Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: Neville on May 20, 2003, 10:42:08 AM

Title: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: Neville on May 20, 2003, 10:42:08 AM
I was wandering on the IMDB to find out if the latest direct-to-video Seagal movie was worth a rental (looks like it's not), when I found this personal quote on his profile:

"I am hoping that I can be known as a great writer and actor some day, rather than a sex symbol."

I had heard the man was a s**thead, but now I am starting to believe it.

Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: The Burgomaster on May 20, 2003, 11:14:01 AM
I think Steven Segal will end up being known as the next Cameron Mitchell.

Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: AndyC on May 20, 2003, 02:06:38 PM
I can't decide which half of that statement is more ridiculous.

Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: SkullNinja on May 20, 2003, 03:19:50 PM
Cameron Mitchell, my ass. Joe Don "Mitchell" Baker, maybe. Heh.
Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: spikesangel on May 20, 2003, 03:41:02 PM
what a freak.
he lives in some kind of fantasy world.
now i have to go find out what he writes so i can see if it's worthy of putting in my bunny's cage or not.

Title: Sorry Burgomaster, but...
Post by: Chris K. on May 20, 2003, 04:18:06 PM
Cameron Mitchell, despite starring in his share of schlock, has indeed been in some saving-grace movies. He is pretty much known for starring in the great Mario Bava films SIX WOMEN FOR THE ASSASIN (1964; U.S. Title: BLOOD AND BLACK LACE) and KNIVES OF THE AVENGER (1966). And despite having a big career in schlock, Mitchell is a fairly good actor.

Placing Mitchell next to Segal is a bit of a crime. Mitchell can act well, Segal can't act at all. Segal would be better to be placed next to Sylvester Stalone instead of Mitchell.
Title: Re: Sorry Burgomaster, but...
Post by: raj on May 20, 2003, 04:23:35 PM
Stallone at least made fun of himself when hosting SNL.  Seagal was the biggest jerk.
Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: TC on May 20, 2003, 04:44:53 PM
Here's the best stories about Steven Seagal from the book "Live From New YorK, An Uncensored History of SNL."  I found them pretty insiteful into what kind of guy Seagal is (no surprise):

Tim Meadows:
The problem with Steven Seagal was that he would complain about jokes that he didn't get, so it was like - you can't explain something to somebody in German if they don't speak German.  He just wasn't funny and he was very critical of the cast and the writing staff.  He didn't realize that you can't tell somebody they're stupid on Wednesday and expect them to continue writing for you on Saturday.

David Spade:
He didn't want to go along with what the plan was that week and as a result, I think that was the first week that I heard talk about replacing the host and just doing a cast show.

Julia Sweeney:
When we pitched our ideas for Seagal at our Monday meeting, he gave us some of his own sketch ideas,  And some of his sketch ideas were so heinous, but so hilariously awful, it was like we were on Candid Camera.

He had this idea that he's a therapist and he wanted Victoria Jackon to be his patient who's just been raped.  And the therapist says, "You're going to have to come to me twice a week for like three years," because, he said, "that's how therapists f**king are.  They're just trying to get your money"  And then he says that the psychiatrist tries to have sex with her.
Title: Re: Sorry Burgomaster, but...
Post by: Chadzilla on May 20, 2003, 05:03:54 PM
Yeah, Stallone can act, but too often he chooses 'star' vehicles (in addition to continue sequelizing his starmaking movies, Rocky and First Blood).

I don't know who to compare Seagal to, he is truly unique.  A completely unlikable one time action super star that is so stuffed with himself he resembles a Christmas Goose.  At least Chuck Norris is, from what I have read, a fairly nice guy in real life.  Seagal is notorious for being self-serving and stuck up.

Maybe he'll be remembered as being just like Jean Claude Van Damme, another former action super star that his known for his boorish behavior.  Oh, great joke in the local (Contra Costa Times) paper the other day.  There was a picture of JCVD grinning and looking suave and the caption said, "So we search for some photo of a scantily clad starlet at Cannes walking the red carpet at the film festival and what do we get?  Jean Claude Van Damme.  Who is paying this guy to still make movies?"

That being said, I like most of Seagal's stupid movies.

Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: The Burgomaster on May 20, 2003, 05:05:45 PM
Chris K wrote:

"Cameron Mitchell, despite starring in his share of schlock, has indeed been in some saving-grace movies. He is pretty much known for starring in the great Mario Bava films SIX WOMEN FOR THE ASSASIN (1964; U.S. Title: BLOOD AND BLACK LACE) and KNIVES OF THE AVENGER (1966). And despite having a big career in schlock, Mitchell is a fairly good actor.

Placing Mitchell next to Segal is a bit of a crime. Mitchell can act well, Segal can't act at all. Segal would be better to be placed next to Sylvester Stalone instead of Mitchell."

I have BLOOD AND BLACK LACE on DVD and have seen Cameron Mitchell in a variety of movies. BLOOD AND BLACK LACE is a very good Mario Bava film. But it is good because of Bava, not Mitchell. Watch FRANKENSTEIN ISLAND, NIGHTMARE IN WAX or MANEATER OF HYDRA and tell me that Cameron Mitchell can act. Steven Segal will NEVER be in movies as bad as some of the ones that Cameron Mitchell made. I'm no Segal fan, but Cameron Mitchell was a grade Z actor for 90% of his career.



