Rollerball

The original film was a masterpiece. Not only for the (at the time) over-the-top action, but for the marvelously clear look into the future. Only science-fiction would dare suggest the future holds society completely employed by six corporations! What a brilliant prophecy!

In the self-centered and hedonistic 70's, isn't it amazing the true gist of the original film is the attempt to keep a famous player from becoming bigger than the game he plays? One need only peruse today's business section to see how our society now strives to eliminate the notion of the individual in favor of an identity-nullifying "team concept."

So one can say the original is all about the triumph of the individual.

The 2002 version is nothing more than a haphazard mess that shows what happens when a studio changes hands and a cinematic vision is compromised for a PG-13 rating that effectively destroys the film. Rollerball could do with a well-intentioned remake; this wasn't it.................by a long shot.

The "Rollerball" movie from 1975 was brilliant because although the film was violent, it was much deeper had a lot to say about humanity--our love of violence and how easily we can be led and controlled with sports. The film was brilliant on so many levels. So, some brilliant persons thought it was a great idea to update the film...make a new version which removed all the wonderful social commentary and left us with violence and not much more. Is it any wonder that the film is currently rated #39 on IMDB's infamous Bottom 100 List? After all, folks who loved the original were sure to be angry when offered a slick but neutered version of the classic.

Early into the film, I could see why many viewers disliked this remake. The game was totally changed. Instead of the relatively simple roller derby-style game, this one includes ramps, tunnels and explosions. But the part that got me was how confusing the new game was...and the announcer even said that the game was too complicated to explain!! Didn't this make the filmmakers the least bit concerned?! In addition, the film featured all sorts of eccentric players--with court jester hats, dragon masks and more. Now remember...the original film was AGAINST folks in the game standing out and being unique! To top it off, Jean Reno's character then is heard that he's happy that the integrity of the game has been maintained...unlike in other sports! Huh??

The bottom line is that if the original film had never been made, "Rollerball" (2002) would have still been seen as a poor film. But in light of how many people loved the original and well crafted it was, watching this film is sure to frustrate most viewers....especially since a remake didn't have to be terrible and mindless.

Rollerball is a bad movie that pretty much fails on every level. It's the year 2005 and the new sport of Rollerball is very popular. Marcus Ridley {LL Cool J} recruits his friend Jonathan Cross {Chris Klein} into the very dangerous sport which may not be that luxury as it seems. One of the games promoters will do anything to get higher ratings even if that means death. I have seen the original and after watching this I wonder why they took a very good film and just ruined it. Rollerball is a poorly written movie that lacks suspense and good action. The film is just really ridiculous at times that its hard to take serious. The dialog is really lame and the characters aren't very developed . The acting is terrible with the worst probably being Chris Klein who doesn't have enough charisma to be a lead. LL Cool J was alright but he just doesn't seem to be trying. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos and Jean Reno both do a decent job but like LL Cool J, they just don't seem to really be trying. I can't blame them though as the writing is horrible and they are not given a lot of material to work with. The film is a lot more violent then the original, however, the action is still not very impressive. It also doesn't help matters that the studio got scared and went for the PG-13 rating and so the editing looks very bad. The film is about 95 minutes long but it drags on forever since its just a really boring film. The film is also confusing as some of the events that occur in the film don't really make a lot of sense. At some point during the film you will most likely stop caring. If you have seen the original then you will hate this movie. If you haven't seen it then you might like this but that's not very likely. Its just better to see the original. Rollerball is a loud and terrible film that's worth skipping and its also one of the worst films of 2002. Rating 2/10 avoid this film at all costs.

