Rating: 
Summary: BALLISTIC BOMB
Review: This tedious and unnecessary remake of the 1975 James Caan classic has little to recommend it. Director John McTiernan, who did so well with DIE HARD, blasts us with heavy metal rock garbage throughout the entire movie, action scenes that are incomprehensible and lifeless, and a cast that fizzles from the start. Chris Klein's good looks don't help his vapid, uninspired performance; LL Cool J is surprisingly uneffective; Rebecca Stamjin-Stamos does better in blue make-up in the X Men flicks; Jean Reno is laughably miscast as the Russian owner.
McTiernan also films one lengthy chase scene in what appears to be night vision goggles; green of all things. It makes no creative sense and adds nothing to the overall movie.
Remakes like this add further validity to the fact that if you're going to remake a movie, either make it as good or better, or let us savor the originals.
Rating: 
Summary: Horible
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: 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.
| 
