Atlas Shrugged: Part I
Tags: alternate reality, philosophical

Plot synopsis:
Based upon the controversial 1957 novel by Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged follows the struggles of Dagny Taggart, a railroad heiress trying to maintain her integrity, and keep her family's railroad alive in the midst of a rapidly decaying world. She faces increasingly corrupt government agencies, the cowardly incompetence of her own brother, and the systematic loss of her best and most competent workers. As she works to overcome each obstacle, she begins to detect a pattern, and suspect a sinister force working against her. All across the country, there is a growing sense of helplessness, often summed up in a phrase that everyone seems to know, but no one knows the origin of - Who is John Galt?.One by one, the best and brightest industrialists in the country have been disappearing overnight without a trace, and abandoning their businesses to be cannibalized by corrupt political interests. But many are disappearing just as she needs them most, leading her to realize that someone, some destroyer, is keeping just ahead of her, and is working against her. As she wonders what he could be telling these men - to get them to give up everything and disappear - she knows she must somehow beat him if she wants Taggart Transcontinental to survive.She pursues the mystery cross country looking for clues to the destroyer, and also to find the inventor of a revolutionary motor she found in a trash pile of an abandoned industrial lab. As the world sinks further into decay, she knows her time for saving her railroad, and maybe staving off the collapse of the world around her, is growing short. However, the revelations she seeks will ultimately challenge her views, and force her to decide between fighting in her world, or leaving everything she's valued behind.
_____KrystelClaire's synopsis:2nd September 2016: The Middle East crisis and a huge oil spil has provoked a shortage of oil all over the world. Back in the USA, it's become legal for profitable companies to fire as many employees as they want, and prices and salaries have become fixed by law. In this situation, strikes, turmoils and rebellions start soon. One of the consequences of all this is that the train system has become the only affordable transportation means. However, we can see the railroad's main problem: derailments have stopped being scarce.On TV, there is a politicial debate over the situation. Ellis Wyatt, a Colorado oil enterpreneur (Graham Beckel) and James "Jim" Taggart (Matthew Marsden), the young president of the Taggart Transcontinental, dismisses the derailments in his company, saying that people is more worried about speed. The representative of the government does not seem able to bring out any suggestions. James is accused of being incompetent and not being able to fill the shoes of his late father by Wyatt. Wesley Mouch (Michael Lerner), a Washington lobbyist, is also present.In a diner, a waitress (Olivia Presely) cares about a bump (Frank Cassavetes) who enters to protect himself about the heavy rain and cold outside, and who has no money to pay for his food. She also gives his takeaway order to a wealthy-looking man (Geoff Pierson) who leaves. There is another man who looks mysterious, in a hat and a long coat, who leaves right after the rich man. The mysterious man goes after the wealthy man, saying to him that he is used to work for himself, not letting a company take away the profits he has created; the wealthy man agrees with him, seeing himself in that definition, and then asks the poor man about his name. The images freeze and the audience can read a caption: MISSING: MICHAEL "MIDAS" MULLIGAN - BANKING CEO - VANISHED: SEPTEMBER 2, 2016.Title credits  Atlas Shrugged In her luxurious apartment, Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) is phoned and told to watch a certain TV programme. She listens to reporter Denise Greco (Jan Morris) reports another train wreckage in Granby, Colorado. Dagny walks to the underground. Meanwhile, James is said that people are cancelling tickets like crazy, because the machines of the company are really old. His assistant, Eddie Willers (Edi Gathegi) is the messanger of bad news, but James accuses him of just wanting to take on his job. Dagny has to step in. The Taggart Transcontinental with new materials and new engineering methods; for example, she does with Jimmy's idea of buying all the steel to Orren, in spite of the problems that company is causing to them. There is a lot at stake in Colorado: the company really needs things to work out there.Train station in Philadelphia. Dagny reads about continuing oil catastrophes in the world. Henry "Hank" Rearden (Grant Bowler) is working on a new engine for the trains. He rejects meeting many people, including the guilds; Dagny calls on him. They both admit that they need each other, in the sense that both their businesses may lose it all if the deal does not end well. She offers him 20,000 dollars per town is he is able to make the motors work in nine months. As the CEO of Rearden Steel, he understands the kind of pressures she has to deal with: an incompetent brother and corrupt politicians. He thinks that Rearden Metal will do the job very well - a new alloy twice as strong with half the weight. Dagny