Customer Reviews

Rollerball [VHS]

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(51)

 

 

Rollerball is a remake of a 1975 science fiction film of the same name that only succeeds in showing what the world would be like if the XFL had become the rage. With how many problems this movie had in production, it was a surprise to see it touch theatres.
Chris Klein, LL Cool J, and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos all phone in their roles as rollerbladers in a high stakes game that is televised worldwide. The cookie-cutter nemesis is played by Jean Reno as the owner and general manager of the tournaments. And with John McTiernan (director of Die Hard) at the helm, the whole thing is unexcusable. It looks like he is well past his prime.
In the original, the hard-core sport of Rollerball was a way for the ruling government of the world to show that individual effort was useless and futile, and only ended in death. In this unworthy remake, the ruling corporations are replaced by managers of the game with no other motive than to get higher ratings and greater profits.
This action disaster takes no hints from it's predecessor. The James Caan version was timeless, using classical music to keep the movie from being dated and holding the action with a very well-done sci-fi backstory. This is a movie filled with pop music that doesn't even fit the action and a barely-there plot that is filled with unnecessary car races and entirely unexciting action scenes.
The game consists of rolling around a figure eight track with the help of rollerblades and teammates on motorcycles, trying to beat the other team by throwing a steel ball into a large gong. Unlike the strategy and planning that went into the original's gameplay, this version looks like a circus. The action is filled with slapstick falls and dubbed-in lines with the actors not even openning their mouths. Somehow it manages to be entirely unexciting, with even the announcer looking bored and immersed on and off. Spills look entirely unrealistic and overplayed, while music completely unfitting the action drones loudly. Costumes look like chromed rejects from cirque de solei, with oversized helmets looking downright silly. All in all, for a movie named after a game, no thought was put in and these are the worst parts of the movie.
The plot jumps from here to there constantly with characters changing their standings instantly; leaving the viewer without a clue as to anyone's personality. To bring the movie up to an R rating after it's PG-13 theatrical run, unnecessary bare breasts and dubbed-in language have been placed rampantly. Cinematography during the action sequences is indecipherable, with horrible editing added in.
By the time you get to the car chase filmed in night-vision and textbook face-off at the end, you realize some movies are great on their own and don't need an updating - they are great as they are. Do yourself a favor and pick up the original for a great action-science-ficiton romp that has brains and brawn.

I should say, "worse than Battlefield Earth proportions!" This whole movie makes you just sit there at the end and go, "why?" Everything about this convoluted, sarcastic, beefed up, badly edited tripe is confusing to watch, poorly executed and loses you 10 minutes into the film. You are introduced to boring characters, cliched camera angles and material we all know John Mcteirnan is far more capable of. I was thankful I got to rent this instead of buying it because quite frankly this movie just plain stinks! If you really want to see the real "Rollerball" rent (don't buy) the original. The original has a much stronger story and for cryin out loud-James Caan! He's a legend man!! I don't know what kind of future Chris Klein has in movies but as far as action movies go, let's just put it this way, we already have Keanu Reeves and quite bluntly, he's a much better actor. Steer clear and save your money!

Rollerball. In the original film, the game attempted to stand as an outlet of Corporation superiority; constantly demonstrating to the consumers (the people) that individuality is futile. Apparently, one does not have to either read the screenplay or physically watch the original film for there to be a remake. Decent director John McTiernan, who "wow-ed" me with such films as the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair as well as his early cult hits like Die Hard and Predator has obviously lost his ability to either A) do remakes or B) handle a camera with any sense of decency. If I was allowed one question to have answered through the course of my life, my question would be, "What was the point of Rollerball the remake?", and I do believe there would be answer from any higher authority. This film single handedly goes down in the record books as not just the worst remake to come out of Hollywood, but it is also a double threat, with it being in the top 100 of worst films ever conceived. It is embarrassing to say, but it has to be said, that Rollerball is one of a few select films that demonstrated no ability in the fields of direction, acting, cinematography, or writing. If Rollerball were deemed a student paper, it would have failed all four parts. Nothing, I repeat, nothing of value can be found with this film, and I even tried hard, but one must easily look at this film and simply state, "It failed".

