Van Damme, Seagal: The 90s' Paul Newman vs Steve McQueen?

By Ostap Bender

---

When you think about action stars of the late 80s and 90s, two names always come up: Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal. Both are martial arts legends and big-ego icons, but the truth is their movies could not be more different. And not just in style or fight choreography. The difference comes down to one simple thing: Van Damme made cinema. Seagal made well-lit Tinder profiles for himself.

Van Damme: Martial Arts with Heart

Van Damme became the “Muscles from Brussels” for a reason. Sure, he can kick, punch, and split in ways that make you question what kind of movie you're actually about to watch. But what makes his movies stick with people is that he allows his characters to be human. Look at Kickboxer. Kurt Sloane is not just a fighter. He is a guy carrying guilt over his brother, trying to get justice, and learning about sacrifice along the way. The fights matter because we care. Without that emotional investment, the punches are just noise. The character has a journey to take, and it's mostly not pretty.

Even in Timecop, beyond the sci-fi premise, Van Damme’s character is grappling with betrayal, loss, and moral responsibility. The fight sequences hit harder because you are invested in who he is and what he is fighting for. That is what good cinema does: it pairs action with stakes that matter, and make you nervous for the characters' you're invested in.

Collaborations That Elevated the Craft

Van Damme also benefited from working with directors who understood the importance of character. John Woo’s Hard Target is a prime example. Woo is famous for kinetic, stylized action, but he gives Van Damme room to show fear, determination, and moral conscience. Van Damme’s performances feel alive because the filmmakers around him treat the character’s journey as important as the fight choreography.

Seagal’s collaborations, by contrast, often emphasize his inability to even get harmed, let alone hit, over narrative or emotional depth. Directors like Andrew Davis (Under Siege) or Andy Armstrong (Above the Law) gave him competent action set pieces, but rarely a story to struggle with internally. He tries to tell a Chuck Norris joke, but makes it about himself, and the result is that he just becomes the joke.

Emotional Range vs Stoicism

One of the biggest differences between Van Damme and Seagal is range. Van Damme’s characters experience fear, guilt, love, and triumph. Seagal’s expressions are so limited that most of his performances could be replaced by one of those giant head cutouts they bring to basketball games, and the audience would barely notice. It might be a cool look, but when it's all you get, you're watching a meme, not a story. The audience rarely feels tension because Seagal never appears vulnerable, or anything for that matter. Van Damme, on the other hand, makes you care about the outcome.

In Lionheart, Van Damme plays a man caring for his deceased brother’s family while fighting underground matches. The audience sees him struggle with responsibility, love, and fear. Every punch has stakes beyond the physical. Seagal’s characters, no matter the danger, remain unaffected. He can lose his entire family and in the next frame is half naked with a woman half his age, to, you know, feel better about the sad stuff. It's entertaining as hell, yes, but it's not inspiring. There is is no emotional payoff.

Why Van Damme’s Films Endure

Van Damme’s willingness to let his characters evolve, suffer, and triumph emotionally is what makes his films memorable. He pairs high-level action with emotional stakes, and splits. Never forget the splits. The audience invests because we see the humanity behind the kicks and punches. Seagal’s insistence on a single, unshakable tough-guy persona limits his cinematic range. Yes, he gives us hard-core violence and gratuitous sex, and yes, it's awesome, but sometimes we want more. It's not selfish to demand sprinkles with your ice cream.

If you are looking at action heroes from a cinematic perspective, the choice is obvious. Van Damme delivers story plus spectacle, fights plus feeling. Seagal delivers spectacle and nudity alone. That is why when people talk about memorable action cinema, Van Damme’s name comes up more than Seagal’s. It is not about skill or stunts. It is about vulnerability, growth, and letting the audience care. Van Damme’s characters fight not just physically but emotionally. Seagal’s characters fight only physically. You can even imagine him saying the word "physically" in a very creepy way.

The lesson is clear: if you want action that hits on every level, Van Damme is the one to watch. He is willing to let his characters go through fear, doubt, loss, and triumph. Seagal is locked in a tough-guy box and refuses to step out. It wasn't just a battle of the box office, it was a battle of the egos, and the winner was actually the loser.

LEARN MORE ABOUT TRUB FILM CO'S UPCOMING RELEASE