Rollerball

Rating:
Summary: Why, oh why, oh why!
Review: Im begging you now do NOT watch this film at any cost. It is an awful thing (cant bring myself to call it a film) with shoddy acting horrendous set design and one of the most fake, boring scripts ever. If you really want to buy it I suggest purchasing it for the pure pleasure of watching it burn!

Rating:
Summary: Worst movie in a long time
Review: This movie is pointless and stupid. The acting and camera work sucks. The story is sesame streetish and moronic. Stay very far away from this one.

Rating:
Summary: a pathetically made film with lousy script and directing
Review: what a mess, my god, what a mess. the whole movie is so messy from the very beginning. it's just like a guy who's sitting on the passenger seat and seeing himself with his driver friend hitting another car in the split second with his wide open eyes. this moive is so loudly noisy, messy, fussy, confusing, unfocused, misperformed, misdirected from start to end. the viewing experience is just like watching a big city's traffic lights at at busy cross streets suddenly out of order, mucho cars hit one another, and you just don't know what happened at first and then realize that you yourself is one of the victims involved in such traffic mess. the movie is exactly like this. my god, what a mess. you could only blame yourself left home 2 minutes earlier or 2 minute late, otherwise you won't hurt your neck so badly. turn off you volume before you get up to turn off the dvd player. my god, what a mess. the reason why i rent this movie is that i first thought this new movie might get some new thrills from the old one by james caan, but....my god, what a bomber.

Rating:
Summary: On a double bill with Roller Boogie
Review: Rollerball still stands as a solid sci-fi flick about the fear of corporate society and the crushing of the little guy (you). Sadly, if you look around, we're slowly approaching it.

Fast forward to now and we have yet another remake. With Rollerball (2002) I am now convinced that these remakes serve a functional purpose: to make the originals look like masterpieces. If there is another reason, I've yet to see it. At this point, I would be less insulted if Hollywood studios publicly declared: We have no ideas, we are bankrupt of original thoughts, so we'll just resell you the same thing, over and over.

The sickest thing about John McTiernan's Rollerball remake is that it had potential. The original film took place in a sterilized future world where corporations had taken the place of nations, society had everything it needed, and the main distraction for the pesty public was the ultraviolent sport of rollerball. Jonathan E began to meddle by somehow surviving the sport year after year and began to shine, which is exactly what the corporations did NOT want. The sport was to prove the futility of individual effort.

In the remake, the setting is the near future, but the concerns are not global like the original. Rollerball is more a fringe sport (like Slamball, or Arena Football, or backyard wrestling) operating out of central Asia (any of the '-stan' countries of the old Soviet empire.) For the miserable masses who slave in mines, the sport, which is less coherent here than the original film, provides a distraction from their meaningless lives (sort of like all sports do, anyway.)

I did like this idea for the setting, making rollerball a regional interest rather than global phenomenon. It actually makes it more realistic, and indeed there are references to WWE wrestling, which it resembles in the glitzy pageantry and shameless profiteering. This, along with other elements, are wasted in the ensuing chaos.

An NHL draftee (Chris Klein, doing a career Keanu impersonation that is frightening) flees the USA because he's been busy illegally body-boarding down San Fran streets and runs off with LL Cool J to play for big money in the rollerball leauge. The (naturally) evil team owner is Jean Reno, who covets more and more ratings by getting rid of rules, penalties, and other pesty elements of the sport that prevent people from dying. This is all to satisfy some kind of global ratings meter that is instant and will gauge who is tuning in when.

I could go on and on about this film. It was famously plagued during post-production (not to mention pre-production, production, and the 'idea', casting, and all other phases.) The film is incoherent, plain and simple. What you would call a mess.

It is highly recommended to bad movie buffs the world over. I picked this baby up at a 2-for-$15 sale--that's less than the cost of seeing this clinker in the theater! The DVD wisely throws in many extras to entice you and to give you something approaching value after you realize how appalling the film is.

The other recommendation is to buy the original Rollerball on DVD, also a good value.

I now heartily endorse remakes like this one, as I'm sure Norman Jewison (director of the original) does. His film and his career shine that much brighter after atrocities like this.

