i like jet li's fighting sequences more, but jackies acting is a whole lot better.
2007-07-31 20:25:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by hello 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Technically, Jet Li is better, he was a 5 time Wushu forms champion. But on screen, Jackie is the more versatile performer. Except for horror films, whatever genre, you name it he's acted in it, be it comedy, action, musical(he sings most of his movie theme songs) or drama. Heck, he even dances. And most of all, he performs most of his stunts, at least in his earlier movies, Hollywood being what it is, he's no longer allowed to risk his life needlessly on the set these days or else no insurance company will underwrite his projects. Between the two of em, I'd pick Jackie, he gives more entertainment value.
2007-08-01 05:46:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Shienaran 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I like Jackie Chan better because he's just more lovable and he has great charisma. . .plus, I favor his form of martial arts incorporated with comedy and he hardly uses special effects when doing his movies. . .Jet Li on the other hand hordes special effects which, at times, kills the essence of real martial arts
2007-08-01 03:26:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thats like comparing a pot and a kettle. Even from their films you can tell they have completely different ideas of how to display martial arts, if they fought however I dunno who'd win, Jet is fast Jackie is tough. Either way there is no better, in what they do, they are both the best.
2007-08-01 14:18:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Fabien O 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jackie Chan.
One reason, Jackie was sold off by his father to an acrobatic circus for onions. Yes Onions. How much pain and hate would you hold in your heart? This man could kill anyone he wantedwith that much hate. Period
2007-08-01 14:35:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Chaos 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
bruce lee.
hah.. its hard to say based off of movies and considering they have different styles.. id say theyre both about even.. but id put money on jet li
2007-08-01 03:39:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by alex g 2
·
0⤊
0⤋