Atlas Shrugged

[Deborah]

The movie is out today and I have to say as a fan of the book I was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. They story was updated but true to the heart of the book. Although no doubt being familiar with the characters may have filled in what non-readers of the book might not get. What is even more amazing is that they did this movie on such a low budget and yet it doesn't look low budget, at least to me.

The acting I thought was superb and the cinematography beautiful. I recommend it to anyone who loves freedom and individuality, whether you've read the book or not. My sister did not read the book and just said "Wow." Now she wants to read the book. I'm wanting to read it again as it's been a few years and it's amazing how timeless it is.

[thesometimesaint]

Now for the other half of the story.

From http://www.thenation.com/blog/159963/rand-appalling-new-atlas-shrugged-movie-booed-planet

It takes a lot to get a 0% at the mass market critics' consensus site Rotten Tomatoes. Pick an awful movie you can think of and it probably managed a 5% or maybe even a 25%. Somehow, Atlas Shrugged, Part I (yes! more to look forward to!), which opens Friday, has at this writing achieved the rare feat.

In other words, not a single critic to date, from major and minor outlet, high or lowest of low of lowbrow, likes it one bit. I like the headline over the Chicago Tribune review: "Taxing Indeed." Still waiting for "Don't Go (Galt) There." Or "Born Under a Bad Ayn."

Oddly, there's no New York Times review today. A political statement? Or was the paper barred from the screening room?

Here's a sampling of commentary:

Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer: "Atlas Shrugged. I arched eyebrow, scrunched forehead, yawned."

Roger Ebert: "The most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault. I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all, and I doubt they will be happy with it. For the rest of us, it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms."

Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: "The book was published in 1957, yet the clumsiness of this production makes it seem antediluvian."

Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic: "It has taken decades to bring Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to the big screen.They should have waited longer."

Kurt Loder, the former Rolling Stone writer, for the Libertarian site, Reason Online: "The new, long-awaited film version of Atlas Shrugged is a mess, full of embalmed talk, enervated performances, impoverished effects, and cinematography that would barely pass muster in a TV show. Sitting through this picture is like watching early rehearsals of a stage play that's clearly doomed."

Peter Dubruge, Variety: "Part one of a trilogy that may never see completion, this hasty, low-budget adaptation would have Ayn Rand spinning in her grave."

Washington Post: "nearly as stilted, didactic and simplistic as Rand’s free-market fable."

Loren King, Boston Globe: "Even fans of Rand’s 1957 antigovernment manifesto may balk at having to endure dialogue that would be banal on the Lifetime channel, along with wooden performances..."

Greg Mitchell's two latest books are "The Age of WikiLeaks" in print or as an e-book, and "Bradley Manning: Truth and Consequences" as e-book here and print here.

[Mars]

Yikes, tss. Deborah talks about how much she likes it and you throw a barrage of "it sucks" quotes at her?

Tsk, tsk my friend. Tsk tsk indeed.

[Deborah]

I don't much care for critics' reviews in any case. The audience loved the movie and applauded. I honestly don't see how the critics can pan it except they don't want it seen because of the theme.

What's interesting is that in the movie, the character Hank Rearden is being assassinated in the press because he is moving forward against popular opinion. Fiction imitating life? Many of the quotes tss gave could be from the movie itself in the press backlash against Reardon.

[bluebell]

It's now up to a 6% on the tomato meter and user reviews at Yahoo have given it a B+. Doesn't sound like it's too horrible.

[urroner]

Doesn't sound like it's too horrible.

That might depend upon where you land in the political spectrum.

[Fly Fisherman]

Hmmm... I haven't read the book. But the subject interests me. However, although I don't always take critics' reviews too seriously, I do consider them somewhat. Since I am not able to attend too many movies, I have to be somewhat selective. Even KSL only gave it two stars - not too good.

But, since you liked it, and since some people were applauding, maybe I will see it.

[The Nehor]

I plan to see it as soon as Rifftrax provides something to spice it up.

I have a hard time imagining this movie being good. Read it in High School and didn't like the book. The characters were one-dimensionally good or bad, the monologues were too long (only book I've read with a 100 page monologue), and the conflict wasn't that interesting. The characters rarely dealt with any kind of inner conflict. Her characters are caricatures to tell a meta-story and their romantic and sexual encounters are repugnant. I read that Ayn Rand had one character that was kind of undecided and confused on the issues in the book but she cut him out before publication. I knew how the book was going to end about a quarter in and the rest was repetitive philosophy pretending to be a story.

I read it again in college when I dated a girl who thought it was the best book ever and tried again to see if I'd missed something. I don't think I did.

I wouldn't want to live in a society predominantly populated by either her villains or her heroes. Yuck.

Who is John Galt? A boring monologuer.

Still, I guess the movie might be better.

[Deborah]

The book has characters that are more black and white, with few in the grey area. Francisco is one in the book whose true character isn't known until later, though hints are given. The movie does a fantastic job of showing where the characters are coming from without the long dialogue. On FB many of the people who saw it loved it and talk about the audience breaking out in applause. The movie was very pertinent to what is going on today, which is probably why. It comes across as a story of determined people going against very strong odds to accomplish their goals.

