"Steel" is, by accounts, a bad movie. It's IMDB score is currently an appalling 2.8 and it was on IMDB's infamous Bottom 100 List until recently. Why is it no longer on the list? Well, the new standards say that a movie must have 10,000 votes to be eligible for this list of worst-rated films...and "Steel" is 103 votes shy...meaning it may just be on the list in the near future if it can get more votes....and would rest about #22 on the list. And, incidentally, Shaquille O'Neal was nominated for the worst actor Razzie for this performance. So why did I watch it? I have a weird passion...to see all 100 on the list...because many are simply hilarious and aren't intended to be! So is "Steel" as bad as its score would indicate? No. Now it is NOT a good film....but I can think of hundreds of worse movies. Certainly NOT a ringing endorsement!
When the film begins, John Henry Irons (Shaquille O'Neal) is in the army and there is a test of a new super-weapon. The baddie in the film, Nathaniel Burke (Judd Nelson), did not listen to John's instructions and there's an awful accident. Nathaniel is rightfully tossed from the service and John quits because he wants to work on weapons that neutralize the enemy...not kill them.
Skip ahead a bit of time and suddenly an LA gang is using a weapon based on the technology that John and Nathaniel developed. John realized that Nathaniel must have gone evil and is about to make a killing selling these dangerous weapons to the highest bidders. So, it's up to John to create his own super tools--with not only a high powered neutralizing gun but a steel suit to protect him from Nathaniel's evil weapons.
So is it terrible? No. It's not good...but not terrible. O'Neal is a bit wooden, I admit it, but he also is pretty cute in his scenes with his grandma....and I think the film would have been better with more of these sorts of scenes. The plot is a bit silly and in many ways, the film comes off like merging "Iron Man" (with O'Neal being a brilliant inventor and superhero like Tony Stark) and "Sanford and Son", as John's hideout is in a junk yard and his costume, in part, is made from junk. The bottom line is that the film isn't much fun BUT it didn't seem awful or painful to watch...which disappointed me because I was hoping the film would totally embarrass O'Neal.
When the film begins, John Henry Irons (Shaquille O'Neal) is in the army and there is a test of a new super-weapon. The baddie in the film, Nathaniel Burke (Judd Nelson), did not listen to John's instructions and there's an awful accident. Nathaniel is rightfully tossed from the service and John quits because he wants to work on weapons that neutralize the enemy...not kill them.
Skip ahead a bit of time and suddenly an LA gang is using a weapon based on the technology that John and Nathaniel developed. John realized that Nathaniel must have gone evil and is about to make a killing selling these dangerous weapons to the highest bidders. So, it's up to John to create his own super tools--with not only a high powered neutralizing gun but a steel suit to protect him from Nathaniel's evil weapons.
So is it terrible? No. It's not good...but not terrible. O'Neal is a bit wooden, I admit it, but he also is pretty cute in his scenes with his grandma....and I think the film would have been better with more of these sorts of scenes. The plot is a bit silly and in many ways, the film comes off like merging "Iron Man" (with O'Neal being a brilliant inventor and superhero like Tony Stark) and "Sanford and Son", as John's hideout is in a junk yard and his costume, in part, is made from junk. The bottom line is that the film isn't much fun BUT it didn't seem awful or painful to watch...which disappointed me because I was hoping the film would totally embarrass O'Neal.