Atlas Shrugged Trailer

I was a big fan of this book in my 20s and a bit of a 'Randroid'. There's no way this book needs to be or should be a film. It's great for the medium it was created for but too didactic and preachy to exist in a film form that could ever entertain the masses whose goal it is to get through a two hour long film. Beyond that this film has a distinct direct-to-video look and the acting seems atrocious. I wouldn't bother watching this even out of grotesque curiosity. It looks objectively bad.

I don't pretend to speak for the dead, but I can imagine Rand spinning in her grave.
 
Last edited:
vcassel said:
It looks objectively bad.
Click to expand...


+1


I so, so wanted this movie to be good. This is one of my favorite novels of all time. I've read it twice and competed in the ARI Atlas Shrugged Contest.

The girl doesn't really look like Dagny. The guy doesn't really look like Rearden. The guy they got to play Jim looks the part, though! I do like who they got to play the Wet Nurse - mousy, scrawny character. And it looks like that guy from Season 4 of House is playing Eddie. Interesting.

I like that they brought it to the present day, but you're right, it just seems to direct-to-video.
 
Last edited:
This movie looks oddly cheap. Like a TV movie. And it looks oddly like it was made in a vacuum. Seems like for something this big, some kind of star would be involved...

Also looks like it was made in a vacuum because they're all talking about railroads and steal...either it probably should have been a period piece, or they should have updated some elements. I mean, I hope and pray we get some bullet trains in this country, but who the hell cares about railroads and steal now?

Never really a fan of Rand's writing. Generally bad, didactic, and in desperate need of an editor. I actually think a movie about her life would be far far more interesting.
 
UGH! They offered internships for this film at my film school.... and now I know why I was wondering who in the hell picked the worst of the worst in my film school to be interns. Bad management, bad hiring, and the end product shows the result.

Just goes to remind many on this forum that expensive camera does not equal quality product.
 
I know it's been a couple years but....
I was driving home from work and saw a bumper sticker that said nothing more than "Who is John Galt?" Didn't have any idea what that meant, or who John Galt is.....
Later........Stopped by the store and poked my head into the redbox screen.
There's a movie called Atlas Shrugged part 2. I should preface by saying I didn't know anything about this other than it was a book a long time ago about big business? (I think)
I clicked the description to see what it was about....crappy economy, gas expensive, old motor that runs on static electricity, who is John Galt?.........HUH! now my attention is peaked.
Overall, this started out nice, (a little slow, maybe) but I'm into it. Will the motor work? What happens then? She's chasing the guy that got the motor running, fly's through some invisable shield, crashes and shakes hands will some guy you can't see, says he's John Galt, movie ends. WTF?

Pissed off, I go to the trusty interwebs thing and look it up. Turns out this is a 3 part movie. and part 3 won't be out for another year. Part 2 leaves you out there with a cliffhanger with no resolution what so ever...Like watching 3/4 of a movie.

Now I'm just P!$$ed, Can't read the book cause that would just mess things up in my head and yet can't watch part 3 for a year or so.

Ahhhh....Friggin Redbox. I hate you...
 
3 parts. Wow. Watched pt 1 on netflix and thought it was ok. I always thought this was a 2parter. At least thats the way it seemed when they were doing press for this.
 
Chris Johnston said:
Now I'm just P!$$ed, Can't read the book cause that would just mess things up in my head and yet can't watch part 3 for a year or so.

Ahhhh....Friggin Redbox. I hate you...
Click to expand...

Don't waste your energy being pi$$ed off with this film... uh... series... The only people who find it 'wonderful/thoughtful/useful' entertainment... and I use that term loosely... are Rand Cult Followers.

As others have noted, this is as bad as "Battle Field Earth"(2000)...

I think in both cases, the problem largely stems from the involvement of a certain attitude of 'orthodoxy', where any liberties, almost by necessity, needed to be taken to make the films 'watchable', if not 'enjoyable'.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Don't waste your energy being pi$$ed off with this film... uh... series...
Click to expand...

That's the part that makes me mad. They just cut off the ending like I can tune in next Monday at 8 pm to see the exciting conclusion.

The movie (for me) wasn't that bad (for what it was..) but to just lop it off at the end like that...uhhh.
 
Chris Johnston said:
Pissed off, I go to the trusty interwebs thing and look it up. Turns out this is a 3 part movie. and part 3 won't be out for another year. Part 2 leaves you out there with a cliffhanger with no resolution what so ever...Like watching 3/4 of a movie.

Now I'm just P!$$ed, Can't read the book cause that would just mess things up in my head and yet can't watch part 3 for a year or so.

Ahhhh....Friggin Redbox. I hate you...
Click to expand...


