Rollerball Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Get In The Game.
Go Ballistic
Mezameyo tôsô honnô [Japan]
Johnathan Cross, a lover of extreme sports, is recruited by Alexi Petrovich to star in his sportive invention, Rollerball. Johnathan accepts and learns the ropes of 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. So, Alexi starts to bribe members of the different teams to cause more trouble than necessary on the field, and the viewers love it. Only a little later, Johnathan's life is already in extreme danger as well as those of his friends and teammates. In a final game, Johnathan and his team have to fight for mere survival against their real opponent - their boss Alexi Petrovich.
| Chris Klein | Jonathan Cross |
| Jean Reno | Alexis Petrovich |
| LL Cool J | Marcus Ridley |
| Rebecca Romijn | Aurora |
| Naveen Andrews | Sanjay |
| Oleg Taktarov | Denekin |
| David Hemblen | Serokin |
| Janet Wright | Coach Olga |
| Andrew Bryniarski | Halloran |
| Kata Dobó | Katya |
| Alice Poon | Red Team #7 |
| Lucia Rijker | Red Team #9 |
| Melissa R. Stubbs | Red Team #12 |
| Paul Wu | Red Team #16 - U Chow |
| Yolanda Hughes-Heying | Red Team #28 |
| John McTiernan |
2.60 out of 10 (8850 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Terrible missed opportunity
posted on 02 Aug 2009`Rollerball` stinks! Between the bouncing camera, the incomprehensible game, formula action scenes, lack of plot, lack of character development (who cared about the "zero" annonymous atheletes?), lack of drama in conflict moments, much too brief and rushed climb to the "climax", its hard to say in mere English just how bad this disjointed stinker really is! Absolute trash! Ten thumbs down! What could have been "cat and mouse" between good and evil, greed and honour, was a hurried rush to meaningless violence from terrible camera angles and even worse dialogue. Only a forest could be more wooden...and more exciting to watch. A meaningless indulgence in gyro-cams. Awful! P. Scanlon
Strictly children's entertainment, no visible plot or message
posted on 31 Jul 2009This 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.
A good re-make rated cheaply
posted on 17 Jun 2009No matter what others say but i managed to view both the versions of the movie, no wonder old one is a good one but other version is a great one. I am an action junkie so what i believe that this movie has more action than the older one and has a correct story line than the old one since the character of Jonathan never wanted to retire in the first one but in this one he becomes a part of a gambling ring from which he wants to be free. I believe that this movie has a great action sequences than older ones especially black widow which the first movie lacks a lot. I recommend watching this movie first and go for the other before making any judgment.Thanks
EXTREME(LY BORING) SPORT OF THE FUTURE
posted on 13 Jun 2009ROLLERBALL (2002) * Chris Klein, LL Cool J, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, Jean Reno, Naveen Andrews, Paul Heyman. Horrendous remake of the James Caan cult classic about extreme blood sports (think ESPN2 version of roller derby) set in the near future with the bland as toast Klein as the lamb led to the slaughter hotshot/innocent realizing the gaudy athleticism on display is all a shady conspiracy with Reno (overacting a storm and practically foaming at the mouth and growing fangs as the villainous magnate) in full control. Truly bad on all levels – what was usually dependable action helmser John McTiernan thinking?
Embarrassment to John McTiernan
posted on 03 Jun 2009John McTiernan has directed many good films such as The Thomas Crown Affair, The Hunt for Red October, and Die Hard. From the quality of these films, you would think he would make only good quality movies. I can assure you that Rollerball is not good, not quality, and not worth seeing. From the opening scene of the movie to the last scene, the movie is just stupid violence and action that shouldn't even be called action. It makes a laughing stock of the original '70's film. The acting is no better than a high school play, the plot is unconvincing, and the whole story is just stupid. Go ahead and see it if you want to waste your money, but you would be much better off seeing one of McTiernan's other films.
An eighty million dollar meltdown!