Rating:
Summary: Hollywood: WAKE UP!
Review: Most of the classic science-fiction, horror movies of the late sixties/mid-seventies were message movies: They were parables, allegorical yarns influencing us to confront the fallacies of our society.
"Silent Running", "Planet of The Apes", "Omega Man", "Soilent Green", "Night of The Living Dead", "Logan's Run"; each of these movies touched on the negative trends of contemporary society, be it racism, crass-consumerism, generational gaps, ecological suicide... In short, Man's inhumanity to Man.
The original "Rollerball" showed us the global corporate culture of the near future. It threw society's sick obsession with both sports and violence right at our faces. The bloodlust that was in the fictional future's rollerball audience was only slightly little different from the real life demands young white men were making at that time of the then emerging sport of Ice Hockey.
The age of the Nation-State was over and the multinational corporation, who was the new totalitarian aggroprop motivator, was now ascendent. We no longer had to worry about ideologues but PR men telling you what, when and where to buy. Control through the supply and demand for consumer goods and pastimes.
Humankind still had an aggression complex: a need for one man to hurt -and yes even kill!- his fellow man. How does the Multinational Global Corporations contain, yet satisfy, this bloodlust (and at the same time further stupify an already flabby, dumbed-down populace)? ROLLERBALL. All the fastpaced, adrenaline inducing, death and maiming and scarring of WAR, shrunken down and sealed up into a tiny arena, starting and ending at precise times.
Sad. Hateful. However, like all those aforementioned movies did, showing a reflection of us: Modern, secular, selfish, self-gratifying Humanity.
2002's "Rollerball" instead of updating and furthering this warning/message, is rather just another example and prop of our malaise as a immature, gratification addicted species. No true message. Just bright lights, loud noise, hitech special effects and shallowness. The writers and artists have become just as negative and selfish as the lumpen.
It is because of movies such as this that I was putoff when I heard that there was talk of making remakes of "Logan's Run" and "Omega Man". When the respective stars being considered for these intended remakes are Leonardo Di Caprio and Arnold Schwartzenneger I easily imagine Hollywood rendering these beloved classics into meaningless, mindless action/thriller schlock and junk. All shoot-em-ups, chases, and silly countdowns to explosive fireworks. Leaving no commitment or involvement from the theatre audience but laughter and cheers. No reflections. No introspections. No learning. No morality.
Hollywood, please leave the films of a better, more compassionate, more intelligent era alone. You can satisfy the mob you pander to without remakes. Thin plots, involving one-dimensional characters, speeding through long scenes of T&A, mindless violence and numbing special effects will more than satisfy your market and bring in all the revenue you lust for. Desecrating art is not necessary.

Rating:
Summary: Why You Should See This Movie......
Review: I remember seeing the original James Caan film on then-network television. The anti-corporate culture of the 1960s had been beaten down, so a film about a "central" corporation running the world was a novelty (well--novel to me at that time). Plus, I loved roller derby (ask your grandparents what that is), and Rollerball had lots of action--but no Raquel Welch, like in Kansas City Bomber (unfortunately)--but not all that weepy, overwrought emotion--like in Kansas City Bomber (which was fortunate). Heck, when you start with one of the better "B" movies of all time, how hard can a remake be?

Apparently, it's really, really hard. Other reviews here can give you the gut feeling that this movie stinks (and lord have mercy--it's a stinker), but there are specific reasons why this movie misses so badly. First & foremost--If you're going to make a movie about a "game," you might want to explain what the "game" is & then be roughly consistent with the game. If I had not seen the James Caan version, I'd have no idea what "rollerball" was from watching this movie. Then, as the "rules" changed in this film, it becomes impossible to follow what is happening during the game. What's on the screne just makes no sense at all. Even in classic roller derby, you had "jammers" who scored points between the fights & "interviews" (find the oldest person you know & ask them to explain it to you--if they can).

Second, I don't know if it's a question of style, but this film features zillions of tight close-ups of action, with most of the "action" happening outside the frame. Think of a boxing match, and during a jab to the jaw, the frame is filled with the elbow of the guy getting hit--And you don't know if it's boxing, arm wrestling, or My Dinner with Andre. Plus, the camera shakes a lot as well--just in case you might be on the verge of understanding what's going on. It's like the cheapest monster movie you've ever seen, where instead of buying a big rubber suit for the monster, the director points the camera at some object behind the actor's back & shakes the camera to show something is happening.

Next, there are no characters. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is sometimes the strong, silent John Wayne-type (you'd think that would be Chris Klein's role, but you'd be wrong), and then weepy & clingy--for no apparent reason. She has this "now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" scar on her face that upsets her sometimes--who knows why; The Duke never got weepy about his marks. She also lifts weights topless in total darkness--successfully pissing off everyone who doesn't want a nude scene & really pissing off everyone hoping for some hint of a nude scene as a consolation prize. What kind of an "R" rated movie is this? Ms. Romijn is a talented actor (I guess that's why she married John: opposites attract), but the statute in "The Maltese Falcon" had more to work with than she has in this turkey...Chris Klein is terrible--even if he had something to work with (which he doesn't). To call LL Cool J's character "two dimensional" is an insult to the depth of two-dimensional characters everywhere. Jean Reno's part (he's the George Steinbrenner of Rollerball) just doesn't make any sense. No one else even exists in this movie--they just zip through like a big flock of faceless black birds.

