|
|
Before wondering whether Rollerball is as bad as it sounds, the first real question was whether a remake of Rollerball (1975) was really a good idea? In the early seventies, novelists such as Pierre Boulle—read "Desperate games" had already described a totalitarian world in which violent games were used as an outlet for a population in trouble. Jewison's Rollerball was caught between an anti-utopian movement-a reaction against hippies-and a wave of sci-fi flicks. Thanks to its cult status, today the film still benefits from a rather good reputation. Remaking Rollerball was risky because of the original's solid reputation and the inevitable comparisons it would draw. As expected, McTiernan's film immediately suffered from critics,especially American ones, while remaining faithful to the original theme, preserving its substance and being visually better. McTiernan's screenwriters thought it would be good to add the—simple—idea that a live "accident" would boost ratings. They placed the intrigue in a Central Asian country, in the near future (2005) and rather than having national teams playing, they created private teams, with the whole game owned by a rich businessman and inventor named Petrovitch (Jean Reno). After Chris Klein and LL Cool J try to escape (a worthy sequence shot very boldly in infrared), the end sinks into stupidity. Jean Reno's evil character is a ridiculous caricature, and the way Klein breaks his chains, like Spartacus rollerskates, is very naive. The audience's bad reaction to the movie is the result of poor marketing implying Rollerball would be a violent, bloody blockbuster for overexcited teenagers. It is neither for teenagers nor is it a blockbuster. The violence is almost absent, probably arbitrarily cut in the editing room, as McTiernan—who didn't obtain the final cut—might have suggested. These cuts obviously altered the linearity of a plot that suffers from strange discontinuities. Rollerball is not excessively violent, as the action focuses on the economical and political issues behind the scenes. At times the film is reminiscent of Oliver Stone's Any Given Sunday and Paul Verhoeven's work. A poor cast might also have contributed to the failure of Rollerball. As expected, Chris Klein was compared to James Caan. While Caan is probably better, Klein's performance is not actually that bad but he suffers from his heartthrob image. If he can successfully break this image as Johnny Depp and Tom Cruise did, his performance in Rollerball might then be recognized. LL Cool J and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos' contribution are pretty fair but are not marketing-wise. Therefore the reaction to Rollerball was excessive since it is neither a stupid nor blurred film. The plot, sincere and naïve, isn't worse than other blockbusters, such as Jurassic Park 3 and Tomb Raider, which were welcomed much more warmly. McTiernan has undoubtedly lost his hype, after the inconclusive Thirteenth Warrior and The Thomas Crown Affair. Though the director hasn't lost his visual style, his future looks uncertain after being dropped twice by the studios. This is not an attempt to defend Rollerball, but rather an attempt to understand why it generated such a negative reaction from critics. Unfortunately, it looks like we've entered a new era where producers think it is necessary to remake any sci-fi film from the 70's. While Planet of the Apes (1967) spawned another unnecessary remake, it seems the critics spared Tim Burton as the violence and absurdity of his version was labeled "visual richness". New versions of Solaris and Westworld (with Schwarzenegger!) are also on the way and a new Solaris is in production. What's next? Remakes of A Clockwork Orange, The Omega Man, or The Stepford Wives? Who, after Pierre Boulle and Tarkovsky, will turn in his grave? Who, after Tim Burton and Gus Van Sant (Psycho), will sell his soul?
 |
|
