Dolph Springer wakes up one morning to realize he has lost the love of his life, his dog, Paul. During his quest to get Paul (and his life) back, Dolph radically changes the lives of others -- risking his sanity all the while.
An eccentric man aged about 40 lives alone in a decrepit house in Tokyo. He periodically transforms into a giant, about 30 meters tall, and defends Japan by battling similarly sized ... See full summary »
Around the year 2000, a terrible occurence shocks the city of Athens: a huge piece of moussaka appears on the city streets, spreading panic and death. Everyone keeps wondering: why, where, ... See full summary »
Riddle: Which comes first, a joke or the end of the movie?
This movie has one of the most interesting distributions of "votes" I have ever seen on IMDb. As of this date approximately the same number and percentage (23%) of voters think this is a "10" as think it is a "1" (with the balance evenly distributed in between). Clearly a movie you either love or hate! My vote was "1 (Awful)" and I honestly can't conceive what anyone who voted "10 (Excellent)" could possibly say to justify such a vote.
The story line is very minimal. Two "losers", played by Eric and Ramzy, want to belong to the "cool" high school group - the Chivers. The latter is a group of males who strive to be "perfect" - with plastic surgery, shallow girlfriends, non-smoking etc. Beyond this concept there isn't any plot per se, simply a number of inter-changeable incidents all showing that Eric and Ramzy are too much losers to ever fit into the group. The incidents aren't very original and you would need an IQ below room temperature not to foresee where they were going or how they would end. These carry on until, lacking any character or plot development, the screenwriter simply tosses in an ending. Obviously a counter argument would be that this is all a "brillant" satire on high school conformity and I've simply missed the point. To paraphrase LLoyd Bentsen's old political zinger "I knew satire and you are no satire". Look to "Heathers" or for that matter even "Animal House". There you have a variety of believable, if misfit, characters, unforeseen plot twists, character development throughout the film(s) and witty dialog. Regrettably all are lacking in STEAK.
There is no appreciable "acting" to comment on. Eric and Ramzy basically play one note characters similar to their other movies, sweet stupid and excitable stupid respectively. That does not change from beginning to end. The Chivers may seek conformity but unfortunately it is a very boring conformity with no distinct performances. Needless to say all the actors were 15 to 20 years too old for their roles. I watched Eric and Ramzy in "La Tour Montparnasse Infernale" and would rate it a "5". In retrospect one of the main distinctions of that film was a far more interesting supporting cast. I can't think of a single supporting actor in STEAK who generated much interest.
The technical credits, on the DVD I watched, were professional.
Obviously there is some market for Eric and Ramzy's "all stupid all the time" routine. I can only think of the reviewer of "La Tour Montparnasse Infernale" who, rating it 9 out of 10, explained that it got funnier the more alcohol he/she drank. I had the misfortune to see STEAK stone cold sober. Is it possible that the 23% of the voters who ranked it a "10" might have had a little alcoholic stimulus before they voted? P.S. the answer to the riddle was that the movie ended (84 minutes) before I laughed.
30 of 83 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?