Chuck Norris wasn't that big a deal, man. His biggest releases were all with Cannon. If you know what Cannon was, you'd know why that's not great.

As for Jackie Chan, he didn't really play "tough" parts, he was generally a goof who got into trouble. Tough wasn't his persona. He was like the Tom Hanks of martial arts movies. Or Buster Keaton more accurately.

If you think being marketable isn't an important part of being a movie star... I really don't think you know jack-shit about the subject there. Sorry to say.

'cause it's not just about acting, it's also who looks good on a poster. Cynthia Rothrock looks like Kitty from That '70s Show, not at all like an action star. Michelle Yeoh for example always looked convincingly tough. Same deal with say, Pam Grier if you wanna go back a little further.

You do know that there were other martial arts guys in the '80s and '90s that studios tried to get behind and they bombed for pretty much the same reasons, right? They mighta been great martial artists but they looked like someone's dorky dad.

It got mixed reception, not bad. Even if it's slated if there's something in it that spoke to you or really grabbed you you don't have bad taste for liking it. Art, even commercial art, is very subjective. The best stuff is only even considered the best because of majority consensus. If the best for you is something else, then you're not wrong for thinking so.

Nah, he's lived primarily in Italy for the last couple decades so that's probably the deciding factor.

Even Clooney talked about having to take big product endorsement deals in Europe to support himself working mostly smaller projects.

Even the action movies he did, only a handful didn't have some element of comedy to them. The Fugitive, the Jack Ryan movies and Airforce One (which was basically just another Jack Ryan movie.)

I grew up with the plays they're talking about, there's a point here. The overall argument is that McDonagh is still using the hoary old tropes and trappings that were considered tired a century ago. It's a matter of taste, really, it's a bit like a modern remix of that period of Irish canon. The author compares him to Tarantino and I'd argue that's a fair comparison because Tarantino does the same thing, taking old tropes and concepts, mixing them up, and adding his own sheen to them. Whether that's merely competent, or it elevates the material or it's complete hackery kinda depends on the individual.

I've never been a big Doctor Who person but I've always liked the Daleks, there's something fun and quaint about a race of alien assholes who just want to kill everybody who's not them. No shades of grey, no sympathetic qualities but just the right amount of cheese and camp. I'd check out a show with them as the focus.

'cause a bite or scratch is supposed to get in direct contact with your bloodstream. That's why. In the stuff that gets into it, their viscera or liquids are toxic, but the "direct contact to the bloodstream" thing is pretty consistent as the vector of infection.

We can definitely agree to forget about young Hannibal. Of all the characters that didn't need a sympathetic backstory told in prequel form, it was Hannibal Lecter.

I think he was extremely entertaining and the actual portrayal was excellent, but with all the little quirks and nuances I just can't picture him being the kind of person he's said to be, this pillar of the local community and esteemed academic who the FBI's best and brightest managed to almost miss entirely. Even in Red Dragon where they flashback and show Hannibal before he was caught, he just seems like a Bond villain. Hopkins is one of the best actors alive and his Hannibal is so iconic for a reason, but he seems more like a demon than a person.

You don't rate him?

And that's what makes him the best, to me. He's the only version of Hannibal I buy as someone capable of doing awful things and being able to hold down a job while seeming normal and beyond suspicion. Most of that is from Cox's performance. Hopkins and Mikkelsen are both wonderful actors and their portrayals are great in their own way, but they never seem like real people, to me. I couldn't picture either actually existing.

It's funny, Lee's actual portrayal was fantastic but as a character, Hammer Dracula was pretty weak and inept. He kept getting killed in the lamest and most undignified ways.

In your opinion, it's your favourite? Well, no arguing with that.