Rollerball (2002)

R   |    |  Action, Sci-Fi, Sport


Rollerball (2002) Poster

The big thing in 2005 is a violent sport which can have some pretty serious consequences... like dying.

TIP
Add this title to your Watchlist
Save movies and shows to keep track of what you want to watch.

3/10
24,147

Videos


Photos

  • LL Cool J in Rollerball (2002)
  • Rebecca Romijn in Rollerball (2002)
  • Rollerball (2002)
  • Chris Klein and LL Cool J in Rollerball (2002)
  • John McTiernan in Rollerball (2002)
  • John McTiernan in Rollerball (2002)

See all photos

More of What You Love

Find what you're looking for even quicker with the IMDb app on your smartphone or tablet.

Get the IMDb app

Reviews & Commentary

Add a Review


User Reviews


7 March 2003 | pzanardo
1
| How to get an awful mess remaking a good film
I suspected 2002 "Rollerball" was an ugly movie, but not that ugly! Well, let's get rid of the only merit of the movie: the presence of Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, beautiful and tremendously sexy. Indeed, a statuesque female warrior is always sexy, all the more with that alluring scar on her face.

The tragic fact with "Rollerball" is that the story should be good, per se. The authors took the ideas from the original (and true) 1975 "Rollerball". They deleted the political and moral messages, which were somewhat a weakness of the 1975 film, and placed the story in some remote countries of a near future, allegedly ruled by violence, greed, abuse. But the way the film is made turns it into a disaster.

There is an over-long (and boring) preamble, with a race down-hill of some cretinous youngsters, in San Francisco. This is a great narrative mistake. The audience is anxious to know about the Rollerball game, and you excruciate them with idiots, easily found, alas!, in everyday life. In the next scene Jonathan (a remarkably blunt Chris Klein) has become the undisputed superstar of the Rollerball. We don't understand anything of the rules of the game. As a matter of fact, we don't understand anything of the plot! The guys on the screen keep talking about other guys, seemingly killed by the bad ones, or something like that. Who are who? The audience utterly ignores it. The next scene (say: someone escaping from somewhere) has no logical connection with the previous one. I bet that in the final editing of the movie a good 30 minutes were cut, making the story a complete mess. The only thing we get is that the villains deliberately provoke accidents on the field to raise the TV audience of the game. And then there is the lousy greenish nocturnal scene. Up to my knowledge, the worst visual idea in the history of cinema. Some 15 minutes of sufferings for the innocent viewer. The ending is even more ludicrous than expected.

But what is really incredible, even in a terrible movie, is that, in spite of the enormous technological improvements, the scenes of the game, and related special effects, are by far less spectacular, exciting, violent than those of the 1975 "Rollerball". The possibly interesting presence of women playing Rollerball is not exploited at all. The uniforms of the teams are worse than horrible, they are stupid.

There's nothing to save in "Rollerball". Just take Romijn-Stamos and bring her to another movie (keeping the scar on her face, if possible).

Metacritic Reviews


Critic Reviews



Details

Release Date:

8 February 2002

Language

English, Russian, French, Arabic, Korean, German, Japanese


Country of Origin

USA, Germany, Japan

Filming Locations

Blainville, Québec, Canada

Box Office

Budget:

$70,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend:

$260,728 (Spain) (25 January 2002)

Gross:

$18,990,798 (USA) (23 May 2002)

Featured on IMDb

Check out our guide to the SXSW 2019, what to watch on TV, and a look back at the 2018-2019 awards season.

Around The Web

 | 

Powered by ZergNet

More To Explore

Search on Amazon.com