Ultimately, this movie is just random bits of crap spliced together, abandoning all hope of logic or story. To give you an idea of just how disjointed this film is, at one point (don't ask why--trust me, if I explained it, you'd be way sorry), Mr. Klein & Mr. Cool J are running away from the Rollerball "Circus," and Jean Reno is chasing them. For an inordinately long time, we see the scene in some kind of "night vision" photography. The protagonists race motorcycles towards a bridge, while being shot at, and the bridge explodes. The "night vision" stops, and we are back to Jean Reno and his gunmen. Who was using the night vison? Maybe Mr. Reno's gunman who haa a high power rifle with a scope--only it's now daylight. If you have to ask why gunmen use "night vision" scopes during the day--you should watch another movie.

But--as I asked at the beginning--why should you see this movie? I'll tell you. You watch a scene, and think "Wow. That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen." Then comes the next scene, and you think "Holy cats! That was even dumber than the last scene!" And after the next scene, you think "Jeez Louise! A new record in dumb" And the scene after that you think "O.K. Now *that* had to be the dumbest scene ever." But the next scene is even worse! How long can the director (John McTiernan) keep this up? [...]

Rating:
Summary: Fast action and political intrigue!
Review: The 2002 version of Rollerball takes off with excitement from the first moment and keeps up the pace through the entire film! It's not really fair to call this a remake of the 1975 version, which is good in its own rights. This takes the basic premise of the Rollerball game, but instead of being set in some futuristic sci-fi world, it places the game in our current time. Now that the Soviet Union has broken up into independent countries, men who were powerful under the Soviet government still seek to remain in power. Rollerball team owners are incredibly powerful men - men who are not willing to give up the trappings of power. They use their power with impunity, resorting to extortion, force, threats to accomplish their goals.

The pace can become fast and furious. Much as if this were a real sport, the movie is cut with the style that would be appreciated by afficianados of this sort of sport - similar to the way professional wrestling is marketed. The fast cuts, choppy action, insertion of elements such as the player's trading cards, persistent music, all help focus on the experience that the Rollerball fans would relish.

Chris Klein and L.L. Cool J are two Americans on a team based in Kazakstan (my apologies for any spelling errors). Their team travels to compete against teams in other Central Asian countries. When the TV ratings begin to drop, the team owners resort to any means possible to keep the ratings up. The methods used, in light of the political situation in that area of the world, are entirely plausible and believable. One should take note of the subtle ways that are used to control the team members.

Although younger viewers may enjoy the action scenes and the music, more mature viewers will enjoy those plus the intrigue. I was already an adult when the original Rollerball was released, and I'm quite pleased with this version.

Rating:
Summary: 1 star and lucky to get that...
Review: If all you are after is some digital candy, then this movie might suffice. Sure there was some political maneuvering, some behind-the-back action, but mostly this movie is about a hockey player who went for the cash in a eurasian version of hyped up roller derby instead of going to the NHL.

The whole movie is based on the fact that TV ratings zoom up as players die.

This show was so unsatisfying for me that I kept hitting the fast forward button just to get through it!

I hesitate to say that this movie is a pale version of "Rollerball" staring Caan. Now THAT was a movie. If you are going to watch one "Rollerball" go with the version starring James Caan - THAT version has some real character development, some meaningful futuristic political intrigue, and the game is more believable, as is the action, than the new version. Caan's Rollerball is a sport with rules you can follow, and you can see when they are broken, too.

Whatever you choose to do...good luck.

(This review is based on an edited version of the movie)

Rating:
Summary: Why You Should See This Movie......
Review: I remember seeing the original James Caan film on then-network television. The anti-corporate culture of the 1960s had been beaten down, so a film about a "central" corporation running the world was a novelty (well--novel to me at that time). Plus, I loved roller derby (ask your grandparents what that is), and Rollerball had lots of action--but no Raquel Welch, like in Kansas City Bomber (unfortunately)--but not all that weepy, overwrought emotion--like in Kansas City Bomber (which was fortunate). Heck, when you start with one of the better "B" movies of all time, how hard can a remake be?

Apparently, it's really, really hard. Other reviews here can give you the gut feeling that this movie stinks (and lord have mercy--it's a stinker), but there are specific reasons why this movie misses so badly. First & foremost--If you're going to make a movie about a "game," you might want to explain what the "game" is & then be roughly consistent with the game. If I had not seen the James Caan version, I'd have no idea what "rollerball" was from watching this movie. Then, as the "rules" changed in this film, it becomes impossible to follow what is happening during the game. What's on the screne just makes no sense at all. Even in classic roller derby, you had "jammers" who scored points between the fights & "interviews" (find the oldest person you know & ask them to explain it to you--if they can).