Post Edited (05-21-03 07:03)
Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: Chadzilla on May 20, 2003, 05:08:15 PM
TC wrote:

>  
> He had this idea that he's a therapist and he wanted Victoria
> Jackon to be his patient who's just been raped.  And the
> therapist says, "You're going to have to come to me twice a
> week for like three years," because, he said, "that's how
> therapists f**king are.  They're just trying to get your money"
>  And then he says that the psychiatrist tries to have sex with
> her.

OH...MY...GOD!

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that, such was the power of my snort.  Put on record as to having a small amount of sympathy for the SNL crew for that fiasco.

Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: Flangepart on May 20, 2003, 05:51:15 PM
Oh, man....what a jerk!
This man is a living parody of the boneheaded action star. And the best part is, he don't get it that HE is the joke!
Robert Stack, on the other hand....in the commentary track of Airplane!, someone said that Stack was easy to work with, and when Loyde Bridges wondered about the type of gags he was doing, Stack said "Loyde...We're the joke!"
Steven Seagal: Man, or satarical punching bag?

Title: Yes Burgo...
Post by: Chris K. on May 20, 2003, 05:59:58 PM
Mitchell has been a Z-grade actor in low budget films for about 90% of his career I'll give you that. But look at Segal: he's been a Z-grade actor in mainstream films for about 100% of his career! That's about 10% more than Mitchell. And hey, some decent performers like Mitchell have gotten low ends of film roles, which has affected their careers and their acting to a great degree. Take a good look at John Carradine: first in John Ford's THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALLANCE (1948), then in Al Adamson's HORROR OF THE BLOOD MONSTERS (1970). Yet Carradine was able to pull of at least a grand performance in something that was indeed quite low grade; Mitchell on the other hand has had two "good" films, and that was Mario Bava's SIX WOMEN FOR THE ASSASSIN and KNIVES OF THE AVENGER. Don't get me wrong, the two films were good due to Bava and not Mitchell. Yet, Mitchell's presence made them quite entertaining to sit through and I thought he did a good job. Mitchell may not have been a great actor, but at least he could put a nice performance when he wants to.

For the record, I have seen FRANKENSTEIN'S ISLAND, NIGHTMARE IN WAX and yes even THE TOOLBOX MURDERS and I will agree Mitchell is at his worst when it came to those films. I'm quite shocked the Blue Underground went through the trouble to find the 35mm negative of THE TOOLBOX MURDERS and release it on DVD. It should have stayed lost.

As for Segal, yeah I have heard the guy is a real jackass. That could be his Z-grade status kicking in his ego.
Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: SkullNinja on May 20, 2003, 06:01:35 PM
Will Sasso used to do a damned funny imitation of him on Mad TV.
Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: JohnL on May 21, 2003, 12:12:29 AM
>Will Sasso used to do a damned funny imitation of him on Mad TV.

I can't watch Seagal anymore, without picturing him going on a rampage like Sasso.

I have a friend who says he met Seagal once (his father knew him) and he said the guy was a royal a***ole.
Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: Sam on May 21, 2003, 12:47:20 AM
From what I heard of from my past teachers (he went to my old high school for a little bit) he was a royal jerk then too.
Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: Conrad on May 21, 2003, 06:56:16 AM
Cameron Mitchell?  Is that the Cameron Mitchell who was in "The High Chapparal"??  Oh boy, I loved that series as a youngster.

Steven Seagal, on the other hand, has a head shaped like an inverted bucket, and facial features made of 100% mahogany.
He's so wooden if he shook your hand, you'd get splinters.  He's so wooden he has to paint himself in Ronseal.  He's (continue feeble puns ad nauseum)

Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: The Burgomaster on May 21, 2003, 07:08:13 AM
Chris K wrote:

"Take a good look at John Carradine: first in John Ford's THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALLANCE (1948), then in Al Adamson's HORROR OF THE BLOOD MONSTERS (1970). Yet Carradine was able to pull of at least a grand performance in something that was indeed quite low grade . . . "

I agree with you there. Carradine did have some talent, but I think he became a "whore" later in his career, and would work in any movie (good or bad) if he got paid for it. In fact, on the FRANKENSTEIN ISLAND DVD, there is a conversation in one of the special features where a woman says that she asked him why he made trashy movies. His answer was, "the color of the money is the same." On the other hand, I suspect that Mitchell worked in trashy movies because those are the only movies that would hire him!

Title: Re: About Steven Seagal...
Post by: raj on May 21, 2003, 08:58:55 AM
Conrad wrote:

> Steven Seagal, on the other hand, has a head shaped like an
> inverted bucket, and facial features made of 100% mahogany.
> He's so wooden if he shook your hand, you'd get splinters.
> He's so wooden he has to paint himself in Ronseal.  He's
> (continue feeble puns ad nauseum)

He's so wooden, he shaves with a planer.
He's so wooden, Smokey the Bear says "Please start a forest fire -- as long as he's there."