You should read the book. Marxists and Leftists HATE Rand's work, because it so efficiently destroys the 'glory' of a Marxist society and reveals the end game result. Her work is so feared by the Left that they have put enormous effort into discretiting her work. Interestingly, next to the Bible, Atlas Shrugged has sold more copies than any other book in history. I strongly recommend reading the novel. When I read it fifty years ago, I could not put it down. The first movie was a low budget effort by a non-Rand fan who just happened to be forced to '**** or get off the pot' as his legal right to the copyright was to expire within the month. Agialaro bought the copyrights from Leonard Peikoff, Rand's intellectual heir, who is in charge of her estate. Rand herself would not approve of this film. That said, the second part is a quantum improvement over the first.
Why do we see so many "Who is John Galt?" stickers? It's because the world is now become what Rand predicted in 1957. This book is literally as a time machine into the future (ref to 1957 when it was written). As one of the few people still alive who knew Rand personally, I can state with confidence that public perception of her as a person is completely fabricated. You can also ask Mary Ann Rukavina (now married as Mary Ann Sures), about her, as she worked on typing the manuscript in Miss Rand's New York apartment. My only criticism of Rand was her terrible diet and what she considered to be 'good' food. That and her constant smoking.
 
basspig said:
Interestingly, next to the Bible, Atlas Shrugged has sold more copies than any other book in history.
Click to expand...

You should have the wiki 'List of Best Selling Books" updated. As it is, Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities"(1859) tops that list with over 200 million copies. Since the immediate 'objection' to that book is its 'age'... for a time contemporary with Rand's writings, J. R. R. Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings" has 150 million, and his "Hobbit" at 100 million (I will bet dollars to doughnuts, a majority of that sells really began in the mid 60's to present time, especially after Peter Jackson's (a Tolkein Cult Follower...) live action adaptations...).

Another contemporary of Rand, C. S. Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" weighs in at 85 million sold.

In fact Rand doesn't even appear on the list at all... perhaps a grave sin of omission... perhaps because a claim of 'sold more copies than any other book' is unsupportable.

The wiki also excluded The Bible, The Qur'an, Communist Manifesto, and Quotations from Chairman Mao, the later two being standard required reading for any self respecting Leftist, because while they may be sold, are often printed and distributed for free (whether they are actually read is a different story...), and so do top the lists of 'most printed' books, but not necessarily the most 'sold' books.

In any case, all three of those writers who have proven book sales, would have very different views on the role of government, religion and The State relative to addressing the social needs of the individual.

In fact, one could claim that Dickens writing in a time when 'unfettered capitalism' was showing its face on the earth, wrote of the dark side of such an economic system, as did Marx and Engels at a slightly later time of the 19th Century.
 
Yea, When I saw that, I did a little googleing myself. Couldn't even find it on any of the "top 100" sellers lists.

Political leanings aside, I just wanted to know if the motor worked and what happened after....
but I don't want to know if it means I have to read 1100 plus pages. (I'd rather re read some Arthur C Clark. ;-) )
 
It's been a while but as I recall the short version is that the motor worked but he didn't want to share it with those that didn't deserve it, those who profit from the abilities of others.

I've read up on Rand because I found it kind of interesting when I first came across it. But the more I read the more I likened it to the Celestine Prophecy in that she tries to sway you to her philosophy through hooking you on a good mystery. By setting up the mystery (who is john galt?, did the motor work?) she makes you susceptible to taking in her wider ideas through your simple desire to find out what happens. I found some of her ideas of a meritocracy to be interesting, there is definitely some validity to her criticisms of existing socio-political/economic structures but her conclusions and proposed 'utopia' is as flawed and dystopic as any extreme of communism, capitalism, theocracy or indeed any other ideological social structure.

At its extreme her version would allow anyone without 'merit' to perish. The obvious problem with that being what mechanism determines 'merit'? It could be argued that those bearing the bumper sticker are claiming merit-based elitism therefore shouldn't be surprised when that draws a reaction from those they presumably regard to be unworthy. Personally I see some value in a tame version of her views but taken to heart see the exact same problems with every other elitist system but with different benefactors.

I'm not anti-Rand, nor a follower so I like to think my analysis balanced but if you are actually interested I encourage you to look into her writings for yourself. I do caution taking it with a pinch of salt, it must be remembered the underlying purpose of the book is indoctrination/education depending on your point of view. It is not an innocent story but a manufactured tool of her philosophy. Positives are highlighted, negatives underplayed. Go in with open eyes and you can make your own assessment.

Like any ideological work it often attracts followers with cult-like leanings as well as moderates. It is certainly true that she has been targeted and discredited by passionate haters who misunderstand her work. But it is also true that her defenders over-react to the opposition and ignore valid criticism. And as happens with any ideology (including capitalism, communism, religions, etc) fundamentalist supporters can become increasingly insular and close-minded in reaction to the criticism.

As for the story itself from a purely literary point of view it is like 50 shades of grey is purported to be, an engaging story poorly told. The mystery pulls you along but if you're awake you do find yourself feeling manipulated. Essentially the main character gets drawn into a conspiracy and is indoctrinated through a series of lessons in the guise of events that perfectly illustrate elements of Rand's philosophy. When she is 'ready' she gets to meet John Galt. The core mysteries are definitely engaging but after meeting John Galt and the central mystery resolved it gets bogged down and her inelegant writing style begins to weigh heavily. If you're interested, read it. It's a fairly quick read and she does do a good job of teasing you with the mysteries. It has a Lost-like quality in that respect. Her philosophy is interesting and it will make you think and that can't be a bad thing. Your own background will likely determine how you react to the book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top