Second, I don't know if it's a question of style, but this film features zillions of tight close-ups of action, with most of the "action" happening outside the frame. Think of a boxing match, and during a jab to the jaw, the frame is filled with the elbow of the guy getting hit--And you don't know if it's boxing, arm wrestling, or My Dinner with Andre. Plus, the camera shakes a lot as well--just in case you might be on the verge of understanding what's going on. It's like the cheapest monster movie you've ever seen, where instead of buying a big rubber suit for the monster, the director points the camera at some object behind the actor's back & shakes the camera to show something is happening.

Next, there are no characters. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is sometimes the strong, silent John Wayne-type (you'd think that would be Chris Klein's role, but you'd be wrong), and then weepy & clingy--for no apparent reason. She has this "now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" scar on her face that upsets her sometimes--who knows why; The Duke never got weepy about his marks. She also lifts weights topless in total darkness--successfully pissing off everyone who doesn't want a nude scene & really pissing off everyone hoping for some hint of a nude scene as a consolation prize. What kind of an "R" rated movie is this? Ms. Romijn is a talented actor (I guess that's why she married John: opposites attract), but the statute in "The Maltese Falcon" had more to work with than she has in this turkey...Chris Klein is terrible--even if he had something to work with (which he doesn't). To call LL Cool J's character "two dimensional" is an insult to the depth of two-dimensional characters everywhere. Jean Reno's part (he's the George Steinbrenner of Rollerball) just doesn't make any sense. No one else even exists in this movie--they just zip through like a big flock of faceless black birds.

Ultimately, this movie is just random bits of crap spliced together, abandoning all hope of logic or story. To give you an idea of just how disjointed this film is, at one point (don't ask why--trust me, if I explained it, you'd be way sorry), Mr. Klein & Mr. Cool J are running away from the Rollerball "Circus," and Jean Reno is chasing them. For an inordinately long time, we see the scene in some kind of "night vision" photography. The protagonists race motorcycles towards a bridge, while being shot at, and the bridge explodes. The "night vision" stops, and we are back to Jean Reno and his gunmen. Who was using the night vison? Maybe Mr. Reno's gunman who haa a high power rifle with a scope--only it's now daylight. If you have to ask why gunmen use "night vision" scopes during the day--you should watch another movie.

But--as I asked at the beginning--why should you see this movie? I'll tell you. You watch a scene, and think "Wow. That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen." Then comes the next scene, and you think "Holy cats! That was even dumber than the last scene!" And after the next scene, you think "Jeez Louise! A new record in dumb" And the scene after that you think "O.K. Now *that* had to be the dumbest scene ever." But the next scene is even worse! How long can the director (John McTiernan) keep this up? [...]

Rating:
Summary: Mc Tiernan's BLUNDERBALL - pitiful and useless...
Review: With this movie, the intention of John McTiernan, a director yet known for his great effectiveness (remember "Predator", "Die Hard 1 & 3", "The Hunt for Red October", "The 13th Warrior"), was attack the worlds of medias and reality-shows in the U.S. But he completely fails. His film, the second in his career 'remade' from Norman Jewison - after "Thomas Crown" - actually uses all the fashioned cliches of American action movies: all the scenes were shot and edited at 100 mph, in the MTV style (the musical background is unstandable). We have the impression to deal with a "Fast and Furious" on skates. The story doesn't have any slice of interest, and the too cool acting (especially LL Cool J's - 'Close your eyes and take the dough!') and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos disastrous Russian accent don't arrange anything. But what may be really shocking in this film is the presence of a woman in the games, which is really unacceptable when you see the great violence of this sport, mixing football, baseball, boxing and ice hockey, and where (maybe for the beauty of the show...) almost no blow is forbidden. There is no woman football or ice hockey league (so far...), but you can see a woman playing rollerball... look for the mistake! And McTiernan definitely turned his movie to politically correct, by locating the rollerball games in a poor country in central Asia.

Add to it this French actor, Jean Reno, who absolutely doesn't belong in here and ridiculizes himself more than anything else and you have a zero movie, one of the worse ever directed by McTiernan, maybe his worst, along with "Medicine Man". The advice I could give McTiernan is try to be more personal and independent, and to write screenplays of his own. What are the use and interest spending so much dough to produce things like this? The film was a big box-office failure and it's not surprising. A terrifying blunder. (Re)Watch 1975 Norman Jewison great classic instead.