Own the rights?
11 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :- Hey, Look at the Content, 23 December 2005 Author: investored from United States
This was a 1981 movie Jane Fonda "got made" after her exploration of the dangers of nuclear power in the "China Syndrome" back in 1979. She was driving to tell the story of real money - gold and how OTHER parts of the world value gold as real money while the Americans don't understand it. (Note: And it's not about Jane. I don't even like Jane Fonda...her politics aren't supposed to be in the acting on the screen. At some point a movie - or any art - is not about the artist's personality, it's about what's on the page or the score or on the screen.)The plot line is about "outsiders" not rolling over their CDs in American banks and buying gold...and what the loss of those foreign investments means to the financial establishment in New York. I'll admit the acting and the romance are not top notch. So what? This movie was a "financial thriller" and there just ain't many of these movies made. Movies need bank financing, and banks usually won't finance anything that makes them look bad or stupid. (They show "I'ts a Wonderful Life" with Jimmy Stewart on TV only once a year now because it shows "run on the bank" at the Bailey Savings and Loan - not something the financial establishment wants Americans to even think about.) I'm a Certified Financial Planner and I recommend this movie in my classes along with Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" and "Boiler Room" as movies that shed light on the financial world in which we live today. In 2005, it's even more important for people to understand the relationships between gold and paper money as the cycle from the 1970's reasserts itself.And get over the Arab slights in the movie. They weren't the point back in 1981 and they aren't the point now. A lack of political correctness is not a reason to avoid this movie.
7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :- What went on inside the WTCs..., 7 February 2007 Author: Angel Reynoso from United States
This movie reminds me that Hollywood is increasingly snubbing the American audience's intelligence. Today, most mainstream movies overuse slang and movie plots deal with either complete fantasy or complete idiocy. I am curious as to who rates the movies on most internet movie databases because Rollover received such low marks. Compared to most thrillers today, Rollover has a very credible plot and it is extremely engaging even with all the financial/investment jargon. This movie falls into the category of "must watch films" such as Apocalypse Now, Dr. Strangelove, and Boiler Room. It is wild to realize that the content of this fictional, financial thriller is based on the exact business policies and goals of the gigantic banking industry of today! It is shocking that the allegiance of the American banking industry is purely to profit rather than supporting American businesses-- US banks somehow find it more profitable to make precarious alliances with foreign investors. It encourages us to think about all the drama that must have been brewing in the WTC and, subsequently, the tragic event of 9-11.
8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :- An uneven and unusual thriller worth watching., 30 January 2006 Author: lwalsh from Syracuse, New York
This is an unusual film: an adult thriller about the danger of fiscal manipulation. It's also unusual in that it remains relevant, perhaps even more so than when it was released; no less a person than renowned investor Warren Buffet has recently been warning of the dangers of having so much U.S. debt held by countries whose political agendas may not always require a stable or strong U.S. economy.But is it a good film? With some reservations, I would argue that it is. Director Alan Pakula and cinematographer Giuseppe Rotunno have done a very good job of shadowing the action; rarely does anything take place in strong light, and then almost always when the action either involves the Saudis (the first meeting between the cartel and Lee Winters, played by Jane Fonda, for example) or serves their interests (e.g. the death of bank inspector Mr. Fewster). The locations, large and small, take on their own lives; the World Trade Center becomes a monolithic anthill, and there is a wonderfully ominous shot of the arrangement for Lee Winters's death being made by two men amid a crowd on a descending escalator which captures powerfully the essential isolation of the individual amid the crowds, and thus wordlessly encapsulates the underlying political concern of the film. The 720 degree pan just before the film's ambiguous coda is a marvel, one of those things which looks quite simple until one realizes the amount of work that must have gone into making it work smoothly.The performances are solid if a bit uneven. Hume Cronyn as the amoral main banker is superb, and Macon McCalman does a fine job as Fewster, a man who has gone in far beyond his depth and knows it. Fonda and Kristofferson (playing Hub Smith) are at their respective bests when portraying the manipulative sides of the characters, and less convincing in the romantic scenes (which aren't very plausible to begin with). Fonda's bleak expression when she thinks she realizes that Hub is betraying her is striking, and her reaction to the attempt on her life is completely persuasive. Kris Kristofferson seems rather stolid at first, until we realize that he is portraying a man from whom virtually all emotional capability has been leached by his dedication to success in his career; significantly, the most passionate sex scene takes place immediately after the success of a fiscal gamble of enormous proportions.The screenplay handles the difficult task of dramatizing monetary transactions well; it is less effective when portraying the love scenes, especially the initial motivation for the central affair. But the climactic confrontation between Hume Cronyn and Kris Kristofferson is spot on; rarely does a character reveal moral bankruptcy as starkly as does Cronyn's, yet his words and his delivery both demonstrate his utter unawareness of the truth about himself. Indeed, the script generally manages to be both clear (albeit complex, requiring attention) and straightforward without becoming preachy or overly didactic.The music is easily the weakest part of the film (in fact, I almost gave this a 7 based on the music alone). The opening credits are backed by one of the most insipid things I've heard in a long time, a ditzy little number that recurs regularly to no good effect, and the love music (intentionally?) conveys little of passion or even intense feeling. The music for menacing scenes has more character, but appears only intermittently, and not always when it's most needed. This score has dated badly, and undercuts the film's impact considerably.But all things considered, I still enjoyed this, and recommend it to those looking for something offbeat (and, like Pakula's "All the President's Men", somewhat deliberately paced, though I find this one slightly better overall). It's a rare film in that it almost always treats its viewers as adults capable of giving it a fair chance, yet it is structured, and often plays, like a traditional mystery thriller. But the plot is not all here; the film's unspoken message is worth hearing, and heeding, as well: that when we allow the possession and manipulation of things to take precedence over human needs, we run the risk of becoming nothing but things ourselves.
