Search - Rollerball (+ Widescreen DVD) [Blu-ray] on Blu-ray

Why? Oh Why? This is just an outrage.

Steven J. Bissell | Denver, CO USA | 08/20/2006

(1 out of 5 stars)

"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."

What channel did you say you gave us in your territory?

A. Gyurisin | Wet, Wild, Wonderful Virginia | 10/11/2006

(1 out of 5 stars)

"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 *****"