As I look at the description for this film through many web sites, I happen to notice that many times this film is classified as a "science fiction" film, which boggles my mind. There was absolutely nothing science fiction about this film outside of the possibility of the actual Rollerball game being a rather sci-fi-esque type game, but when you look at it, there is nothing special about the sport. The 1975 film version was extremely science fiction with its views on the future of our world, the surrounding environment, as well as subtly placed usage of the laser gun. Yet somehow, this 2002 version is able to call itself a "science fiction" merely on the premise that it takes place three years in the future. Three. Whole. Years. That to me is the staple of why this film corrupted from the inside out. The writing was atrocious to say the least. It felt as if the writers of this film, one Larry Ferguson or one John Pogue (odd, this horrid smelling filth of a film took two of Hollywood's scribes ... ouchers!), took random ideas, threw them together and attempted to create continuity in the course of 97 minutes. No doubtably procrastination was an issue, and to cut corners to meet a deadline these avid writers chose to cut characters, huge plot points, and any sort of solid stream of consciousness to create possibly the worst that Hollywood could ever offer. Nothing, in the form of script, plot, or action/adventure is worth mentioning in this film. I had difficulty enjoying the first one and it was a symbolic mess about the corporate hold on its consumers, while this filth had nothing to do with ... nothing. Words came out of the actor's mouths, but they meant nothing, they stood for nothing, and half the time it just had me laughing due to the staged words that they were dealt. Again, there was no value in this film.

Chris Klein has ridden the shirt tales of American Pie for a very long time (I always saw him as the Weakest Link of those films), so he decided to take a leading man's role in Rollerball in hopes that he could transform his career into a leading man, but you can't make cardboard stand on his own. Could Chris have attempted to grow a backbone for this film ... is that possible? The words that came out of his mouth had no emotion; he was together with Rebecca Romijn-Stamos for purely the physical admiration, and someone needs to tell him that by squinting his eyes harder doesn't indicate that he is upset or angry. I cannot seem to shake the image of him riding with L.L. Cool J in the Russian night on a motorcycle using "night vision" for dramatic purposes, and Klein speaking unattached words out of my mind. It was hilarity on a grand scale. I remember the pair talking about something, but the laughter coming from my mouth was far more overpowering. Nothing (which seems to be the common theme of this film) is of value in this film. Klein proved that on more than one occasion. That isn't to say that those like LL, Jean Reno, Stamos, or even my favorite Naveen Andrews were any better. Klein led the pact with kindergarten acting skills, but Reno was completely over the top, which caused confusion as to who he was and why he was involved financially, Andrews was nothing more than filler, Stamos was used for the nudity ... that was all, and LL kept the "hip-ness" factor on a grander scale. Nobody demonstrated anything close to talent in this film and it ultimately boils down to the failure of decent director John McTiernan.

Rollerball is one of those films that gives remakes a horrid name. Even if the original wasn't worth writing home to mother about, films of this stature only place a black scar on the future of remakes. I have to be worried about McTiernan because of my enjoyment of some of his past films and how anyone could see the final cut of this film and say, "This is my best work yet!" If you cannot say those words as you hand the final reel to the distribution company, I would reconsider the release. Writing was far worse that imaginable, the acting was nowhere to be seen, and the cinematography (something I didn't feel like going into too deeply with this review) felt as if it was done by those who are afraid of camera. Honestly, I have seen better amateur work than what Rollerball had to offer. Why is this film still being distributed? This is a very dark cloud amongst the Hollywood types and am very surprised to see that everyone is still able to acquire roles in Tinsel town after this disaster. My only wish is that future directors and actors actually take pride in their work instead of just allowing the paycheck to do the talking. Ignore this film or it will haunt you the rest of your life!

Grade: * out of *****

The temptation to re-make movies is evidence of the fact that there is little creativity in Hollywood. This movie is evidence that there are people in Hollywood who should not be allowed to go to movies let alone make them.

The original is not all that great, but it was in fact original and had some very interesting photography and stunts. This version is insipid to the point of stupidity; the photography stinks, and the stunts are mostly cut-and-paste special effects.

The people who made this should be banned from any association to movie making for life! So why did I buy it? By mistake! I had a copy of the original and thought a comparison would be interesting. I was wrong. Learn from my error and avoid this like the very plague.

