Expectant parents become prime suspects in the disappearance of a pregnant woman who was last seen at their garage sale. Model citizen David Rose runs a garden center and is a devoted house-father. Like his wife Ivy, who suffered two stillbirths, their new neighbor Melinda is near to giving birth. Just after David showed her around in the Rose home, Melinda goes missing. Although no corpse is found, just circumstantial evidence more likely to be planted then stupidly left behind, police detective Blanchard treats David as his sole suspect, soon arrested, even after nosy neighbor Bindel is knocked down while David is in jail. School buddy Theo does his best to counsel the couple, yet Ivy doubts her husband's innocence just because of indications he may have had an affair with Melinda since high-school, and starts snooping with her best friend Jody. The worst crime is still being hatched.
Marah R (kr) wrote: As if the first wasn't a drastic failure. Let's make a sequel.
Cerisse B (ag) wrote: I want to see this and I'm having a hard time finding it.
Eric M (gb) wrote: Not my favorite Herzog documentary, but fascinating all the same. He is a master of getting the small details as well as the big picture. I especially loved the irony of the political candidate that comes on a boat to these people and it is clear that the people don't care. They just want the food. This is a documentary about people who simply survive. Does that make them happier than someone in middle class America? Not necessarily, and I'm not sure that Herzong was trying to prove that point. But it is clear that one of the points is that you CAN be happy with technology and all of the distractions of a modern world.
Matt F (kr) wrote: B Grade movie but white boy did kick some ass!
James H (kr) wrote: The problem with this film is that it is uninvolving and boring. It is supposed to peak your curiosity by not revealing key points in the film until late, but it didn't work. Tony Goldwyn tries, but with that script it was a futile attempt.
Quincy J (ca) wrote: A movie worth looking and interesting to its core while at the same time of being funny and with relevance.
Danny M (mx) wrote: I don't care watch the reviews say! I love this film! My guilty pleasure movie. Daniel Stern steals the show "Blau myself off"
Phi L (nl) wrote: there are hits and misses with some of the gags, but the plot is original.
Jesse Z (ca) wrote: 1/2 * out of 4 stars
Harry W (es) wrote: Wanting so see the original Rollerball but aware that remakes were terrible, I simply watched Rollerball because of the fact that it had John McTiernan as the director.Ignoring the dystopian theme of the original film, John McTiernan updates Rollerball for 2002's contemporary MTV crowd and makes it simply a modern day story about a violent reality TV show with a bunch of attractive young people competing in a popular sport. This ignores all of the importance in the original short story by William Harrison so much that it practically disgraces him. It takes the commercialised aspects of the story and attempts to build on it from there as much as it can, doing the same thing that Paul Michael Glaser did when he directed his despicable adaptation of the Stephen King story The Running Man. Rollerball is a repeat of that terrible feat, except a lot worse because there isn't any fun in the gimmicks this time, and only the most ignorant MTV obsessed viewers will actually find this interesting.For some reason, despite being fairly action heavy, Rollerball fails to actually glamourize the sport it is attempting to create. The action sequences are so boring and repetitive that it is hard to actually find the motivation to keep on watching. The technical issues in the viewing experience are different to the ones in essentially every other bad action film of today. The problem with action these days is that the cinematography is excessively shaky and the editing as way too fast. But the problem in Rollerball is that what is actually being filmed is pointless and stupid. The camera shots in Rollerball are all from the wrong angles because instead of capturing everything in perspective, the camera only ever captures a small portion of the actual character on screen or the motorbike being used, and it fails to actually make anything look the slightest bit good. Seriously, for a film that is so overblown with action, Rollerball does not have a single good action scene which means that it fails to do what its story intends in terms of glamourizing the titular sport. Rollerball is built on a lot of weak roots, and one of the most central ones is terrible action scenes. It makes the film less convincing, more artificial and above all just genuinely pointless. The titular sport of Rollerball is made to look like one of those children's game shows for adults, but its lack of technical quality make it simply a blur on the eyes which isn't the slightest bit tense of entertaining. One of the scenes in Rollerball is an extended terrible motorbike chase scene