fact, everyone has the same road. The new generation will not replace the good ones. Great. Why such a final was needed is not clear.
Which of the two is better? Both worse.