This remake could better be understood and appreciated if one looks at it as a "prequel" rather than a "remake". The original Rollerball is set in the far future in a 1984ish society, were as the "remake" is set only 3 years in the future (more or less it is happening right now), were the keystones of corporate society are just beginning to be set by globalization. And as you know in the "real world," two of the main players of globalization in the Middle East and Central Asia is the Red Mafia and Islamdom, which of coarse are dependent on Rollerball in the "remake" for their wealth. Yes, there are differences in the two versions. Rollerball in the "remake/prequel" is like most novelty sports (XFL, WWF, NWO, X-Games); the players are social rejects (criminals, psychotics, Goths, thrill seekers, or athletes from mainstream sports that play too rough), it is a coed sport (so much in this sport, that the leader of the Istanbul Hawks is a woman, despite representing an Islamic State: note continual footage of the woman with the sunglasses), heavy rock music being played, uniforms that represent individual personalities, it serves as a front for gambling and other criminal enterprises, and is (officially) non-lethal. Rollerball in the "original," is played by respected and law-abiding individuals, it is for men only, the music played is classical or at least contemporary classical, uniforms are well....uniformed, the sport replaces war as the chief vehicle of socially acceptable violence in an "One-Nation World", and there is no denying that the game's lethality is the whole point of the game! The key is you need to see where two movie overlap outside of having the same title. At the start of the film, you have Global leaders visiting Petrovich, with an interest in expanding this Islamo-Soviet sport ; are these people the founders of Energy Inc? The game, in the prequel, for the first time, changes its rules; in the original film, the Houston coach mentioned that the game has had numerous changes, but was still the same game (obviously two of those rule changes did away with female players and personalized outfits,). So is Jonathan E actually Jonathan Cross? Is Jonathan E.'s estranged wife Aurora? In a Special Edition Version of Jewison's Rollerball, will you have La Guillotine digitally added to Team New York (another rule change, no team nicknames), to add to the mayhem? Will Chopin and Stravinsky replace Rob Zombie and Pink as Rollerball musicians? Probably no, no, no, and yes. But could it be true that an unknown Pay-Per-View Sport becomes society's answer to it's ills 100 years from now, yes.

I'll keep it short and simple.

At least for me, there are moments in life that redefine pain and pleasure. A point that you can use to envy or be thankful for. Like if you won the lottery. I'm sure that every good thing that happened to you from then on would be slightly paler in comparison. You might get a free bun from cinabon and think, "Mmmm, this is a good bun...but it's not as good as that one time I won the lottery.

Rollerball is the opposite of winning the lottery. If the lottery was where once a year someone was picked to get puched in the face on world-wide television, and one year it happened to be you, the feeling you would get of dread and unjustice would be close to how it feels to watch Rollerball. Rollerball redefined pain for me. Last month I had a horrible case of the stomach flu and spent most of 2 days staring into the toilet. During that time I was seriously thankful that at least I wasn't watching Rollerball.

I guess that is at least one benefit of the movie, and justifies it getting one star. Now all the bad things that happen to me don't seem to be that bad anymore. Car Accident? Well at least I'm not watching Rollerball...Pet Died? At least the pet is in a place where I am sure this movie does not exist...Forget to pay the rent and get kicked out of your appartment? You get the picture.

Money spent on paying someone to physically harm you is money better spent than buying Rollerball. Because Rollerball hurts you in more ways :(

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.

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)

I had high hopes for this movie.I actually thought it would be at least a little bit decent.It wasn't.It was pure garbage.I had to leave this movie after the first 30 minutes.Its that bad.Avoid this movie at all costs.

This movie is just plain sad. In addition to mediocre acting, the special effects were just as bad. In one scene you could plainly see the safety wire connected to the motorcycle. Bad diologue and senseless nudity made the film even worse. The plot drug and the resolution could have been solved a little sooner than it did. They came up with a lame chase scene with an airplane cruising on the ground after a motorcycle. Maybe that was a last ditch effort to make the movie a little bit more exciting. The only slightly interesting character was played by LL Cool J. His on camera presence is always rather captivating to me. It also carried him through a poorly written character. Since most of the movie took place on the track, there was more of the game than I could really put up with. Avoid it.