7 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :- be afraid very afraid, especially if you have money in the market, 16 March 2006 Author: aniece_2000 from United States
First I thought this was a good "what if" movie, you know, like it could never happen. However after the past couple years it really got me thinking ...is this really fiction or has the rug (or turban) be pulled so tightly over our eyes, that we too would find ourselves in a desert oasis making a deal with the devil...and coming home with nothing more than a pocket of sand, a stunned America,a broken down Wall Street with a house payment that is now payable to "the Sheik of whatever", and oh by the way he owns the banks too. This Wall Street falls harder, faster and makes the first one pale in comparison. Makes a person want to sell all their stock, close their bank accounts,stuff it all in a mattress and run. Bottom line could it happen,yes, will it happen, your guess is as good as mine... I will say this though,if you thought the Enron situation was bad,Rollover makes Enron look like a comedy. But thats just my opinion!
3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- excellent movie for the right audience, 2 November 2005 Author: bhweller from United States
This is a "love it or hate it" movie, it just depends on your personal interests and background. If you are looking for a love story or a typical Hollywood action movie you will hate it.If you have an interest in the specific subject matter of this movie it will keep you glued to your seat. This is a political/financial/conspires movie with some good plot twists. If you have ever read an Ayn Rand novel you will appreciate the character types in this movie.Not for the masses, but a gem for the right person.
1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :- A head of its time, 23 March 2009 Author: ManoaBoy from United States
Funny how art ultimately imitates life. This movie is like a Nostradomus vision of our current economic situation. Only difference is that the villains aren't Arabs, we just have to look in to the mirror to see who did it to us. Time to buy gold? Time to stock up on emergency provisions? Ebay's founder, PIERRE OMIDYAR, moved to Hawaii but has contingency plans in case of pandemic or economic collapse. See: The Honolulu Advertiser, article on front page of March, 22, 2009. It is a real hoot to see how a billionaire views the world!So don't forget to stock up on food and water, and if you can't afford a security detail of ex-secret service agents, find yourself a good firearm to protect you and your loved ones.
5 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- Relevant to our times, 31 July 2002 Author: BombVark from United States
An over valued dollar, the system on the brink, the big bankers and their government stooges have gone too far. Sound familiar? The previous poster attributes the financial melt down in the movie to capitalism. Actually, the movie doesn't touched at all on the causes of the system breakdown. But it is not capitalism, but government interference in the market which would cause such a melt down. But it is fun to see central banking get its just reward, and to see gold emerge a winner.
1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- A lot more truth than fiction, 13 January 2006 Author: pmelvoin from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Film is not the best intro to world finance, but is right on the money (so to speak) when it speaks to the need to convert oil revenues from the OPEC countries into US dollars. If this does not happen, the US is in serious trouble. And the US _is_ in serious financial trouble right now (2006), and will be more so if US dollars are diverted into precious metals.As for the racist argument: rubbish, the Saudis do not like us in the least and I see no reason that we should be any more complimentary than they are. Eating with ones' hands is part of many societies including the US. Big deal!
3 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- 24 years later and the Arabs are still rolling over, 12 April 2005 Author: ubercommando from London
This is an economic conspiracy theory dragged out to feature film length where you have to accept the central premise and disregard all other factors such as reality. But hey, that's what a lot of conspiracy theory films are all about anyway. This film was a favourite of a nut job acquaintance of mine which probably explains why I don't like it. The ending is especially ludicrous: The world financial system melts down, the western nations are in chaos, there's rioting in the streets, millions will die, cities being destroyed all on TV screens behind Fonda and Kristofferson and what do they do? Shrug their shoulders, embrace, laugh a bit and all to soppy melodramatic music. You would think their response would be "world in ruins...oh holy crap!"
5 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :- "Rollover" and fall asleep..., 20 March 2001 Author: (tonycook1966@hotmail.com)
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.
Add another comment