Yahoo user reviews give it an A-.

[Deborah]

That might depend upon where you land in the political spectrum.

Unless you just like a movies about people who have a goal and go forward in spite of severe opposition at every turn.

[urroner]

Unless you just like a movies about people who have a goal and go forward in spite of severe opposition at every turn.

Che Guevarra had a goal and a lot of severe opposition, but I won't go see a movie glorifying him.

[Deborah]

Che Guevarra had a goal and a lot of severe opposition, but I won't go see a movie glorifying him.

Oh...? Che

Although what Che has to do with these fictional characters I don't know.

[urroner]

Oh...? Che

Although what Che has to do with these fictional characters I don't know.

I don't know either.

[mercyngrace]

I thought this review was middle-of-the-road. The reviewer doesn't hesistate to point out problems but still gives it 2.5/4 stars.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/rand_old_time_for_ayn_adherents_yK8YmADIKXJ6ARzqRpPotN

[The Nehor]

I expect a lot of the amateur reviews will turn out positive. Mostly it will be Ayn Rand supporters who watch the movie.

Hey, what are the odds -- five Ayn Rand fans on the same train! Must be going to a convention.

[frankenstein]

a bitter fountain can not bring forth good water. Rand by definition is a Anti-Christ, so I see no need to for the movie or book. she use John Gault to express her Anti-Christ feelings, so the "hero" is a Anti-Christ too. Side note, I wonder how many Union members helped with the movie , and SAG actors are in "Atlas Shrugged". my wife wants to see the movie, but can not find anyone to go with her.

[Jeff K.]

An anti-Christ by definition is someone who knows Christ and denies the Holy Ghost. Ayn Rand is an atheist, not an anti Christ.

Union's in theory are to protect the workers rights Frankenstien not to deny other people their talents when they are properly paid for.

In some fields you must belong to a union by law, so one is forced to be a member and pay for its support, that does not mean they do not disagree with union leadership. Autonomons are extreme socialist organizations of teh 1930's, not for thinking people.

[Deborah]

my wife wants to see the movie, but can not find anyone to go with her.

Tell her to go by herself. I've been going by myself to movies for years. The first time my daughter went to a movie by herself after I convinced her to go she called me up and told me how great it was to go to a movie and not have anyone trying to talk to her while she was enjoying the movie.

I agree with Jeff K. Rand is an atheist which is not the same as anti-Christ. When you know about her background you understand why she is so opposed to the state interfering in the individual rights of creation and production. In her own way she was very moral but she lost her way by carrying the idea of selfishness to the extreme and forgetting her own philosophy of taking responsibility for one's actions.

[frankenstein]

An anti-Christ by definition is someone who knows Christ and denies the Holy Ghost. Ayn Rand is an atheist, not an anti Christ.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

Rand preaches the greatest good is selfishness, selfishness is evil; she preaches against religion i.e. Christ, she is against Christ. Therefore she is against Christ and by instruction of the Book Of Mormon we may know with a perfect knowledge Atlas Shrugged is of the Devil, who leadeth by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.

And we know a bitter fountain = evil, can not bring forth good fruit.

As for Unions, it seems less than consistent for a group to praise a movie which belittles the very people and organizations which make a movie possible.

--------------------

"Tell her to go by herself. I've been going by myself to movies for years. The first time my daughter went to a movie by herself after I convinced her to go she called me up and told me how great it was to go to a movie and not have anyone trying to talk to her while she was enjoying the movie."

If we lived near a Alamo Drafthouse - dine in movie with great food (favorite is Maximum OverDog) I would go with her. She has said she might go during a break from her classes.

[Deborah]

I thought this review was middle-of-the-road.

It is rather fair except I disagree about the stilted dialogue, and no one where I was was hectoring. They were applauding. I loved the cinematography, especially with the train racing across the beautiful wilderness of Colorado.

And contrary to The Nehor, many of the people seeing the movie never read the book and now want to read it.

[WalkerW]

I haven't cared much for adaptations of dystopian novels. Not a big fan of the films 1984 or Fahrenheit 451.

[Jeff K.]

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

An athiest, unless being borne witness cannot deny what they do not know.

I do believe the atheistic philosophy is of the devil, but that does not make one an anti Christ.

And Rand did not persuade anyone "not to do good", she simply felt that enlightened self interest was better than the hand of the government.

[Jeff K.]

I haven't cared much for adaptations of dystopian novels. Not a big fan of the films 1984 or Fahrenheit 451.

I liked Farenheit 451 as a stand alone movie. The acting was excellent and I have always appreciated the actors themselves. It is tough, very tough to make a good adaption. I cringe when I think about what they will do with Ender's Game one day. I try to look at the movie outside of my expectations for the book. I think otherwise you will always be disappointed.

[WalkerW]

a bitter fountain can not bring forth good water. Rand by definition is a Anti-Christ, so I see no need to for the movie or book. she use John Gault to express her Anti-Christ feelings, so the "hero" is a Anti-Christ too.

I think you are being a bit overdramatic.

[Jeff K.]

Frankenstein has his opinion, but then Atlas will simply shrug it off.