MovieChat Forums > Machete Kills (2013) Discussion > Who was the better villain Seagal or Gib...

Who was the better villain Seagal or Gibson?

posted 10 years ago by YakuzaElite1980
12 replies | jump to latest

I thought Seagal was way better. to me he stole the show in the first movie and came across as a likable villain. Gibson felt a bit forced, and generic. anyone else agree?

[–] DamianGein 10 years ago

I liked both.

Esta es mi firma

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

Gibson acted his villain better and came across as more charming. Very much a 1970s Bond type villain.

Its that man again!!

[–] jawsfan007 10 years ago

I liked gibson Better, but i did like seagal's end.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Movie_Piranha_1979 10 years ago

I like both, but i prefer Mel Gibson.

Prostitute: What the *beep* are you doing?
Johnny: I'm gonna kill a bunch of people.

[–] Rena_Mahone 10 years ago

Gibson all the way.

🐺 Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors) 🐾

[–] TheManWithNoFear64 9 years ago

The Latin Dragon Marko Zaror Was Gibsons Main Henchman And He Owned This Movie I really suggest if u like Roberts films u would love Zarors check out Kiltro,Mirageman,Mandrill,Redeemer but Gibson was the way better villain with Zaror by his side

[–] hatr 9 years ago

I preferred Seagal

[–] IMDB_Vits 9 years ago

Gibson's performance was better, but Seagal's character had a more believable motivation.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]