filmed entirely with a night vision camera technique which is both pointless and visually awful. You can just tell that John McTiernan has lost sense of making Rollerball a visually good film any better than he could tell a story. John McTiernan reveals that it is time for him to retire on a low note because Rollerball shows that the once promising sense that he had as a film director is no longer present. He cannot remake a film and cannot create good action out of a roller derby game, so why he was given a budget of $70 million is way beyond me, but the fact that the film lost more than $44 million makes perfect sense.Rollerball is simply a very painfully vain commodity which attempts to use its soundtrack to appeal to the MTV generation, Chris Klein to capture the interests of American Pie fans and Rebecca Romijn to entertain people obsessed with her seductive role as Mystique in X-Men. Rollerball even gives her a scene in which she is topless, although it is unnecessary, poorly filmed, darkly lit and clearly thrown in there for publicity purposes. But it doesn't do any justice for any of them, and simply waits around for the next crappy action scene to fit into the story. There is not a single moment that I was entertained in Rollerball with the exception of the last two minutes of the film which were slightly entertaining. But Rollerball isn't even fun as a camp film or a movie that is so bad that it's good. It Is just so bad that it's terrible.A lot of people have put crap on Chris Klein for portraying a bland hero, but few people seem to realise that the entire movie is written to be bland and dooms any potential actors from the start. So it is clear that Chris Klein has nothing to work with, and in all seriousness an actor whose career is built on supporting performances in the American Pie films and an effort in the Academy Award nominated Election is not one that is strong enough to actually hold the low quality of Rollerball up. As the lead actors, Chris Klein is forced to carry lacklustre storytelling on his shoulders, and there is no way that he ever had a chance of doing that so his performance is not great. But none of the actors in the film really are. Although Jean Reno is ok simply because it is really easy for him to portray a villain by creating a sense of mystery, Chris Klein is an actor ideal for the role because the material is terrible but not actually ready to hold up a $70 million film. The criticism in the film can be more attributed to Larry Ferguson and John Pogue for their terrible script, and Chris Klein got a lot of the blame for it. But the fact that in such a terrible film he actually tried is slightly admirable. He failed, but at least he gave it his all which is more than can be said for anybody else involved in the production of Rollerball.So Rollerball manages to get everything wrong as a remake and as a standalone film because it disgraces the original story, the original film and then the viewers all at once without an ounce of entertainment to boast.
Richard S (fr) wrote: Rod Steiger does good work here. Nice movie to watch on TV.
Derek W (nl) wrote: A pulse-pounding thriller held back by sub-par special effects and its abundance of action over plot.
Toby P (au) wrote: I've been waiting to see this movie ever since I got hooked on the soundtrack back in 2007. It's finally available on VidAngel and I was really excited to see this quirky story I had followed and youtubed.Maybe it was because of being very indie and low budget, or maybe because it was Zach Braff's first attempt at writing and directing, but the movie had a lot of lost potential.I found the overall concept to be very interesting. A 26 year old man has been wrongfully medicated since he was 10 and been completely numb to emotion because of it. His mom dies and he goes home to the funeral and doesn't take his medication while there, and begins to finally feel these lost emotions that he's been missing out on. If I were a producer and someone pitched that idea alone to me, I'd be captivated and hooked. Then, adding Natalie Portman as the nerdy, epileptic, pathological liar love interest to counter the weirdness of the protagonist....it's a great combo and they had good chemistry. For people being so used to seeing Natalie playing roles where she's awesome, this is a great role for her stepping outside of her comfort zone.Anyway, halfway through the movie the plot took a turn and on the "last day" Zach Braff's character is in town it just goes downhill, almost like they didn't know how to make a good ending and just did a normal one.Back to the concept of a medicated numb man finally experiencing emotion, I felt like there could have been a number of shots showing him finally coming up for air during these experiences when he is finally feeling again and crying, yet we don't see that. We see scenes showing how numb he is at the beginning of the movie, but none conveying the transformation.In short....Garden State = Average movie. Amazing soundtrack.