Because many of the British actors we see were trained in the theater, where they would get to play all sorts of character roles, they may bring more versatility to the screen than their American counterparts. Many American actors on movies/TV have no theater experience, so wind up bucketed into similar sorts of parts on screen based on their particular physical attributes. So it can feel that British actors are superior to American actors.

But a British acquaintance once pointed out that there are "bad" British actors who we are blind to, because the accent is all the acting they do. That as an American, I may not hear or see that the acting is bad, but as a British person, it was painfully obvious to him. Food for thought.

There is no hard and fast rule, but the less mainstream a movie or TV show is, the more accurate the IMDB rating is. When something is released with great fanfare, everyone under the sun chooses to share their two cents, and a lot of it is not very nuanced or useful. Add to that superfans, woke warriors, xenophobes, purists, trolls and others, and you can drown in extreme views. But, with some discretion, it is still a good guide to make a viewing decision on unknown fare.

As you get older, you will do this more and more, partially because of a been there, done that feeling you can get after having read many, many books. You might even do this multiple times in a row, as I have. But then, you fall under the spell of a book like Jane Harper's The Dry, and you realize hey, it's not me, it's the books.

As someone who wrote thousands of programs in my lifetime, I'd advise you to take longer breaks between reads to allow the material to sink in. You'll find your comprehension actually goes up. And that makes it more efficient in the end. You'll become a better, smarter programmer.

When you work out, focus on the workout, enjoy it, give your mind a rest and put your body to work instead. If your body is healthy, the brain functions better, believe it or not.

She is also pretty much a fixture within the science fiction community, actively involved in keeping the work alive for the next generation. She is no hermit, that's for sure, hosts the Locus awards, appears at conventions, edits collections, publishes new work, runs the gamut.

The only thing that might account for your experiences may be that she was a female writer in the genre who arrived before the explosion of female writers hit the marketplace after her. Sometimes, those who pave the way for others do not get due credit.

I do wonder whether the poster is expressing a different sentiment than he meant to convey. We all agree T2 is a great movie, and holds up, and is a model for this sort of action film.

Maybe what he means is that when lists of greatest films come out - yes, films, not movies - you won't see T2 on such a list. You might find, say, Lawrence of Arabia on such a list. And he thinks T2 should be right up there with "serious" fare like that. And that can certainly be argued, as action films are conspicuously missing from being treated as film art. It's a guess, as otherwise what he states just does not hold water.

Part of it has to do with what I would call "types". Every era has its favored "types" that define it, and you would find a slew of performers conforming to that type for awhile. Then another "type" would come along to replace it. Hairstyles and clothing suited the "types" at the time, but trying to duplicate that with someone from today looks incongruous.

I can't remember the source, but a casting director was trying to cast for a large Civil War epic or something some years ago, and complained that everyone had abs now, and this was just not historically accurate. It made me laugh at the time.

Eons ago I used to write a review of a book I owned, writing in pencil at the back, fiction or nonfiction. It was a habit I picked up from my Mom. It was a way of gathering my thoughts, and moving on, and was meant for me, no one else.

When I decided to sell the books, my erasers were worn to the nub deleting those same reviews. I thought the writing might diminish the price I could get. The habit ended then and there.

Although it is before my time, sometime in the Fifties what is termed "kitchen sink drama" exploded onto the British stage, temporarily rendering the likes of Noel Coward to the sidelines. It didn't last long though - given the choice between doings around a kitchen sink and doings around a 60 foot pool, most preferred the pool.

I feel the same given the current trend to showcase less-than telegenic actors to somehow allow more audience identification. If I wanted a mirror reflection of myself, I'd look in a mirror. Frankly, I prefer to see people who look better than I do, who are also younger, fitter, more talented, with better wardrobes and hair.

I'm afraid to say it would be cookie cutter casting, wherein actors, especially young actors, look like other young actors, who look like other young actors, all having been grown in some garden somewhere, where they dress the same, speak the same, look the same, and act the same, irrespective of ethnicity, gender, or character. If I see another ex-Disney performer, I tend to avoid like the plague.

There is some truth that if you remove franchise movies from the mix, there are few movie actors/performers whose name alone can "open" a movie. However, there is also truth that including a recognized or valued performer can "add to" a movie by getting it some attention and press it may not receive otherwise. Recognizable names who bring a sort of persona or goodwill to a project can work wonders.

Some say that one of the reasons that In the Heights and West Side Story failed was that there were no charismatic / "now" stars attached, the talented casts notwithstanding. For all the criticism of Natalie Wood or Audrey Hepburn these days for the Sixties versions of West Side Story and My Fair Lady, respectively, they added stardust and charm and recognizable box office names to the proceedings, and audiences flocked to both films. Stars are still a thing, but they are more value-add than the days when, say, John Wayne's name enough could jet propel a movie .

The movie was also held back from release for something like two years. And I too agree with Grant - it is not one of his finest hours. The original stage part is not a movie star type, as Grant clearly was, and the constant panic and hysteria just did not suit him. Perhaps meriting the enmity of Grant fans, I do wonder if someone like Lou Costello, whose constant terror in Hold That Ghost from the same era was comedy gold, could have made the whole thing funnier.

That said, I think Ryan Reynolds has the right comedic instincts to pull a part like this off.