MovieChat Forums > Belly of the Beast (2003) Discussion > Different from other Seagal movies.

Different from other Seagal movies.


I'm a big fan of Steven Seagal. Mainly because he makes killing with your bare hands seem so simple. Unlike other martial arts actors (van Damme, Norris etc.) Seagal kills/maims/incapacitates his opponent before all the Hollywood effects take place. A bad guy is trying to kill Seagal with a big knife and Seagal just does a woosh woosh slam stunt and the guys arms are broken and the knife is down his throat.

Belly of the Beast is, sadly, not like his previous movies. It is as if the producer tried to mix Matrix, Seagal and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon into one movie.

Cut the special effects, cut the Asian poetry and give me pure Seagal in a box!

Watch this movie and then watch Under Siege and you'll see what I mean. The Asian culture is a part of Seagal because he's heavily into his martial arts, but you can also overdo it. The whole voodoo vs. buddhism was lame to be honest. Scratchy transvestites, Asian mob with ghetto talk and square cut editing makes this movie my least liked Seagal movie.

The scenes had potential, but somehow they always turn out to be cold as the ten people Seagal and his Cop Monk partner just shot with one gun.

Too much shooting, too much bullet time (slow motion if you like that name better), too much CGI (special effects).

I want Seagal in a Chinese dress killing people with his left hand while he's holding his dress up with the right hand. Melee combat > gunfights.

When I see Seagal I think of fast hands, minimum of sweat and lots of dead folks. Belly of the Beast delivers on the last, but the fast hands and sweat is there too.

Seagal performs Aikido so well it looks like he's always got the upper hand (I have yet to see him lose a fight), but in Belly of the Beast it's all boiled down to a toothless old monk who does some anti-voodoo praying to keep Seagal alive.

If there ever was a story killer, that has got to be it.

I still favor Seagal over any other martial arts actor (except maybe Jet Li.. he's awesome with the kung fu), but Belly of the Beast does not show much of his skills.

reply

Ok first off, Van Damme is not a real martial artist. You do realize that right? I do agree that they definitely needed to lose all those special effects. In terms of the monk praying to keep Seagal alive, he never would have had to do that if it weren't for the voodoo guy. so if you cut both those guys out of the movie, and he would have had no problem with the Muay Thai Style Officer at the end.

In terms of Seagal taking out any other martial arts actor, now I'm as big a fan of his as anybody and his style I have a 5th dan in Aikido myself (Seagal is an 8th Dan in Aikido), but I also have black belts in Judo, Jui Jitsu, Kretan, and Arnis, but I hope you realize that he has already lost several fights in Japan and China, not in the movies but in real life. Amazing as Jet Li is, Seagal has beaten him before twice. Jackie Chan has beaten both Jet Li and Steven Seagal 3 times, and now of course there is Tony Jaa who hasnt faught any of the three formally, but would definitely present a challenge against any of them.

An Attacker With a Weapon, is an Attacker Without Hope.

reply

I think you will find that Van Damme IS a real martial artist winning many awards in Karate. Do some research first!

Jet Li v Jackie Chan v Segal.....wake up!!!!! Your deluded!

reply

Agreed. Both Seagal and Van Damme are real martial artists.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply

"Mainly because he makes killing with your bare hands seem so simple. Unlike other martial arts actors (van Damme, Norris etc.) Seagal kills/maims/incapacitates his opponent before all the Hollywood effects take place. A bad guy is trying to kill Seagal with a big knife and Seagal just does a woosh woosh slam stunt and the guys arms are broken and the knife is down his throat. "

One of the things Hollywood consistently gets wrong is to portray fights as long, protracted affairs with a lot of back-and-forth superiority. Admittedly, they do this under artistic license - it makes for better cinema. But it also confuses people about real combat. I won't say Seagal fights are "realistic," but they're _closer_ than the usual Hollywood fare. A fight with at least one trained combatant is usually quick - permanently damaging or killing a person is easier than Hollywood would have to believe (in fact, there's a significant number of people who have suffered debilitating concussions from people trying to emulate the Hollywood trope of "hit someone on the head and they just get knocked out but are otherwise fine"). My favorite game when watching a movie is to count the lethal wounds people walk away from. Seagal movies are still ridiculous, mind you, but are _closer_ in that the combat is usually quicker and more damaging.

reply