Product: Rollerball (2002)
Rating: 1.0
Why You Should See This Movie......
I remember seeing the original James Caan film on then-network television. The anti-corporate culture of the 1960s had been beaten down, so a film about a "central" corporation running the world was a novelty (well--novel to me at that time). Plus, I loved roller derby (ask your grandparents what that is), and Rollerball had lots of action--but no Raquel Welch, like in Kansas City Bomber (unfortunately)--but not all that weepy, overwrought emotion--like in Kansas City Bomber (which was fortunate). Heck, when you start with one of the better "B" movies of all time, how hard can a remake be?Apparently, it's really, really hard. Other reviews here can give you the gut feeling that this movie stinks (and lord have mercy--it's a stinker), but there are specific reasons why this movie misses so badly. First & foremost--If you're going to make a movie about a "game," you might want to explain what the "game" is & then be roughly consistent with the game. If I had not seen the James Caan version, I'd have no idea what "rollerball" was from watching this movie. Then, as the "rules" changed in this film, it becomes impossible to follow what is happening during the game. What's on the screne just makes no sense at all. Even in classic roller derby, you had "jammers" who scored points between the fights & "interviews" (find the oldest person you know & ask them to explain it to you--if they can).Second, I don't know if it's a question of style, but this film features zillions of tight close-ups of action, with most of the "action" happening outside the frame. Think of a boxing match, and during a jab to the jaw, the frame is filled with the elbow of the guy getting hit--And you don't know if it's boxing, arm wrestling, or My Dinner with Andre. Plus, the camera shakes a lot as well--just in case you might be on the verge of understanding what's going on. It's like the cheapest monster movie you've ever seen, where instead of buying a big rubber suit for the monster, the director points the camera at some object behind the actor's back & shakes the camera to show something is happening.Next, there are no characters. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is sometimes the strong, silent John Wayne-type (you'd think that would be Chris Klein's role, but you'd be wrong), and then weepy & clingy--for no apparent reason. She has this "now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" scar on her face that upsets her sometimes--who knows why; The Duke never got weepy about his marks. She also lifts weights topless in total darkness--successfully pissing off everyone who doesn't want a nude scene & really pissing off everyone hoping for some hint of a nude scene as a consolation prize. What kind of an "R" rated movie is this? Ms. Romijn is a talented actor (I guess that's why she married John: opposites attract), but the statute in "The Maltese Falcon" had more to work with than she has in this turkey...Chris Klein is terrible--even if he had something to work with (which he doesn't). To call LL Cool J's character "two dimensional" is an insult to the depth of two-dimensional characters everywhere. Jean Reno's part (he's the George Steinbrenner of Rollerball) just doesn't make any sense. No one else even exists in this movie--they just zip through like a big flock of faceless black birds.Ultimately, this movie is just random bits of crap spliced together, abandoning all hope of logic or story. To give you an idea of just how disjointed this film is, at one point (don't ask why--trust me, if I explained it, you'd be way sorry), Mr. Klein & Mr. Cool J are running away from the Rollerball "Circus," and Jean Reno is chasing them. For an inordinately long time, we see the scene in some kind of "night vision" photography. The protagonists race motorcycles towards a bridge, while being shot at, and the bridge explodes. The "night vision" stops, and we are back to Jean Reno and his gunmen. Who was using the night vison? Maybe Mr. Reno's gunman who haa a high power rifle with a scope--only it's now daylight. If you have to ask why gunmen use "night vision" scopes during the day--you should watch another movie.But--as I asked at the beginning--why should you see this movie? I'll tell you. You watch a scene, and think "Wow. That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen." Then comes the next scene, and you think "Holy cats! That was even dumber than the last scene!" And after the next scene, you think "Jeez Louise! A new record in dumb" And the scene after that you think "O.K. Now *that* had to be the dumbest scene ever." But the next scene is even worse! How long can the director (John McTiernan) keep this up? [...]