What is the very worst movie you’ve ever seen in your entire life? I’m not just talking bad, I’m talking, “WOW. That was 100% booty cheeks.” Well, for me, it has to be 2002’s Rollerball, which is unquestionably the worst thing I have ever seen in my entire life.
This especially stings since it’s a TERRIBLE remake of one of the more interesting films of the ‘70s, 1975’s Rollerball, starring James Caan. Directed by Norman Jewison (the same man who directed one of Sidney Poitier’s best movies, In the Heat of the Night), Rollerball is a dystopian nightmare that is based on a short story titled “Roller Ball Murder,” written by the movie’s screenwriter, William Harrison.
It’s a fascinating picture that got a remake that completely missed the point of the original story, which I’ll talk about now.
There Is Great Social Commentary In The Original Film That Is Completely Absent In The Remake
Have you ever watched The Running Man (I mean the one with Schwarzenegger, not the recent one, which I don’t think many people saw, given its box office)? Well, I only bring it up as a frame of reference, since it deals with a future where public murder is seen as entertainment. Rollerball is similar (and predates The Running Man) in that it deals with a near future where corporations are in control, and the powers that be use a violent game of death to keep the populace entertained.
However, what’s different is that in Rollerball, which is supposed to take place in 2018 (Interestingly, the ‘80s The Running Man takes place in 2017), it is way more cynical than Arnie’s film. In the game of Rollerball, corporations want the sport’s best player, Jonathan E. (James Caan), to retire because he’s become too popular. When Jonathan refuses, big business doesn’t like that since it means that they can’t control him.
The corporations decide to let the games kill Jonathan, as they want to create a society that destroys individualism. So, Jonathan becomes a sort of folk hero, with the message of the film being that preserving who you are is worth fighting for. And that’s completely lost on the remake.
In the more recent version, Rollerball is a popular sport, but that’s about it. The story is more focused on its two leads’ (Chris Klein and Rebecca Romijn) romance, and…other stuff, I guess? It’s such a busy mess that I can’t tolerate it for more than a few minutes at a time, but it definitely lacks the commentary on big corporations that the original has, that’s for sure.
The Original Has Excellent Pacing
The ’70s is my favorite decade of film, and I think it’s because most of the best films of that era did a phenomenal job with pacing. Movies like Dog Day Afternoon, The Warriors, and a lot of Francis Ford Coppola's best films all moved at a suitable pace given their stories, and I don’t think they wasted their viewers' time.
Well, whereas the remake is a svelte 98 minutes long, and the original is 129 minutes, I still feel like the latter moves much better than the remake, mostly because we’re engaged with the story throughout the entire runtime. In the original, we’re introduced to Jonathan E, as well as his team. We get a sense of how the game is played and what role Jonathan plays in it, as he’s pretty much the Michael Jordan of the sport. We then learn about the corporate side of Rollerball, and big business’s willingness to get Jonathan to retire, to which he doesn’t approve.
All throughout, we see Jonathan himself coming to learn just how afraid of him the corporations are, and we see him understanding that the sport is bigger than him, but also that he can become bigger than the sport if he fights for what he believes in. The film ramps up a great deal midway as other players openly try to kill Jonathan, and it all ends with a satisfying conclusion.
But, the remake? Oh, Lord. There’s so much action (and Paul Heyman screaming) that it feels like it goes on forever. It’s a draining watch, even at only 98 minutes long. Have mercy.
The Original Saves The Action For When It Counts, Whereas It’s Just Obnoxious In The Remake
I recently wrote about Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, as Tarantino had something to say about them, and they’re both examples of dystopian fiction. Well, 1975’s Rollerball is also a dystopian story, and so the action isn’t really the point. The action is there to tell the story and create its world. That said, we don't really get a sense of that in the remake.
In fact, it often feels like the only purpose of the remake is to showcase how “cool” the action is supposed to be. It’s very much in your face, and even though I love LL Cool J, I kind of hate what a meathead he is in this movie. There are a lot of explosions and violence both in and outside the Rollerball arena, and I dislike the characters so much that it actually puts me to sleep rather than keeps me engaged.
In the original, the action is there when it counts. In a lot of ways, I’ve heard some people compare this movie to Spartacus, and I can see why. Jonathan E. doesn’t just fight for himself. He fights because those at the top are trying to keep people down, and if it means his sacrifice, then so be it.
It’s more of a sci-fi movie than an action flick, whereas the remake feels more like a music video for Limp Bizkit or some other band from the late '90s. In other words, all flash, no substance.
Plus, No Disrespect To Chris Klein, But He’s No James Caan
Throughout many of his best roles, James Caan always felt like a tough son of a bitch, but also one with depth. He was excellent in The Godfather, riveting in Thief, and sympathetic in Misery (RIP, Rob Reiner). But the point is, you believed him in every role he was in, no matter what it called for. And, the same can be said for his role as Jonathan E. You believe that he’s tough as nails, but also somebody who can find a greater purpose if called upon.
It’s a role that I would consider one of James Caan’s best, and I say that with no hesitation. Because honestly, I’m sure there could have been other stars of the ‘70s who could have filled this role, but it suits James Caan so perfectly. You both feel bad for him, but also root for him, just like the audience in the film.
As for Chris Klein? Well, no offense, but he’s no James Caan. I mean, I adored him in American Dreamz, as he’s really unique in that film, but he just does not pull off being a tough guy in this movie. I mean, he fits in a film like American Pie, but he doesn’t fit in a movie that once came from a short story titled “Roller Ball Murder.”
So, yeah, that’s another reason this remake sucks. The lead is completely unbelievable! And that’s a big problem, because the original is a really cool movie, and the remake is nigh-unwatchable.
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
