True to form or Right Wing Trainjacking?

Although dab6's 30-second review is concise and would work well for anyone with A.D.D. wishing they had enough tenacity to read Roger Ebert's review, I gotta go with Intra.
The film avoids the political pitfalls that would earmark it as a GOP fluff piece by staying true to the characters and the spirit of the novel. Yeah, there is evidence of a low budget, but that also indicates there was no "whoring out" of the product in order to appease sponsors or individual agendas.

What we have is a decently played and directed film with some flaws. Aside from the flaws Intra notes, I would add that some of the dialogue feels stilted and unnatural due to the ambition to stay true to Rand's words and form. But I've seen this done in many screen adaptions and it's nothing new.
I'll also add that any spark of romance and sexual passion or tension is weak. It almost seems as a high school play in this regard, where the actors' body language says "OK, we're supposed to get intimate now. let's gear up to do this". But these are minor and few.

Considering how much money went into the movie "2012", this film got better actors, better, more believable action and a timeless message, all for less than 10% of "2012"'s budget.

It certainly won't capture the audience who wants car chases and cop-buddies blowing up tankers full of bad guys. There's no 3D animations or Johnny Depp doing Johnny Depp stuff. But for someone who wants to see excerpts of "Atlas Shrugged" come to life, I think this film does a fair and reasonable job of it.


"Atlas Shrugged- Part 1"- NOW in Canada
Coming soon to DVD!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I can see where and why Tea Partiers, Republicans and other conservative groups identify with this movie and the message. I tend to agree that corporations should be about making money and people should be about helping people. Nothing should be forced on a corporation/business to make them be more helpful towards the poor. Government should stay out of the way. The place where government should intervene is by reducing its size and influence and by lesssening our tax burden, therefore we would be allowed to keep more of the money we make to spend it on whatever we choose, and if charity is where a person wants to put their money then it would be their choice. Unions need to go away as well, they are no longer necessary . Yes, yes, the Triangle Shirt Factory tragedy of long ago showed us why a union was necessary blah blah blah, but that is no longer the case. I think businesses have ethics and understand there is a way of doing things that doesn't exploit their employees. Now its unions who are exploiting their members and the average taxpayer.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Bravo bravo, well said clankinweights

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

Basically it was telling people that they aren't "special" and that *gasp* everyone isn't created equal.

At first I thought these were two contradictory thoughts mashed together into a confused hodge podge from a mediocre internet intellect, but then I reread and have come to the conclusion that you sir, better than anyone else on this board, understand the true message that Atlas Shrugged made to its readers.

The reader is not special, and the reader was not made equal to the 2-dimensional avatars of virtue she wrote of.

People cant just cry, bitch, and complain all the time, i mean they can, but that's why there's successful people and, well, bitches.

Yes, truly. If only Rand had your eloquence, she'd have been able to pare her "This is John Galt" speaking chapter down from a 3 hour speech to a simple sentence.

I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

yes, even though libertarianism has been around about a hundred years longer than objectivism, it somehow borrows many of its ideas from objectivism. it's incredible what you can learn on imdb, isn't it?

the book bludgeons you with objectivist dogma from the very start. the heroes are all extremely handsome and brilliant people who believe in work and achievement to the exclusion of all else. the villains are all ugly sniveling whiners who are terrified of even the hint of responsibility and constantly moan about "helping the disadvantaged". much of the dialog reads like an objectivist lecture, even from supposed children. as literature, it's comically weak writing.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]