leaves in her car driven by a chauffer. Henry walks home. At home, his wife Lillian Rearden (Rebecca Wisocky) is having a small gathering of friends and relatives. As a birthday present, Lillian is given a beautifully crafted bracelet made of steel, which she snobbily sneers at, even after having pressed him on compromising him on his attendance to their tenth anniversary celebration in three months' time. His mother (Christina Pickles) says that only a diamond bracelet could do. Phillip Rearden, his brother (Neill Barry) asks him for some money, but his charity group, which cares for the unpriviledted, doesn't want to know that the money comes from him. Henry has got a reputation for caring only about money, which he admits. His best friend Paul Larkin (atrick Fischler) loved the bracelet as it is, and he advises Henry to mind public opinion. The press is also against him. This is also the first time that John Galt's name is mentioned. Paul wonders who he is.At a high end restaurant, Wesley, James, Paul and politician Orren Boyle (Jon Polito) meet. Paul doesn't want Henry to be hurt, but Orren and Wesley betray Henry without looking back. Boyle wants to pass a law limiting the number of business that a single person may have, but to make sure that the law gets approved, he asks James for money; in exchange, the investigation about the Granby accident will be scrapped. At that moment, Francisco D'Anconia (Jsu Garcia) enters, with a girl on each arm. Everybody looks at him and whispers his name. He is a rich heir turned bon-vivant playboy. Paul leaves the meeting. James looks at Francisco, surrouned by beautiful girls who want to have their photographs taken with him.Dagny looks for a contractor to rebuild the Colorado line. James is furious when he learns that Dagny has scrapped his plans of building a railroad onto Mexico; he leaves her office in anger. Right afterwards, a blond employee (Ethan Cohn) enters the office to present his resignation alleging personal reasons; she is distraught, because she thought of giving him a promotion and making him responsible for a whole area. He doesn't want to say for whom he's gonna work afterwards, but he says it won't be for any rival railroad company. She tries offering him a lot of money, but he refuses point blank. He decided to tell her only because he had promised her to give her notice in advance when she gave him his first job. When she presses on for a reason, he just whispers, "Who is John Galt?" The image freezes and the audience can read the following caption: MISSING: OWEN KELLOGG - TAGGART EXECUTIVE - VANISHED: OCTOBER 15, 2016.Dagny is worried, drinking by herself. She phones Henry, talking about the dissapearance of several efficient men. Henry was also sleepless, having a cold relationship with his wife.Richard McNamara (Jack Milo) is at the train station, waiting from somebody from the Taggart Transcontinental to pick him up. He is stopped by somebody who offers him to have part on a society based on individual achievement. The image freezes once again and reads MISSING: RICHARD McNAMARA - MANUFACTURING CEO - VANISHED: NOVEMBER 6, 2016.Jimmy proposes to take the flag of caring for the general wellness, but instead getting the competition out of Colorado. He is praised as "behaving as a politician".News of the Mexico government, who has just nationalized all gold mines. Francisco and the Taggart Transcontinental have lost billions. In a corporate meeting, James says that he has saved the company billions by letting only a train a day running towards Mexico. Eddie is the one who spreads the news. The person Dagny is looking for called the company and only said "Who is John Galt?"The CEO of company who used to work with a rival train company who has just closed down shouts at Dagny. He says he only needs affordable transportation and leaves without shaking the hand she offers.Dagny talks to Henry: she needs stronger engines and faster trains. He mentions a company which went bust which had the best engines. He intends to look for the remains of the company to see whether there is something which could be salvaged. He also invites her and James for his anniversary party. Dagny throws some water to Francisco at a luxurious restaurant: he knew everything about the Mexican takeover but did nothing to prevent it, saving himself but nobody else.Lillian is taking Henry to their anniversary party. Barb Branson (Latasha Muhammad) from the NNT talks about the new bill which Orren had approved. Henry is worried and wants to deal with the matter, but Lillian doesn't want to hear about business. Dagby compliments her on her beautiful bracelet, but Lillian desmisses it as always. Henry doesn't want to talk to Francisco, who was invited by Lillian. He is surrounded by many girls.James drinks on his own. Another man tells him that happiness is a delusion. Francisco talks to Henry; he wants to learn from him, and he says that the people at the party don't want to admit that they are in debt with Henry, who is the provider of them all. Dagny prises Lillian's bracelet once again. When Lillian says that she was thinking of giving it to the maid, Dagny offers to exchange it for her diamond necklace, and Lillian jumps to this opportunity, doing it remorselessly in front of Henry himself. After the party, Henry tells Lillian