`Rollerball' is a god-awful remake of the 1975 Norman Jewison film about a fictional sport in which murdering the players becomes a primary object of the game. The original film acquired what little credibility it had by setting the story sometime in the distant future. This version is set in the present, but it tries to maintain its believability by locating the league in Southwest Asia, under the parochial assumption, I suppose, that that part of the world is every bit as alien, exotic and dehumanized as any hypothetical future society. It doesn't work. It is simply impossible for us to believe even for a split second that the owners and promoters of this sport would think they could get away with such murderous shenanigans broadcast live to millions of viewers the world over. Might not the United Nations, among other international organizations, have a thing or two to say about all this? Also, will someone please explain to me just WHAT purpose is served by having the promoters of this sport killing off their own players? Doesn't that sort of deplete their own resources for future games? I can't imagine too many people willingly signing on to engage in this sort of gladiatorial tomfoolery.

Even if we agreed to swallow the whole thing merely for the sake of the entertainment value of the film, we would be forced to admit that `Rollerball' is a chintzy, clunky, uninteresting movie in all respects. The sport itself – sort of a cross between motor cross racing, roller derby, hockey and basketball – is completely unexciting, consisting of little more than blurred figures racing madly around a cramped, claustrophobic track. Without even the context of good action sequences, `Rollerball' is forced to fall back on its dialogue and characters, which proves to be disastrous for all concerned. Chris Klein, in the role of hotshot Jonathon Cross - played by James Caan in the original - comes across as a minor league version of Keanu Reeves. LL Cool J is wasted in the part of Jonathon's American sidekick, and poor Jean Reno gets to play one of the most laughable villains we've run across in a movie in a long long long long time.

In fact, this redux turns out to be good for nothing BUT a few hearty laughs. If you are in need of such, check out `Rollerball.' It's a real hoot.

A good friend of mine, and fellow rabid film fan, said he would give me a tenner (£10) if I honestly felt that Rollerball was worth a score higher than 1/10; as much as I need the cash, I just can't bring myself to lie. Rollerball is absolutely dire and truly deserves the lowest rating possible.

A muddled, unexciting piece of drivel from the word go, John McTiernan's lousy remake of Norman Jewison's 70s cult favourite is every inch as bad as you have probably heard. Perpetually-perplexed-looking Chris Klein is unwisely cast as Jonathan (portrayed by James Caan in the original), a thrill junkie who is convinced by good friend Marcus Ridley (LL Cool J) to try his hand at Rollerball, a dangerous team sport played in Russia and its neighbouring countries.

The evil men controlling the sport, led by Alexis Petrovich (Jean Reno), are corrupt gangsters who will trade players lives in order to boost their ratings. But a brave American citizen like Jonathan isn't about to kowtow to the demands of nasty foreigners, and sets about upsetting the applecart.

To be honest, there are so many reasons to despise this movie, I really do not know where to start. I guess as good a place as any would be with director McTiernan, who seems to have lost all ability to make a decent film. This is the man who redefined the action movie in the 80s with Die Hard. He also proved he could do a decent remake with The Thomas Crown Affair. So what the hell happened here?

His Rollerball is unexciting, glossy toss that makes the mistake of pandering to the teen crowd. As a result, we get a pretty boy lead 'actor' (Klein makes Keanu Reeves look like Olivier), a rapper playing support, an ex-model (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) as the love interest, and even an inexplicable appearance by noise-merchants Slipknot. The script treats the viewer with contempt, making no attempt to explain the titular game, rendering the action scenes meaningless. If we have no idea of the rules of the sport, how the hell can we get excited about it?

Visually the film is even worse: the 'roller dome'—the arena in which Jonathan is king (despite constantly looking as if he is about to wet himself)—resembles a kids activity area rather than a tough battlefield; the players, dressed in shiny PVC, look like they're off to an S&M party; and for some reason an entire chase scene is shot viewed though some kind of night-vision goggles.

The acting ranges from poor (Reno, Romijn-Stamos) to very poor (Klein, rapidly becoming my most hated actor, and LL Cool J).

Gone is the bone-crunching realistic violence of the original film; in McTiernan's version of the sport, it seems that no-one is supposed to get hurt—if they do get injured, it's because of their unscrupulous bosses and their money-grabbing ways. Gone is the futuristic setting—this one is supposed to be in the here and now! And gone is any respect I had for JohnMcTiernan.