Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Rollerball

  1. #11
    Ugh, you don't think I remember these names do you? And they're ALWAYS mentioning Showgirls on that show, so they've seen it. They rarely mention Speed 2 though...

    BTW, Roger Ebert gave it half a star! http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert...roller08f.html
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

  2. #12
    Ok, yeah, the chinstrap thing but, like I said, I don't think he wanted to like it. He mentions that line "Play well tonite," by Reno. That has EVERYTHING to do with the plot. I suspect that by that point in the movie, Ebert had shut down and wasn't paying much attention to anything beyond his popcorn.

    I go to the movies to be entertained. It's nice to think once in a while, but mostly I just like to have a good time. Rollerball manages to deliver. But then again, what do I know?

  3. #13
    Originally posted by stillakid
    ...But then again, what do I know?
    That depends on your assesment of "Speed 2: Cruise Control". It's easy to badmouth "Batman & Robin", but what do you have to say about Speed 2?
    Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

    "In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"
    The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

  4. #14
    Originally posted by JediTricks
    That depends on your assesment of "Speed 2: Cruise Control". It's easy to badmouth "Batman & Robin", but what do you have to say about Speed 2?
    First I'll say that I never walk out of a movie. If I'm going to critique something later on, I feel it's my duty to see it through to the bitter end. Batman and Robin was a real test of my convictions, but dammit, I made it to the credits. Plus Alicia is a hotty, but if it wasn't for her, who knows.

    I didn't see Speed 2, I'm not sorry to say. While indeed I have no basis for critique of it, my impression from an outsider point of view is that it probably wasn't very good. I base that on the ridiculous premise that puts good girl, Sandra Bullock, in another precarious situation. It's one thing for a guy like James Bond to face danger from one film to the next, because he goes looking for it. But placing the girl next door in peril again was such an obvious attempt to make something up for the sake of a sequel that I opted to pass. Some sequels work well, like ALIENS, but that only did because it "continued" the story that had been set up. As far as I can tell the only continuity in Speed 2 was Sandy. Silly.


    PS. The original Rollerball is on tv right now, actually, and I did a double take when I saw MOTTI in a couple of scenes. Small world.

  5. #15
    SO, is somebody's movie critiquing credibility shot when the don't like Lord of the Rings and absolutely love Rollerball?

    Stab the eyes of whoever keeps bringing up Batman and Robin and Speed 2. Do I keep reminding you of the time you stuck a BB rifle up your nose and pulled the trigger? Hmmmm? (Which is more painful? BB up the nostril or Speed 2/B&R marathon in Pan & Scan....)

    I went in and watched about ten minutes of Rollerball and gagged on the obtuse "hammer it over the audiences head" plot point that corporate greed is evil. I like my film making more sublte and nuanced, thanks. And Chris Klein has about as much acting talent as a cardboard toilet paper tube. The original Rollerballwas original when it came up with the idea 30 years ago. The idea of trying to turn this into a "hot issue" in today's society is about as original as bringing back pet rocks.

    Rollerball's only redeeming value was the trailer for Showtime! with DeNiro, Eddie Murphy, Rene Russo, and William Shatner. "Good one, T.J." THAT looks funny!

  6. #16
    Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
    SO, is somebody's movie critiquing credibility shot when the don't like Lord of the Rings and absolutely love Rollerball?
    I hope not!?! Credibility isn't (or shouldn't) be based on "what" a person likes, rather in how fairly it is judged. For instance, if I just went off half-cocked on, say, Britney Spears's new movie before I had even seen it, just because it's obviously a gimmick to get her fans into the theater, that would be disingenuous and call into question credibility. Comparing my (or anyone's for that matter) "critique" of LOTR with Rollerball is like comparing apples to oranges. I like Filet Mignion (sp?), but can't I enjoy a Big Mac just as well?

    LOTR set out to translate a popular series of books (which I haven't read) into a motion-picture, which it did. Without the underlying layer of knowledge, which so many fans had before the film, I found several "problems" with the movie itself that hindered my ability to enjoy the story fully. Relative to DUNE (which I have read), I found the Lynch film to be a terrible translation whereas many people who didn't read the book had no problems with it.

    Rollerball won't be up for any Oscars, but it didn't set out to be either. It accomplished it's goal (as far as I know) of being a fun movie (for me).

    I appreciate subtlety as much as anyone. In fact, I've been a huge advocate of it for the Star Wars saga as I found TPM to be so heavy-handed that I was almost certain that it was directed by the likes of Joel Schumaker.

    Everything is relative. If you go into a movie like Rollerball or Speed looking for carefully crafted and interwoven threads of plot, like maybe you saw in The English Patient, you're going to hate it. If you go into a movie expecting no more than what it is designed to deliver, you can let go and enjoy what it has to offer. That was the problem with TPM all along. By bearing the Star Wars label, it had the responsibility (and our expectations) to live up to it's predecessors, but it didn't.

    It's all about context.

  7. #17
    So your rationale is you thought Rollerball was going to be campy, kitschy fun and that's what you got so therefore it's a good movie?

    Isn't that like sticking your hand under a dog's butt and expecting it to crap in your hand. Since you "expected" it, you can judge it fairly. But that doesn't mean it isn't doggie poo in your hand.

    I have seen what McTiernan can do. Hunt for Red October. Die Hard. Rollerball isn't even close to what the man's capable of.

    And comparing two films is like comparing apples and apples. They are both films. If you wanted to compare a painting or a ballet to Rollerball, THAT would be apples and oranges. But Rollerball and LOTR are the same medium.

    I don't go into movies expecting intricate, nuanced performances, but I believe the filmmakers should strive for that kind of perfection in their writing/directing/performance. If they have a "Well, it's only Rollerball" attitude going into production, then you and I: the audience, is getting shifted out of what the filmmakers are capable of.

    But I digress. At least I agree with you on the "spoiler in the toy section" argument.


    Peace.

  8. #18
    Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
    Isn't that like sticking your hand under a dog's butt and expecting it to crap in your hand. Since you "expected" it, you can judge it fairly. But that doesn't mean it isn't doggie poo in your hand.
    Your analogy works actually up until the period after the word "fairly". But because of the "imagery" you used in the analogy itself, transposing it upon the analogy isn't fair use. "Poo" is an element of the analogy, not a result of it.

    Hmm, yet perhaps I'm overthinking the whole thing, as usual. Maybe some things can not be explained with rational thought. I had a lot of fun watching Rollerball. Why? Don't really know. Yeah, the message is obvious, the holes are numerous, and the story is simple. But I still had a lot of fun. Same goes for Speed, Independence Day, Charlie's Angels, and a few more that I can't think of right now.

    I, personally, go to the movies to be "moved" in some way. If it can make me cry, great. If it can make me laugh, great. If it can make me get excited, great. That's what the movie-going experience is for me..."feeling" something.

    A bad movie for me is one where I am lulled into a state of observation of the flickering images upon the screen...unmoved. If I have time to start wondering who somebody was, or why they did something, or why didn't they do something, then the film is going down the wrong path.

  9. #19
    A bad movie for me is one where I am lulled into a state of observation of the flickering images upon the screen...unmoved. If I have time to start wondering who somebody was, or why they did something, or why didn't they do something, then the film is going down the wrong path.
    Yeah. I'll go with that. Some movies just push some peoples buttons. Look at all the Adam Sandler and Martin Lawrence fans. Not for me though. And neither was Rollerball. oh well.

  10. #20
    I'm that way with Jim Carrey movies. He was funny on Living Color, but I never could get Ace Ventura.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO