Poll: Seagal or Van Damme, who is the worse hack??
- Thread starter PlatinumGold
- Start date
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Seagal was good in Under Siege and Hard to Kill, better than Van Damme ever managed to be. Now they're both such jokes it's hard to say which one is more pathetic.
Seagal has that really wierd body position when he walks. He keeps his hands very stiff and straight and his body is tight. I can't explain it properly off-hand, but when you watch him act again, you will know exactly what i mean. It makes him look very tense. Kinda like a person you could never imagine Laughing Out Loud at anything.
iamme
Lifer
- Jul 21, 2001
- 21,058
- 3
- 0
i liked the one when Van Damme did a helicopter kick in slow motion. and the seagal movie with three words in the title (out for justice, above the law, hard to kill, marked for death)
jeez, these guys made some of the most worthless movies, that managed to incorporate martial arts.
can i vote both?
jeez, these guys made some of the most worthless movies, that managed to incorporate martial arts.
can i vote both?
I was looking for the right word to describe both of them and Dave hit it square on. The word to describe both is " pathetic.". That and they both such bigtime.
I've probably liked Van Damme's earlier movies better (Bloodsport, Kickboxer), but Seagal is less annoying as a person.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Hmmm not his only art and very few successful martial artists can ignore that art totally.
Also he is first a *major* martial artist, then an actor.
Van Damme is cool too, it's much like Arnold....people critique his accent, but the guy makes blockbusters. As long as I am entertained I could care less if it's Shakespearian.
Å
I've done Aikido, don't knock it. Just like any other Martial Art, you get out of it what you put into it.
Seagal also studied Karate IIRC, and his portrayals of either style on screen are "Hollywoodized" to
look good for the camera. Just as Van Damme streching and high kicks are meant to look more impressive
than being really effective.
They've both made good movies and bad movies (really bad movies) in their time. I liked a lot of earlier
Seagal films because (as someone who had studied a little Aikido) I could recognize a lot of the techniques
and methods he used to subdue opponents as being real techniques from the style (just applied with
a lot more violence than the teachings called for)
. After a while I got tired of seeing Steven walkingaround all the time like he was in desperate need of a restroom.
Van Damme actually has better acting range (IMO) but he gets cast in a lot of limited character roles
where he is supposed to be more impressive because he can stretch a leg kick out for an extended period,
rather than for his ability to portray a semi-convincing cop/outlaw/fugitive/ninja-in-training bad-ass with
a kind-heart type of guy.
edmundoab
Diamond Member
Bloodsport, Lionheart, Double Impact, Knockoff, Hard to Kill.
All awesome Van Damme movies.
The only Seagal films I really liked were Above the Law, Under Seige, Under Seige 2, and Exit Wounds.
I like Seagal's movie technique for fighting better. More efficient and total overkill. Van Damme takes too long to kill anyone. But he is certainly a lot more interesting to watch.
All awesome Van Damme movies.
The only Seagal films I really liked were Above the Law, Under Seige, Under Seige 2, and Exit Wounds.
I like Seagal's movie technique for fighting better. More efficient and total overkill. Van Damme takes too long to kill anyone. But he is certainly a lot more interesting to watch.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter