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.
Add a Review
-
planktonrules21 February 2019The "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. -
Theo Robertson6 January 2005The original ROLLERBALL was by no means a classic SF movie but at least the audience knew they were watching a dark futuristic thriller . This completely lame remake misfires on every level . Since it's set a couple of years in the future there's no chance it can be called futuristic . It might be described as " Dark " but that's because no one seems to have paid the electricity bill during production . But the main failing in this version is the game of Rollerball itself . In the original the game would see matches where several team members would either die or be maimed for life but in this present day version it doesn't seem anymore dangerous than American football or Rugby or any other type of contact sport . hell even bimbos are allowed to take part . in other words this is a game for wimps in comparison and this ruins the movie far more than the oft quoted aspects like the poor acting , camp sound effects and the night vision sequence
-
One point for Romijn's boobs. The rest is awfull. The end.
-
Matt_Layden8 November 2005Johnathan Cross, a lover of extreme sports, is recruited to star in Rollerball. The players are on Rollerblades, trying to bring a heavy metal ball into a high goal. Also, there are motorcyclists around to bring momentum to the players. Oh yes, and there are no rules in the game. During his skyrocketing career, Johnathan has to experience what Alexi has found out: Blood brings more viewing pleasure to the audience. In a final game, Johnathan and his team have to fight for mere survival.
Back in 1975, James Caan brought us a brutal movie in which you can literally hear every bone in the players body break. Now, John McTieran has brought that film to us again, for a new generation. With stars like LL Cool J, Rebbeca Romijn and Chris Klein you would expect it to be a pretty bad remake, but this is not the case. Rollerball does the unthinkable and gives Psycho a running for it's money as the worst remake ever created by man.
Chris Klein in every film he has been in manages to make it look as if he has no range at all. His soft voice and good looks can only go so far, and in a movie where you need to beat the living hell out of another team member, you want someone that can at least yell and make a sound beyond a bird chirp. LL Cool J is only hear to bring the film a "cool" hip look, he's suppose to be the I don't give a damn, James Dean character, but it doesn't fly. Rebbeca Romijn, well, she has a nude scene, but when it's covered in the dark, you wonder why she is even in the movie to begin with.
Rollerball is suppose to be a bloody entertaining film, but McTeirnan at no point manages to show us anything entertaining. The entire game sequences seem uninspired and drawn out. When it goes for a shock, it misses and misses completely. I'm still wondering if LL Cool J's character is dead or alive, but apparently it's not important to the story. LL Cool J probably knew that this was going to be garbage and left the movie, leaving the film crew to make his character disappear. I don't blame him.
Not even the professional himself, Jean Reno save this film from the ultimate horrible experience that we all will endure from seeing this film. In a film about violence in sports, you would expect to see some, but when you have a PG-13 rating, you know that it was targeted to make money and nothing else.
I can't understand why someone would want to see this film, the final action sequence is yet another let-down in this horrible tripe. The only thing that this film has going for it, is it's 97 minute length, so if you do have the unfortunate experience of sitting through it, it will be over soon enough. -
lemon99312 June 2004After knocking off 26 positive reviews I felt the need to slaughter a cinematic turkey of mammoth proportions. And this it. This movie will depress anyone who loves movies. I would hate to encounter anyone who likes this piece of sewage. There is nothing of value on screen: from the horrid acting of LL Cool J to the gratuitous street luge scene. If the director had an ounce of humor he would have used The Trashmen's "Surfin' Bird" here. But that would be asking too much. Instead, the film makers get together and trash a classic. When this happens someone must step in and play policeman and arrest the Hollywood perpetrators involved in this criminal mischief. You have the right to remain silent. Anything--Well, forget it. I believe the director lost his mind. The night vision scenes were visual poison. Puke green. Fuzzy. Shockingly enough, an entire reel or two of this utterly useless footage of a chase of some kind made it into the movie. I have this feeling the film was unintentionally overexposed. The Rollerball game cannot be followed by anybody sober. Loud. Noisy. What are the rules? There is not a scintilla of drama anywhere in this motion picture. Take this stinker out to the curb before it contaminates the rest of your dvd collection or damages your player. Wretched. Shame on all who were involved. And a pox on their homes, too.
-
tomimt5 January 2007Original 'Rollerball' was a movie about dystopia future, where huge corporations ruled the world and there was no wars. But the blood lust of people had to be compensated, so there was this game called Rollerball, which was full of action, thrills and kills. But then one of the players was in the verge of becoming too big. He, Jonathe E. was a threat to the rule.
We can forget all about that with this remake of that 70's classic. There is no political metaphor, no philosophical questions about humanity, in fact there is no sense at all, if you don't count nonsense, about the movie. John McTiernan, director of such classics as 'The Predator' and 'Die Hard' has managed to make a movie, that is in one word, poor.
With some idiotic excuse the main protagonist Jonathan (at least the name is same), gets in the hazardous game of Rollerball with his pal Marcus (LL Cool J). Soon he notices, that there is something fishy about the game.
There isn't anything worthwhile to mention about the film. Tiernan directs like a man, who hasn't directed a single piece of film in his life. The plot is idiotic and the main baddies are pretty much camp material. The action is poorly choreographed and the editing tries so badly to be music video like, that it's flat out funny.
Can't really figure any reason for anyone to see this film.
Rating: 1 out of 10
Camp rating: 4 out of 10 -
danglar_moscovitz-128 February 2005I was really speechless after watching "Rollerball". I expected a dull movie, not something so dreadful. "Rollerball" has all the elements to make one of those bizarre cult classics from the 70's and 80's. Except the fun element.
The movie starts with the worst police chase in years. Believe me, any Lorenzo Lamas movie, even one featuring appearances from Dolph Lundgren, can be capable of a car chase better than this: we see Chris Klein running from police in a mix of skateboard and racing-car, in San Francisco. Then, helped by his friend LL Cool J., he goes to an Asiatic country. There, the most popular game is the Rollerball, a mix of basketball and roller-skating that seems to be deadly and a great money-maker. Rollerball is controlled by Jean Reno's character, the average "mad-business-man" stereotype. Then, we learn that Chris Klein is having an affair with his Rollerball partner, Rebbeca Romjin-Stamos.
What comes next is not worth telling. Of course, Chris, LL and Rebbeca will make a rebellion against Jean Reno. But there isn't anything new in this idea. It's wasted by a script that, once tries to make a cheap social critic, then tries to shove action sequences in the screen at all coasts, and both are really bad.
The acting is at the last level. It's incredible to see Jean Reno, an actor that is mostly great (watch "Red Rivers") making such a mess with his role. It's so stereotyped and has so less to do (despite it's importance in the plot) that you can completely forget about it. LL Cool J. is a special case: he keep going well for a while, and then completely disappears, showing that, maybe, good acting wasn't allowed in Rollerball rules.
Oh, the main couple. Chris Klein and Rebbeca Romjin-Stamos. Well, Rebbeca is incredibly sexy in this role, and it's nice to see her in topless scenes, so we can forget she's so bad here. And Klein. Let's just say Chris Klein will NEVER work in an action movie anymore. At least we hope so.
In the end, the movie is a complete mess. Is not only a waste of money, but also waste of time, celluloid and Jean Reno. That is a complete sin. It feels like director John McTiernan wanted so badly to make a stylish movie that he forgot to make a good movie. -
BA_Harrison2 April 2007A 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 hurtif they do get injured, it's because of their unscrupulous bosses and their money-grabbing ways. Gone is the futuristic settingthis one is supposed to be in the here and now! And gone is any respect I had for JohnMcTiernan. -
joopaul4 January 2016First of all the original film needs to be rated much higher on this site. Anything below an 8 never mind a 7 is criminal. 6.6 ?
Anyway back to this utter **** up remake. McTiernan you ought to be thoroughly ashamed to even call this film 'Rollerball'. Was the editor being fxxxed up the arse sideways while he pressed the buttons?? $70,000,000 budget on what - plastic surgery for the acting line-up and foie gras sandwiches?
What in hell's name was the film about? It was disjointed and impossible to follow. Dialogue - forget it. The characters barely developed during the whole film and you couldn't care if they got bludgeoned to death during the game anyway.
Save your money or down a few pints instead !! -
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). -
spiffythedog31 December 2002Many people call this movie horrible, but I see it as a masterpiece of bad cinema. I can't believe anyone would find this entertaining - its hilarious! It made me laugh harder than most comedies out at the time and it also makes you feel good when you realize you had absolutely nothing to do with the making of this movie. Thank you, Rollerball! Bless your heart!
-
riaan-46 September 2006Once again it can be said that this movie is not as bad as they make it out to be. Sure it was not exactly Oscar winning material, but to put it in the bottom 100 is just crazy. It's so easy for people to jump on the bandwagon and collectively dump on a movie (eg. Gigli), saying it's the 'Worst movie ever made' etc etc, clearly these people have never seen drek like "Rollerball Seven' or 'Space Mutiny' or even 'Leprechaun 4', those movies were BAD. Yes this was a remake, and the plot stays pretty much the same as the original, futuristic game played with motorbikes and roller blades, but it does not come close to the James Caan original. It's worth a watch if it's showing late one night on TV, might even be worth a rental on DVD. Watch it and judge for yourself.
-
Seikan12 February 2005Never in my life have I seen something held together by cameo appearances... I mean, this has to be the most commercialized, corporate movie I have ever seen.
From the god awful Slipknot's appearance to the Ben Affleck of the next generation Chris Klein, the only uplifting experience was Jean Reno, because he is the coolest actor since Samuel L. Jackson.
And seriously, for a movie made just four years before its set-time, it went way overboard.
Oh and a fun fact: ECW and WWE's Paul Heyman is that annoying commentator you see from scene 1... and generally in each and every scene afterwards.
From wrestling (Heyman), fake metal (Slipknot) to horrible acting (Klein) and a poor storyline that can truly only be outdone by Gigli, I find myself wanting to rip out my left kidney if not for the fact I already did so watching Gigli. -
anborn300031 October 2004The 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. -
abarsby22 September 2004With all the starving in the World, some coke abusing studio Exec gave the OK to spend 70 million US on THIS travesty ! I assume this person lost their job.
It is just like watching an episode of the TV show Gladiators, all the combatants have stupid names and costumes, and the grand oval Rollerball tracks of the original have been replaced with a tiny, cheap looking hamster run figure eight, littered with jumps, that is barely 25 yards in length !
But what really kills the film is the God awful "Directing".
What was John Mac doing ? The Rollerball games themselves are impossible to follow because he is constantly cutting from close up to close up at a frenetic pace (possibly because none of the actors can actually skate ?) The result is you cannot follow what on earth is going on.
The only good performance in this film is from LL Cool J, and what with him being a black actor, then inevitably, he gets killed, and we are forced to suffer "Keanu-lite"; Chris Klein from there after.
This film really is the pits. I hear that the "Special Edition DVD" is just an empty box. -
Norman Jewison's 1975 film 'Rollerball' is not a perfect film, it did have pacing issues, had heavy-handed moments and James Caan and John Houseman's characters were the only interestingly developed ones. The rollerball sequences however are truly exciting and harrowing, it's thought-provoking and relevant, it's well made and acted it has a powerful ending and it has some of the best use of classical music in film.
Whatever faults the original had, it's a masterpiece compared to this dreadful mess, which makes all the few faults of the original, magnifies them by a thousand and makes a plethora's worth of flaws on top. The remake of 'Rollerball' not only fails spectacularly as a remake, down there as the worst and most pointless ones out there along with 'Psycho', 'The Wicker Man' and 'Stepford Wives', but is catastrophically bad film in its own right. It is truly hard to believe that it was directed by the same man responsible for great films like 'The Hunt for Red October', 'Predator' and especially 'Die Hard'. One of the biggest falls in film quality ever and John McTiernan's worst film by a significant degree.
Not even the usually game and more Jean Reno is enough to save it, but actually comes off the least badly. The acting is very poor, and this is at best, especially from a chronically wooden and personality deprived Chris Klein, in a role that even the best of actors working today would struggle to do anything with, and Rebecca Romijin-Stamos who doesn't even try to act. Character development may not have been a strong suit in the 1975 film, but at least the two lead characters were interesting. Here there were no interesting characters at all, all of them severely underwritten ciphers.
McTiernan's direction has no style, personality, tension or energy of any kind, it's uncharacteristically incompetent career-worst and career-killing worthy direction and 'Rollerball' is a strong contender for the worst-directed film of that year. Don't expect good visuals either, 'Rollerball' is cheap, chaotic, too darkly lit and is to me has some of the worst editing for any film not to have SyFy or The Asylum's involvement. Eric Serra's, regular composer for Luc Besson's films, music score is never dynamic, in fact it's discordant and intrusive, and has nothing memorable about it.
School sports days are more exciting and suspenseful than the action here, and considering they and bullying were the lowest points of my school life that is not a compliment. No sense of danger, no tension, too darkly lit, chaotically edited and sometimes incoherent as well as too clean and glossy for something actually intended to be very dangerous (when it did try to be more violent it was gratuitously so), a huge problem for a film where it features heavily at the expense of everything else. The ending is as wet as a drip and floppy as badly out of date cabbage.
Dialogue is truly risible and should never have approved beyond first draft, and even earlier than that, the pace is so pedestrian the slowest snail moves faster in comparison and the story is redundant in all senses with no thrills or fun, lack of coherence is also an issue as is the jumbled structure.
Altogether, a catastrophically bad mess with no redeeming values (not even Reno). In the top 10 of the worst and most pointless remakes ever and on its own terms as a film it's not much better, even worse actually. 1/10 Bethany Cox -
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. 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".
There was absolutely nothing science fiction about this film outside of the possibility of the actual Rollerball game being a rather sci-fi-esquire 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. 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. 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? 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 ***** -
This rat turd has nothing to do with Harrison's story or Jewison's 1975 SF classic, and using their title this way should be criminally prosecutable.
The director, fearing (perhaps rightly) that today's relatively illiterate and dense younger audiences couldn't follow the subtle plot and story arcs of the original, settled for a limp cartoon featuring a grinning plastic hero (Keanu Reeves without the dramatic flair) and a fast whiz-bang pace to make sure no one notices that this emperor has no clothes. I noticed, thank you.
Don't waste your time; rent the original and see why it's been a cult classic for 30 years, whereas this one was forgotten in 30 days.
The original Jonathan E's search for how the status quo came to be, and why man had lost control of his destiny, was central to the theme -- completely ignored in the 2002 cheap Chinese knockoff. HIs quote, "It is as though at some time in the past we were given a choice to trade our freedom for comfort...." wouldn't even make sense in the remake, and the original ending -- affirming the ascendancy of the individual and (my interpretation) sounding the death knell for the Corporations -- had to be scrapped.
Comparing the two versions: Compare the magnificent organ intro of the original (Bach's Toccata und Fugue in D-Minor) with the trashy barking of the 2002 sound track -- that says it all. It's like picking up two tools, one by Snap-On and the other by Chinese-made "Buffalo tools: the difference is instantly apparent.
For those who have seen both and prefer the newer version, I have naught but contempt, or perhaps pity. It's those feeble souls that in Jewison's future world would willingly trade the gold of freedom for the dross of comfort. -
xristosdomini7 June 2013There are bad films...... and then there are films like Rollerball. I'm still trying to figure out why someone thought that this would be a good idea.
The acting is "meh" at the best of times, the script is bizarre and who in their right mind thought Rebecca Romijn would pull off a fake Dutch accent?
... and a ten minute sequence filmed with a NightVision filter? It could have worked if it had been filmed in first-person, but the angles make it illogical at best. It's like The Fast and the Furious had a kid with Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome... and it had a severe mental disability. The only reason this gets a 1-star rating is because it is impossible to give it a 0-star rating. -
joepublic23 December 2003I wasn't expecting much. In fact the poorest of poor reviews that this film received had made me curious enough to watch this it (for free on cable I might add). Firstly I should say that I am not a huge fan of the original movie, it is a reasonable action film, so my dislike does not stem from a loyalty to the first incarnation of this story. My dislike for the 2002 Rollerball comes from a feeling of being patronized by everyone involved in the making of this movie. How did the producers ever think that this was acceptable on any level?
The acting is second rate but what is to be expected from one of the worst casts ever assembled? Klein is worthless unless he is making a joke of his own persona (Election), LLcoolJ is one of a string of rappers that should never be given a 'tough guy' role simply because of his real profession and Reno, the one talented actor among them, seems to slip into pantomime dame territory. I will give Paul Heyman praise for his character as the English announcer, he seems to come across as a decent and fairly charasmatic actor but he does little that he doesn't do brilliantly in his day job.
The attempted satire relating to the commercialisation of sport and its reliance on violence is pathetically toothless. The direction is simply a mess. The attempt to make this non-sensical sport look breathtaking through rapid editing and instant replay is awful. It does nothing but make you realize that restrained directing and editing are a wonderful thing.
Rollerball represents everything that is wrong with mainstream Hollywood movies. It shows a lack the of originality, does this version add anything to the original version?, that has dogged film for years. I cannot believe that there are so few new ideas that we have to see cult action movies, cult British crime movies and television shows remade over and over again. This movie should be avoided at all costs. -
Dreadful. At least three times during the movie, I contemplated turning the TV off but resisted, feeling I should at least finish what I'd started.
There is NO character development--not that any of the characters (less two) were ever formally introduced. I barely knew who was who in this movie. There was also very little plot development, for that matter. To make it worse, this has probably got to be one of the most incoherent movies I've ever seen! I gave up trying to figure out what was going on and why. The story went here, there, and everywhere, without really explaining what was happening, and with very little dialogue. Much of what was done and said made very little sense. Did I mention the camera work was poor? Is it any wonder that I kept staring at the clock, keeping track of how much longer I had to endure?
But don't take my word for it. If you've got a couple hours to kill, watch it and wonder for yourselves why this movie ever made it to theatres. -
knoerer16 February 2003This is actually one of the best five Hollywood movies from 2002. The film Verhoeven always dreamed of making. Only superfluous thing about it: remnants of plot and morality. The rest is speed and noise, sex and violence. Great stuff, really.
-
Ghost_Man_66630 January 2024Look, I get the gripe, it's nowhere near as good as the original. But let's face it, it's not like this was some movie with a huge budget, filmed with massive stars like some movie remakes (gone in 60 seconds, the Italian Job). I mean if Paul Heyman is a lead actor what can you really expect. Therefore, stop trying to take this movie seriously. If you put aside your over the top expectations for LL Cool J to Cary the whole movie around, and just enjoy the fun and spectacle. This movie has some Kickass music, violence, gratuitous nudity, and an absurd plot. Just have some fun people, and it it's not for you, that's ok. But let other people enjoy the fun.
-
I'm the sort of person who loves watching bad movies, and I've been trying to see this movie for years because of its reputation. Now that I've seen it, I can say that it is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. Forget Manos the Hands of Fate, Plan 9 from Outer Space, From Justin to Kelly, Battlefield Earth or whatever - this movie takes it. It is HORRIBLE. I think it features some of the worst cinematography and poorest editing I have ever seen, and I don't really understand why because the individuals involved in this movie (Director, Editors, Cinematography) are not really bad at what they do (at least if their other movies are any proof) . There are sequences included in this movie where you'll be looking at an unfocused close-up of a character you've never seen, followed by a cut to a totally unrelated scene, then another cut to an unfocused close-up of another random character that you'll never see again, with half of their face in frame for about 1 second before they move out of frame and there's another cut to an unrelated situation.
I have never even written a review before on IMDb but I just *had* to write one about this movie. The only thing moderately enjoyable about this movie is the DVD commentary, which features LL Cool J rambling on about random topics and complaining when he gets blown up before the end of the movie. Unlike most bad movies that are at least fun to watch because of how horrible they are, this movie is beyond laughably bad, it's simply UNWATCHABLE. See it only if you want to be assured that you've seen THE WORST MOVIE to ever hit theaters.