When Jane Fonda inherits her murdered husband's stock shares in his financial company, she gets entangled in a dangerous international scheme. She also falls for banker Kris Kristofferson, so that's a nice bonus.I'll be honest: I had no idea what was going on during most of this movie. It's very heavy on the financial talk, so if you don't speak Wall Street, you'll probably be just as lost as I was. Kris, Jane, Hume Cronyn, Josef Sommer, and Bob Gunton—in his first film—are all involved in this financial thriller, and for those of you who can follow the plot, it'll be a nail-biter until the very end. For me, it was a snooze-fest until the very end, at which time I was very grateful. The only parts of the movie that stood out to me were some pretty outfits Jane Fonda wore and Macon McCalman's very convincing acting in a scene where he expresses his fear for his life.

The short side of the story is that this has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Rythme-wise, the movie is dead. It makes you feel like you are attending a lecture on economy at the university. And to think that I watched the movie because it was described as a "thriller!"The story portrays an Arab plot to shake the foundations of global economy using the simple concept that there is alot more "printed" paper money than there is actual value out there in the world.First of all, the movie is offensive to Arabs. If this movie was made now, civil rights groups and Muslim/Arab groups would be all over it, in one scene, Jane Fonda says (about taking a loan from those Arabs): "I feel like a beggar asking them for money, and I HATE it!" and Kristofferson comforts her by saying: "You and the rest of the world!" This is an out right racist statement that wouldn't slip so casually as it did in 1981. Aside from that, the movie protrays Arab customs rather poorly, on one side, the director of the movie is keen on showing Arab rich people sitting on the ground and eating with their hands from one big plate (to somehoe portray primitivity) and forcing Fonda and Kristofferson to do the same (which doesn't happen in real life, they give guests plates and spoons if they need them), but the director makes a bigger slip of showing them shaking hands with Fonda and sitting right next to her in the dinner. That would not take place in the same societies that eat with their hands from the plates.Other omissions are plenty as well, portraying Arab countries and cities as vast areas of desert lands and tents doesn't portray what the Arab world looked like in 1981.From an acting stand point, Fonda is not too bad, but Kristofferson is awful. His "cowboy" acting style really misses the target in this one. The image of a banker who talks like a cowboy, behaves like a cowboy and tells his boss in the bank that if he doesn't hang up the phone he would smash his head.. This image is just not real. The way every night fall in the movie almost always ends with Fonda and Kristofferson making love is also not real for two people well over fourty as the movie portrays. So, you feel like the roles were written in a naive way. Not much attention was put into seeing how the characters fit into their perspective roles.Overall, this movie is not worth renting on video even, I would suggest waiting till its out there on TNT or TBS or something, in fact, it's not worth such a long review. (:-)))

Possibly attempting to do for the world of finance what she'd done to nuclear power in "The China Syndrome"(1979), this Jane Fonda melodrama is a poor investment for any serious movie fan.The story is very hard to follow and poorly constructed with shallow characters. The story is not terribly easy to grasp for the average person in my opinion and not presented to the audience clearly enough-nor well enough to garner much interest and/or curiosity. Fonda appears bored, while still trying to appear smart and glamorous, in her role. Kris Kristofferson is simply a case of very bad casting. Despite some efforts to make him physically appear like a big-time banker, he comes off flat and stiff in his role. Whether talking down a bank president or talking Fonda into bed, all his lines are delivered in a blank monotone style that conveys nothing. We also are never given much background or motivation for the events and doings of the people wandering about this epic of high finance. Fonda and Kristofferson's first meeting isn't much of an icebreaker, yet the two are bedding down together by their second or third encounter.The film is directed by Alan J. Pakula and it looks much like other works for him. Secret meetings in parking lots and suspect late night boardroom conferences may appear to be the things that make up a good thriller, but here they are simply padding between the great nothingness that amounts to two-hours of dull slow paced cliche filled dialog from weak characters that you never grow to care much about. The movie's heavy-handed and overly-dramatic musical score makes many scenes nearly laughable.There's little to recommended beyond those morbidly curious to see a bad movie, which is why I obtained a copy of it. On that level, it does pay a modest dividend.

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.