never to invite people she thinks they are his friends. She replies back that he has not friends at all. He also rejects any possibility of sex with her.Rebuilding of the Colorado railtrack is on its way. Dagny decides to let Jimmy defend the bill on his own. She leaves the limo and walks home. The streets are full of bumps.Rearden metal is deemed good, but Dr Potter (Armin Shimerman) is pulling the gears to make the public opinion believe that it's dangerous. Dr Potter offered to buy the formula of Rearden metal, but Henry refuses, as it is his. He says that Dr Potter would not understand.Wyatt and Dagny are on site, checking the works on Colorado. He offers a job to her, in case that she needs it. Henry is also there, checking on an old bridge which should be replaced. He will do it in three months, and she says that it will depend on the budget.Eddie tells Dagny that another key employee has quit. She tells Eddie to stand on their own. James in playing with an electric train. Dagny wants to leave the company and start another company which will end the Colorado works. Then, she will come back to Taggart Transcontinental. She will take Eddie with her, so that James will have to do "his own job" from that moment on. She tells him to behave, or she will destroy him. She says she will call the line the John Galt line.Dagny asks Francisco for the money, but he won't give him the money. She explains the name as her being fed-up of hearing the name. She is rejected by many investors. Finally, she gets four people. Henry himself will put the remaining funds. Henry shows her some photographs of some kind of engine: it was hidden in the bankrupt company in Winsconsin he dug around. It is a prototype which probably was never put onto production, so nobody can be sure that the thing even works properly, but Dagny feels that the engine is worth a look. Henry is interrupted, being told that the "equality of opportunities" bill has been passed, forbidden that nobody should have more than one company. Henry insists that he will sell all his other companies, but that he will never give up his metal. He reassures Dagny that that the bridge will be done on time and budget. Henry has to sell his companies to some other people, like for example Paul.Rearden Ore Corporation, Rearden Coal Company, Rearden Foundry Inc, Rearden Manufacturing Itl... they all go one by one. That's not the only problem: Union leader Brenden Brady (Matt O'Toole) alleges the unsafety of the rearden metal to try to forbid that any union member works on that line. Dagny will asks for volunteers, but she wants Brady to give the workers a choice. She promises that the speed will be kept steady for all the itinerary. She and Henry go on the new train. Before boarding, Dagny is asked who John Galt is. Many people look at her on the tv, worried about what she's going to say. She simply answers "We are". The train is able to cross the bridge, and they breathe out after they cross the bridge. 300 miles in less than 90 minutes, she announces confidently upon arrival.On the small celebration party it's mentioned by Wyatt that a new oil spring has been found, and that when everybody wants to go there to work on the site, their company will be the one who will take people there. At night, Henry and Dagny are left alone. They make love.At that moment, there is a knock on the door. A figure with a hat enquires about Ellis Wyatt, and he himself oepns up the door. When he finds it strange to be called upon at that hour, he asks who he is. The hatted man says that he knows his name.Henry proposes a getaway trip to Dagny to see the 20th Century Motor Corporation, a derelict building in Starnesville, Wisconsin. The warehouse is empty, apart from a few loose pices here or there. Dagny says that it looks as if they just left away. Henry finds a kind of hidden room: it's full of designs of engines. There is even an abandoned prototype. The designs are not signed, so they try going to the city hall and getting a list of employees, but they are incomplete in the town of Rome. A retired man leads them to one of the old employees who is working in Washington. In spite of Henry saying that he doesn't support Munch anymore, Eugene Lawson (Rob Brownstein) leads him to an engineer. He gives him a surname: Starnes. In Durance, Louisiana, his daughter Ivy Starnes (Sylva Kelegian) says that his father was an evil man, who only cared about motors and engines. She leads them to Brandon, Wyoming, where the chief engineer used to leave; he had quit the day after the engine project was presented to the company. His widow, Mrs Hanstings (June Squibb), says that it was his late husband's assistant who designed the engine. She leads them to Hugh Akston (Michael O'Keefe), the young assistant's university professor and mentor, who now has a lower station in life, being the owner of a humble diner in a dusty town. Akston doesn't want to even say the name of his protegé, and, to Dagny's surprise, he mentions that the mystery she's trying to solve is much greater than only an engine which creates electricity out of a vacuum.Eddie tells Dagny that there are new problems: some estates are forbidding the train with metal to pass throughout, and the use of the Rearden metal is being forbidden. Dagny tells Jimmy to fight his own battles, but we can see clapping