posted on 01 Jun 2009Wasn't it enough that Gus Van Sant destroyed whatever credibility he might claim to have had, remaking PSYCHO? Apparently not. Tim Burton had yet to insult audiences worldwide with his wimpy, trash-talkin PLANET OF THE APES. Poor old Nicolas Cage at least "tried" as he stumbled through the God-awful remake of GONE IN 60 SECONDS. Now though we have the benchmark in psychotic movie re-working! McTiernan has single handedly destroyed the memory of Norman Jewison's sci-fi classic of '74 - an exciting multi-layered social commentary way ahead of its time and like Psycho - totally UN-REMAKEABLE!ROLLERBALL 2002 in totality has way less dignity and style than even the original POSTER for the James Caan epic. Set in what is now only a few years hence, ROLLERBALL is simply a corporation-hyped ratings winner. A gladiatorial roller rink with few rules, supercharged motorbikes and a healthy blood-lust. Once the viewer interest wanes, Jean Reno, in an embarrassing re-enactment of John Houseman's wonderfully understated corporate menace in the original, simply orders a spot of bovver to keep himself and his stooges cashed up, courtesy of the ramped-up audience participation!Chris Klein obviously running a Keanu Reeves line in MATRIX-styled scowling and non-acting, is way too young for the role of Jonathan, quite apart from the fact he has less charisma than the average day Manager at KFC! The script is near incoherent, evidenced early on from the savage cutting inflicted, after disastrous test-audience reaction. Filmed as little more than a 98 minute MTV clip the action sequences are so badly choreographed with low rent pyrotechnics, the makers have fallen on the last resort of a head-banging soundtrack. Even that is totally misplaced, laughably inappropriate and evidence that most everyone involved had written the thing off way before completion.This is a film should be compulsory viewing for everyone aspiring to any gainful employment within the film production industry. Not a solitary aspect of the movie, from direction, editing, script, acting even the production department come out looking half professional. It is also a sad legacy for a lost generation of attention-deficient young audiences who need headphones to replace constructive thought.To say the film sucks is way too kind. This is without argument one of the greatest duds ever put up as entertainment Do yourself a favor and go rent the original, which offers style and thought-provoking brilliance from the memorable opening scene to the very last frame!
Joan-a-than, Joan-a-than, Joan-a-than.....!!!
posted on 22 May 2009I laughed, I cried, I threw up on my shoes.Worst piece o crapola I've seen in a while. What a waste. Jean Reno, so great in Leon (aka The Professional) and so laughable (and unintelligable) in this joke. Chris Klein should stick to comedy (actually maybe thats what he was going for here?) As for LLCoolJ? Say it ain't so LL!
Why!
posted on 22 May 2009The 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.
Who in God's name greenlighted this?
posted on 02 May 2009This movie was the most random thing I have seen in a long time. Things like entire scenes filmed with night-shot cameras and music from the 8th grade help this fact. The summary says it all, but more importantly, how did they get fairly popular actors like Chris Klein and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos to do this? Sure, LL did 'Deep Blue Sea', but even that was better. This was a really, really bad idea and movie.
A real disappointment
posted on 28 Apr 2009I decided to go see this film in spite of the bad reviews, because it stars Jean Reno, and I'm a fan of his work. Unfortunately, this is the worst performance of his career. His character is shallow and played like he was hung over most of the shooting. He has only one good line in the whole film. And it's the only humorous line in the film too.The only good performance is that of Naveen Andrews, who plays Jean Reno's sidekick/assistant. His is the only character who has any sort of personality, and you will find yourself waiting for him to appear on the screen. Not so much because his character is essential to the story, but because the rest of the film is so horribly bad. His character brings us the only human being in the film. The rest of the actors are just cartoon characters of themselves.This film has nothing to recommend it other than the action scenes. The problem there is that the action scenes are shot too close to the action, and quick cut to the point where you can't actually see the action. If they had used a shorter lens and not been so eager to change cameras every 2 seconds, this could have been a much better film. It would at least have been watchable.
Rollerball is one of the worst movies ever made.
posted on 26 Apr 2009Johnathan 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.
Why didn't they just go on strike?
posted on 24 Apr 2009I agree, this film is terrible. But I was wondering why the players didn't just go on strike in front of a global audience to protest at what was happening to them. Then again, that wouldn't make for a violent ending, would it?"If they want me to play, I'll play" (or words to that effect). Puh-leeeze!
This movie sucked!
posted on 22 Apr 2009This film has b***ardized the name Rollerball and now people in today's generation will gringe when they hear the name Rollerball and think of this remake, but if they would have seen the 1975 version... everyone would nod their head in approval and remember James Caan as Jonathan E. with the superior direction by Norman Jewison. Speaking of which, John McTiernan, I gotta tell ya...You have made so much better films than this. You should go back to writing your own stories like you did with Nomads because that movie kicked ass! And also you've directed so much better epics like Predator, Die Hard, 13th Warrior and so on. Well, folks, don't waste your money like I did on this. Just rent the original version. Or better yet... if you never did like the 1975 version, go see it! You'll hate this version and will want to buy the 1975 version! Seriously, that's how bad this movie was!
