Change Your Image
jcmazel
Reviews
Rollerball (2002)
not the best
Scanning other user comments I noticed many people quick to point out the multitude of flaws this film has. Which is easy to do, the film is unmitagated garbage. Bad acting, nonsensical plot, the infamous night vision sequence ( i swore my DVD player broke when this was going on), but what I didn't see mentioned (although it may have been and I missed it) was any commentary on the Rollerball sport itself.
In Jewison's original (a film I adore), the audience could easily follow the premise of the sport. Two teams circle around the ring, pick up a metal ball and try to place said ball in a metal hoop. And I suppose the sport in the remake follows the same rules, but... Why are there random jumps and little bridges all over the place? Are the teams suppose to race around in any order? Offense, defense...anything? Did anyone put the slightest degree of thought into the film at all? Well, the answer to that last question is pretty obvious. In the DVD booklet of the original RB, it is mentioned that the films stuntmen would play Rollerball in thier spare time. I'm sure the stuntmen in the remake were happier playing gameboy.
One more complaint, though Rollerball is not the only recent film this criticism could be levied against: Why is it with this recent trend of playstation/Tony Hawk action cinema are the filmmakers so petrified of showing the brutality of violence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a sadist, but from The Fast and The Furious to the infantile XXX, the horrific SWAT and the mindnumbing Rollerball, people are beaten, shot, knifed and mangled in every possible way, yet it never looks like they experience any actual PAIN!??!! I suppose no one wants to offend critical watchdogs and what not, and I'm certainly not asking for every film to be a bloodbath, but shouldn't fight sequences or gunfights give the viewer a sense of some sort of jeapordy? Shouldn't a protagnist see the consequences of his actions? When a character does die in any of these "extreme (!)" action films, the best any sort of intelligent person can hope for is a melodramatic stab at an "I feel cold" speech. And that sort of thing was old hat by the 1950's, and done with more craft and drama in the 1950's as well.
Dirty Mary Crazy Larry (1974)
Why the film is worthwhile to me...
Yes, DMCL is shot well. Yes, the car chases are great. And yes, if '70's kitch is what you seek, you'll find plenty of it here. But that's not why I love the movie.
The reason I love the movie is this : the characters. I've read other users comments regarding the lack of writing or character motivation, and there is validity to that. But hey, the selling point of the film wasn't an in-depth look at people, the selling point was watching Peter Fonda and Susan George ram their car into several other cars.
But I digress, what I love about the characters (and what I hate about the characters in most action movies today) is that they are totally unlikeable. They even hate each other. Fonda is a complete jerk to everyone. Susan George rhymes with rich and Rorke is weak and ineffectual. Hey, most the time the characters don't like each other. And it's my opinion that these characters are unlikeable by design. Think about it: when was the last time you went to the movies and the main characters were people you were suppose to dislike? Rare is it that modern filmmakers will take that chance, Even more impressive, somehow you end up routing for these people.
Bottom line, it's a good chase movie, with solid performances by two 70's icons in thier prime. If you manage to catch it, you'll probably have a good time.