to Wesley Munch's press conference. There, Munch also announces that steel companies will have to distribute the steel equally between companies, that companies will be forced to stay in their states and can no longer move to richer states like Colorado, and that Colorado will be imposed a special tax so that there will equalize economy in all the states.We can see Henry Rearden, alone, on his office, with a sad face, probably feeling desperate. Dagny drives like crazy to Ellis Wyatt's mansion. The chief fire-fighter (Derric Nugent) cannot prevent her entrance to the now empty mansion. She calls out for Ellis, but he's not there. He leaves the home and goes up a small steep nearby, from which she can see all the oil springs burning to exhaustion. She screams NO! There is a placard to her left side, which says I'M LEAVING IT AS I FOUND IT. TAKE OVER. IT'S YOURS. Dagny falls to his kness.We can hear the conversation in off of Ellis Wyatt to the same voice of the shadowy man which this time recognises that he be John Galt (Paul Johansson). He talks to Wyatt of the country where he comes from, called Atlas. There, individuals are judged on their merit, and the government don't crash them. Energy, intelligence, innovation and money are respected and appreciated there.We can see the following notice: MISSING: ELLIS WYATT - OWNER WYATT OIL - VANISHED: JULY 23, 2017. Over it, we can hear an answering machine message by Wyatt. He says that he's done, and that he's going on a strike.Fade to credits.--Synopsis written by KrystelClaire

Review: Those who agree with Rand's philosophy and enjoyed the book, but are repulsed by the relatively low-budget treatment of the film and the somewhat stunted screen writing that isn't entirely faithful to the original work, and (3.
Those who are completely ignorant of Rand's work and are seeing the film and judging it in a relative vacuum (these negative reviews do, in my opinion, have a certain merit inasmuch as the film doesn't really stand on its own as something that would appeal to the general movie-going audience).That said, I enjoyed the movie.
That the finished product came out as good as it did (budget limitations notwithstanding) is a testament to the production team.In summary, the book is far superior to the movie (as is almost always the case), but I found the movie to be, frankly, a better adaptation than I expected and well worth seeing -- if one can identify with or at least appreciate the ideology presented..
The problem is the film is shot like a PBS made-for-TV movie (mainly a series of talking heads) and the stiff dialog is lifelessly delivered by TV actors that lack big screen presence.Now, don't mistake me for one of those people who feel the subject matter of the book is too didactic for mass appeal, I just think this low-budget and amateur version lacks the fire and fury that Rand's novel deserves.I'm not saying not to see it, just avoid the mistake I made.
The story was faithful to the book, and the message and narrative clear, with the producers wisely sidestepping most of Rand's stilted polemics.Yes, the budget did confine most shooting to interiors, but there was enough "big sky" material, railroad operations, and steel mill shots to give the film some scope.
And the SFX and CG used in the supertrain shots, which probably absorbed half the budget, were worth every penny.The cast, and especially Taylor Shilling, who played Dagny, and Grant Bowler (Rearden) did a great job.Overall, I liked AS, and look forward to the sequels.
Also, her office in the basement of the Taggert Building is sparse and cramped in the book which adds to her strength, but in the movie it looks just like her regular office.The one scene that I think is important to the story is when Dagney is working very late one night and she sees a shadowy figure walk up to the door of her office and she thinks it might be Hank Reardon.
It's been many years since I read Ayn Rand's iconic novel, but it all came back to me as I watched this movie unfold.
It is a visual treat.The story line is true to the book but updated and set in a modern context that makes it feel fresh and exciting.Every single performance is first rate, but the leads are truly standouts.I can't wait for Parts II and III..
Not until now has a movie examined the question, why do we hate the founders of corporations, and why do we blame them for unemployment, when they are the ones who create jobs, not destroy them?Atlas Shrugged asks the viewer to think and understand, similar to other business- themed files like Wall Street and Rollover.
Eddie Willers is reduced to little more than an office messenger, periodically updating the principles on the latest story developments.Dagny and Rearden themselves are played with dry professionalism by Taylor Schilling and Paul Johansson, owing to their characters' purely-business attitudes toward life.
That is another way in which this movie is different - its view that industry is not evil, enemy to all that is good and healthy, but rather the foundation upon which modern society is built.The biggest disappointment is the sudden ending, to those who have not read the book and were expecting more than "half a movie." In reality, it is one-third, as the filmmakers have divided the story in same manner Ayn Rand divided the novel: into three parts.