Long way down (one bad thing)
posted on 25 Mar 2009For a primer in everything that's wrong with Hollywood movies,enjoy this 95-minute seminar from onetime action-movie maestroJohn McTiernan, who may not top his LAST ACTION HERO workhere, but comes close to a tie with TOMB RAIDER for most vapidbig-budget blockbuster of recent times.There's a granule of a good idea at work here: a WWF-style circuserected in the ruins of a post-Soviet Second World economy inSomethingorotheristan. The Vince McMahon of this scavengerecosystem is Jean Reno, whose accent totters from the Slavonianto the West Gauloise: Chris Klein is ze pretty-boy Americain whodiscovers that the x-treme game of Rollerball is really a front forcorporately sponsored murders of star athletes for highratings--and guess who's next!With LL Cool J as an unbelievably retro Black Friend Who RelaysPlot Information and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, wearing a gnarlyscar on her face as if to justify her rampant toplessness, themovie, especially in its first third, plays as if it were directed by acomputer-assembled focus group comprised of twelve-year-oldboys addicted to Do The Dew commercials. In the most
obnoxious, most grotesquely produced, and most interestingsection of the movie, McTiernan tries to set up a circus ofbloodsport grotesquerie that's part manly-man cable show, partOliver Stone wigout and part "A.I." Flesh Fair. Once the moviesettles into its (absurd) plot, the bad acting of Chris Klein, whosuggests a smile painted on a broomstick, and the hideousinternational-coproduction-ness of it all (Jean Reno
laughing--laughing fiendishly!) overwhelms one's sense of humor.This is not a good-bad movie. Kirk Kerkorian, heal thyself.
Whoa
posted on 23 Mar 2009I still can't figure out why there would be a remake to an obscure movie no that no one really paid attention to when it came out. Oh, wait, yes I can. Money. Hollywood's system of rehashing every book, movie and TV show they can think of continues with Rollerball, a remake of the 1975 James Caan film. Of course, what the fairly good original had in a well-scripted plot and interesting allegory to corporate power and American bloodlust, the remake tries to make up for in bombastic music, lots o' blood, and MTV-style editing. My biggest gripe with this film, though, is the way they diced up the scenes of the Rollerball tracks to the point where you can't tell what the hell is going on; the original, at least, made the game and its rules clear. I wasn't expecting much when I went to see this mess, so I was shocked when it went below my expectations. I didn't even feel any testosterone-fueled adrenaline at the finale.Okay, I'm spending way too much time on this review. Just do yourself a favor and rent the original. Or do anything else, for that matter.
Misses the point
posted on 21 Mar 2009The original "Rollerball" was not a great movie, but it had its strengths. The thing I liked about it most was its surprisingly complex theme: that a sport was being used to create a collectivist mindset among the public (much like, some would argue, Castro uses baseball in Cuba), and that a single man (James Caan) had excelled too much in this context and had to die.My favorite part of the old film was classy villain John Houseman's line: "It's not a game in which men are supposed to grow strong. I think you appreciate that, Jonathan."This weak remake completely misses this theme--the one thread of actual content in the original. Instead, it turns into a cheap, predictable "Running Man"-type thing about violence as entertainment and how sick we all are and blah blah blah.Of course, one could make the argument that THAT theme is more relevant to our times than the old one, which in turn raises the intriguing question of whether a remake should remake an original film's values along with its story and characters. Unfortunately, this remake is so laughably bad (and the original was no Oscar-contender, either) that perhaps it's better to have that discussion elsewhere--where it would be credible to believe the filmmaker would consciously make such a decision rather than stumble into it as is undoubtedly the case here.The original "Rollerball" is like $10 on DVD now--if you have to see something about rollerskating future sports, go get that. It wouldn't kill you to never see it, but it at least provokes a little thought.One reason to see the remake--Wrestling fans will get a kick out of ECW/WWE mastermind Paul Heyman's energetic performance as the announcer.
Completely misses the point of the original movie (spoilers)
posted on 09 Mar 2009Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...........This movie has to be seen as one of the worst remakes ever. The cental character, Jonathan Cross is a real joke compared to the original Jonathan.E, played by James Caan.Caan's Jonathan E was driven to play the game and the story centres on his struggle to continue playing the game when his paymasters want him to quit. He is potentially bigger than the game which was meant to be a method of control. No-one was supposed to ever become "good" at Rollerball as it was designed to outline the futility of individual effort.Klein's Jonathan Cross is trying everything he can to leave the game and is desperate to do so. He is blackmailed into playing by the TV bosses who are desperate to get the game on American cable TV (gimme a break!).Rollerball is a story that carries the message that the human spirit cannot be broken and that no matter how difficult the challenge, the human spirit will prevail.This load of garbage loses these key elements which made the 1975 movie an extremely valid film. It was not a glamourisation of violence like the new movie. The ending is truly stupid in the new movie and is the final nail in it's coffin. In the original, Jonathan E claims victory and rolls around the arena with his name echoing around the arena. He became what the bosses where afraid he would become, a hero. In the new movie Jonathan Cross kills the network bosses and frees himself from the game.I'd advise anyone thinking of renting this film to watch the original and not to waste their time on this pile of excrement.
Nothing to remember
posted on 24 Aug 2009The only good point of the movie is its pace and the loud music. Nothing more to watch. The game sorts of get your adrenaline pumping. There is not much scope for acting. It features a good chase sequence. The ending could have been more action-packed.