Too much of everything

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

It's impossible not to giggle every time Kristofferson opens his mouth in this movie. It's not like he's playing a cowboy turned banker - rather, he's playing a stereotypical New York banker and it's just ridiculous. It's like casting Miley Cyrus as a nun or Justin Bieber as a nuclear scientist.Jane Fonda looks stiff and bored. Their romance is also hilarious.The movie filled with clichés: the omniscient assassin, the busy trading floor, the tape Fonda finds at just the right time, etc.Overall, it's a very slow-moving, dull drama. The first two thirds of the movie are irrelevant. "The Arabs pull out their money out" is a single event at the end, following by a couple minutes of "the sky is falling" and that's it. The first 90 minutes of all the corporate maneuvering are a completely different plot that turns out to be irrelevant.The scenario, by the way, is silly. So what if the Arabs withdraw all their cash? Where would they put it? In a different bank in a different country. And what would that bank do with it? Lend it out. Who would borrow? US banks needing liquidity. So the money would move around but the idea that the entire global financial system would collapse is ridiculous.And of course, if it did collapse, the Arabs would have no one to buy their oil, so they zero motivation to do this. This is also not covered in the movie.Meh...it's a couple hours to put on the TV in your garage while you're working or something but I wouldn't sit down with your special someone for an evening of excitement.BTW, "Tarriq Afifi" - you're completely wrong. I'm offended by your comments that this movie is racist. It's not. It's about Arabs pulling their money out of US banks. Racism would be saying "all Arabs are (some negative stereotype)" not saying "in 1981, Arabs had a lot of financial power". There was no Arab bashing (or bashing of Islam - the asr prayer is shown accurately).

Why didn't they show this movie to us in school? Why didn't we learn about the Federal Reserve banking system in school? Because they don't want us to understand what money really is and the dangers of fractional reserve banking and fiat currencies. They want us to be mindless consumers paying no attention to those that pull the strings of government and media to manipulate the minds of sheeple. This way it's easy for them to capitalize when the system they created collapses leaving the useless eaters fighting to survive. Wake up people!Become your own central bank. Invest in things you can own. Stay away from paper currencies.

WOW! This is a case of a film that needs to be resurrected among publics right now because it's final message resonates truer than anything with the whole current financial world going to the drains. The script was saying some hard truths back in 1981, no one listened and in 2008, almost three decades later something happened almost exactly the same way Hume Cronyn's character described it was going to happen: riots, stagnation, panic. Well, not much like the one of 1929 but a little closer to that. The context in which "Rollover" was presented was completely different however, Cold War was in it full course and Socialism was still surviving and fighting against the powers of Capitalism. The economical crisis that will happen in this film comes from an Arab oil organization (allied with some American bankers) who has a gigantic masterplan that is going to bring chaos in the world economy.But until we get there, we follow the story of a former actress (Jane Fonda) who married the Chairman and primary stockholder of a chemical company, recently murdered, that not only investigates his strange murder but also tries to deal with his business by joining forces with a financier (Kris Kristofferson) who recently was appointed as new president of a large bank that seems to going under a lot of trouble. While their relationship goes from the economic level to more intimate levels, a huge operation is being made with their investments that could cause a financial collapse."Rollover" looks at too many directions but doesn't see enough, it doesn't have a complete view on anything as a film. It goes as a financial thriller, a political thriller with some cheesy romance and as a drama. Problem is that there's far too many things to make anyone uninterested of seeing this when it could be something remarkably brilliant if the writers or director Alan J. Pakula decided for just one route to follow through. While the affair between Fonda and Kristofferson has its good moments when it's not becoming distractive, the thrilling parts of this are so few and the economics jargon are so many that the ultimate thing for this is a film hard to follow.But it gets worse before it gets better as some say. The greatest surprise is reserved for its final minutes with the inevitable crisis going ahead. I don't know if back in '81 something like this could happen but now, we know, it can happen and it did! It's realistic and shocking how this film managed (in a way, not completely though) to see how our world would become with all this lousy speculations. 30 years later and the impact of its crash is hitting us just now. Well made, nicely presented and well acted, with some weak moments here and there but very good to watch. Extremely relevant! 7/10

The only time I saw "Rollover" I found it interesting. An okay time killer, probably not good enough for sustained viewings.I'd like to know what planet the previous reviewer is on though, when he tries to inject what he or she thinks is some profound warning about the fate of capitalism. May I remind you that it's the *socialist* revolutions that have collapsed since 1989 because it's *those* systems that don't work? Capitalism has already outlasted Karl Marx in every sense because ultimately it does work and it provides something Mr. Marx and his emulators need to do without in order for it to endure: liberty and freedom.