Blu-ray Review Rollerball (1975): Encore Edition Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Matt Hough]

matt-hough has published a new article.

Rollerball (1975): Encore Edition Blu-ray Review

Norman Jewison’s dyspeptic view of an undesirable future might not have the horrifying eccentricity of Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, but Rollerball is an enjoyable if sobering ride to a future whose shiny surface but rotten underbelly is all too believable and acrid.

[review]
Continue reading the original article.

 

[Everett S.]

I traveled on over to Washington,DC to see this @ the Uptown theatre. It was in 4.0, and the best part was the sound of the ball rolling around the back of you. I didn't care for it then.

 

[Raul Marquez]

I agree with the above comment. To this day I can still remember the ball rolling around the theater in the audio mix. And this was in the '70s, before Dolby Digital Surround mixes. I wonder if this is captured in the 5.1 mix on this Blu-ray.....

Raul

 

[Matt Hough]

When I rewatched it the other day before filing the review, I do remember the ball panning through the right side of the soundfield, but I'm not sure I remember a complete circular audio trip for it. However, I could have been distracted by other things on the soundtrack and the visuals.

 

[Tony J Case]

How does it stack up to the Arrow release? Better? Worse?

 

[Matt Hough]

I don't have the Arrow release, but maybe someone who has both can answer your question.

 

[JoeStemme]

After THE GODFATHER, Caan became bankable and one of his first big starring roles was as Jonathan E.. Caan was perfectly cast as a tough guy athlete who would “take nothin' from nobody” - even when it was for his own good. Caan is well cast as Jonathan E. (Caan), the greatest star of Rollerball, an uber violent game played with a menacing metal ball, on roller-skates and with with metal spikes and motorcycles. The blood, guts and even deaths satisfy the blood lust of the masses so much that war has been all but eliminated.
William Harrison adapted his own short story and has created a dark comparison to ancient Rome's bread and circuses - a 70s GLADIATOR but set in the not too distant future. And, like in Ridley Scott's film, our hero rebels against the system although Jonathan E. is more of anti-hero here.
Even after all these decades, it is striking how violent ROLLERBALL remains (the slo mo pummeling of Moonpie (John Beck) is genuinely appalling). The movie certainly has ideas, but usually fine Director Norman Jewison (In The Heat Of The Night, Moonstruck) shows no feel for the genre. The pacing is poor even if the contrast between the Rollerball sequences and the non-stadium scenes was intentional. John Houseman and Ralph Richardson add some class, and Maud Adams does her best, but the non-sport scenes drag.
ROLLERBALL certainly fits in the dystopian 70s view of the world (could the roller-rink have been any more dingy? If this was supposed to be the modern gladiator entertainment for the masses, shouldn't it have been bright and glitzy?), and would make a good double bill with NETWORK. The stunt-work is amazing and Andre Previn's music (both original and classical adaptations) is stirring. Caan is good here, but the film's script and direction fail him.

 

[B-ROLL]

After THE GODFATHER, Caan became bankable and one of his first big starring roles was as .... X . Caan was perfectly cast as a tough guy athlete who would “take nothin' from nobody” - even when it was for his own good. Caan is well cast as Jonathan L. (Caan), the greatest star of Rollerball, an uber violent game played with a menacing metal ball, on roller-skates and with with metal spikes and motorcycles. The blood, guts and even deaths satisfy the blood lust of the masses so much that war has been all but eliminated.
William Harrison adapted his own short story and has created a dark comparison to ancient Rome's bread and circuses - a 70s GLADIATOR but set in the not too distant future. And, like in Ridley Scott's film, our hero rebels against the system although Jonathan L. is more of anti-hero here.
Even after all these decades, it is striking how violent ROLLERBALL remains (the slo mo pummeling of Moonpie (John Beck) is genuinely appalling). The movie certainly has ideas, but usually fine Director Norman Jewison (In The Heat Of The Night, Moonstruck) shows no feel for the genre. The pacing is poor even if the contrast between the Rollerball sequences and the non-stadium scenes was intentional. John Houseman and Ralph Richardson add some class, and Maud Adams does her best, but the non-sport scenes drag.
ROLLERBALL certainly fits in the dystopian 70s view of the world (could the roller-rink have been any more dingy? If this was supposed to be the modern gladiator entertainment for the masses, shouldn't it have been bright and glitzy?), and would make a good double bill with NETWORK. The stunt-work is amazing and Andre Previn's music (both original and classical adaptations) is stirring. Caan is good here, but the film's script and direction fail him.

Obviously you're talking about the horrible remake/videogame projected on screens ...

and not the original film !

 

[JoeStemme]

Obviously you're talking about the horrible remake/videogame projected on screens ...
View attachment 144295
and not the original film !

Never saw the retread.

 

[JohnRice]

Never saw the retread.

Besides, his name is Jonathan E, not Jonathan L.

I definitely disagree with your assessment of the movie. It’s not an action movie… not really.

 

[JoeStemme]

Besides, his name is Jonathan E, not Jonathan L.

I definitely disagree with your assessment of the movie. It’s not an action movie… not really.

Fixed the misspelling, thank you.

It's an "anti-action" movie in theory, but, let's be honest - it certainly was sold that way (and, mostly, remembered that way).
I just don't think it works. It may have on paper, but, on the big screen (where I last saw it), it drags and its points are belabored

 

[JohnRice]

If people tend to misinterpret the theme of the movie, even if the marketing contributed to that, is the fault with the movie, or the people and the marketing who cause the misinterpretation?

 

[JoeStemme]

If people tend to misinterpret the theme of the movie, even if the marketing contributed to that, is the fault with the movie, or the people and the marketing who cause the misinterpretation?

In this case, it's also the fault of Harrison and Jewison for not really selling their intended themes

 

[JohnRice]

No.

It isn’t.

Studios misrepresent movies all the time. That is on the brass of the studios, entirely. The filmmakers and writers make the movie they make. After that, it’s entirely the studio’s decision what to do with it.

I have always found it to be a completely successful movie.

That’s all I plan to say on the topic.