|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on May 18, 2018 18:42:16 GMT
Better actor / director / more attractive ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Viced on May 18, 2018 18:43:29 GMT
MEL GIBSON BY FAR FOR THE FIRST TWO
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on May 18, 2018 18:47:22 GMT
Oh man... I love both of these guys.
Mel's easily the better director and probably the more consistent actor... but on the other hand Costner has higher highs. Gaa. Imma go with Cosnter for acting.
As for looks, they're both good looking dudes, but Mel had/has the better body, so I gotta pick him by default.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 18, 2018 18:47:42 GMT
Mad Mel thrashes the Cost in both acting and directing arenas. Costner can be a strong presence when he wants to be (although I'd argue that he's a whole lot better now than he was in his "prime"; he's aged into an elder statesman of sorts), but Gibson is one of the most galvanizing, electrifying actors in front of a camera, and I'd argue he's the best actor-turned-director who ever lived.
With that said, Costner's Devil Anse Hatfield stands against any performance Gibson has given quite admirably. I'd love to see the two square off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on May 19, 2018 11:24:14 GMT
Leaving personal feelings on the obviously scummy little man aside, Gibson for all.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrancescoAbides on May 19, 2018 11:25:03 GMT
Mel Gibson for both directing and acting
|
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on May 19, 2018 13:21:04 GMT
These are the two people in Hollywood that interest me the least. I find Gibson annoying and Costner dull, and I really don't get the big deal about them when there were just so many people doing better, less vanilla work in the 90's. And neither is particularly attractive, unless you like guys who look like you dad's republican friend. I'll go with Costner 'cause he didn't direct that garbage Hacksaw Ridge and isn't insufferable as a human being.
|
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on May 19, 2018 15:23:50 GMT
Gibson for directing and acting for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on May 19, 2018 15:24:14 GMT
Mel Gibson for both. And I think he's underrated as an actor. Yeah, I said it.
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 19, 2018 22:13:04 GMT
I don't think Costner is as bad as some say, he's just a "movie star" type actor. Gibson can be a genuinely good actor, though, so I'd still take him for acting. Gibson is obviously better for directing. Whatever else one thinks of those movies, Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ are very well directed, and he gets bonus points just for not being the director of The Postman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on May 19, 2018 22:28:55 GMT
Acting - Costner
Neither of them have any range or much acting skill, but Costner's brand of homey sincerity works better than anything I've seen from Gibson.
Directing - Neither
They're both very on-the-nose here.
Looks - Costner I guess. It's hard to put the words "Gibson" and "attractive" in the same sentence after his late 2000's craziness. He was pretty hot in the 80s I guess, but that was soooooo long ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on May 19, 2018 22:30:48 GMT
Total 90s boy, but I'm not really a fan of either. Costner is a little better, but he's not a serious actor for me. Recently rewatched JFK, and I lost a lot of love for his performance and most things about it.
Gibson.... I guess Apocalypto isn't bad, some good action, but usually he's a non-entity for me. Even in films where he could've added something to it... like Braveheart and Mad Max, his performances are totally wooden.
I'm not part of the "cool to hate on them" club, it's just total indifference.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 19, 2018 22:56:53 GMT
Gibson for acting and directing.
|
|