However, as a big fan of the book and given the current US and global political climate and turmoil, I would rather see this movie made now, under the conditions described above, than have to wait another 50+ years to see it hit the silver screen.The filmmakers plausibly weaved the original Ayn Rand novel into the present without sacrificing much in the process.
Instead this had nearly all of the look, feel and polish that you would expect to see in a big-budget Hollywood movie, with the sole exception of the A-list actors.My fear though is that many people will skip this movie either because they have not read the novel or because they just don't hear about it.
My wife is a perfect example as she does not plan to see it with me because the premise of the novel (which she has not read) did not interest her when I described it.My biggest criticism is that this movie is too short (90 minutes long) and ended fairly abruptly.
Bowler and Schilling nailed it.Now, I'm a huge fan of the book, so I'm a bit biased towards the story, but I thought the movie was entertaining, paced well and held true to key aspects of dialogue and scenes.
Many of the reviews have said they are not sure how it would play to someone who is not a fan or have hinted that the only way to like it is to overlook things.I had not read the book before seeing the movie.
I'll admit, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand and objectivism, but this movie was awful beyond the suspect politics.Acting = terrible.Story = dullPolitics = I think Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck must have loved this.Cinematography = Not even good enough for a Lifetime TV movie.Why was this worse than "The Room"?
I say this because as has been said, the movie covers roughly the middle third of the book, and makes it very interesting.The actors and actresses played their parts very well; especially Taylor Schilling as Dagny.
I was excited to hear that they were making a movie because the book has been so thought provoking for me and I want my friends to get a chance to think about the same things.
I think they did a good job of putting the message of a 1,150 page book into a stylish and interesting movie.I'm not surprised that most of the professional critics didn't like it.
The novel can be difficult to read and I think after seeing the movie, new readers will be able to follow the book a lot easier.Seeing the faces of the characters and the issues that drive the story in context was very special.
I think many, many more people will discover and read the book with proper appreciation even if this first part is the only part produced.I got a huge kick seeing the vague depiction of John Galt in "Part 1" of the movie looking a lot like "Rorschach" from "Watchmen".
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 (1:37, PG-13) — SF, 3rd string, originalAn economy, I learned way back when, is built on 4 pillars: resources, labor, capital, and entrepreneurial ability.{1} Ayn Rand was convinced that the only 1 of these that mattered worth a damn was the entrepreneurs — the only Truly Worthy people in any society, deserving most of the power and money as a reward for making the society even possible, let alone thriving, in addition to their general swellness.
If it does OK in the theaters (pretty likely, considering the low production costs and quasi-religious fan base), there will surely be sequels, but be perfectly aware up front that this film is not the complete story at all.The Randian heroes (and mistake them not for mere protagonists) are railroad tycoon Dagny Taggart (tall, slim, leggy, semi-expressionless blonde Taylor Schilling) and steel magnate Henry "Hank" Rearden (tall, fit, dark, ruggedly handsome, and reasonably competent Grant Bowler).
Instead, this is a clearly rushed (the producer started production just days before he lost the rights to the book) hack job with no-name actors delivering soap opera performances in a story they've muddled despite only covering roughly a third of the ground of the novel.
The stakes are low, the suspense about Galt is practically nonexistent despite the frequent interjections intended to remind the audience "Hey, there's something mysterious and important going on!" and the constant, blatant preaching of the dialogue which seemed egregious on the page seems doubly so when read aloud in the context of a "drama." No one talks like that ever and it comes across as really stilted, unnatural, and force feeding an audience the anti-humanist message.The production values are equivalent to what you get in a SyFy original movie like Sharkotpus with terrible set design, CGI that looks like it was done in MS Paint, and lazy, static camera-work.
The director's previous work was on One Tree Hill and the screenwriter's background is working on straight-to-DVD horror movies about mutant monsters with names like "Evilution" and "Cemetery Gates." That should tell you everything you need to know about the level of quality on display here.For people who didn't like, were mixed, or are unfamiliar with the book I think it'll be a colossal failure.
That might bore a lot of people, but this story was pretty interesting.Despite a small budget and no-name actors it came across with high production values and good acting....no complaints there.Taylor Schilling was good as the lead character, "Dabney Taggart," a strong businesswoman who isn't going to let - if she can help it - the government, unions or whoever else - unfairly bully her and the railroad company.Grant Bowler also was good as Dabney's ally, "Henry Reardon," one of the few admirable characters in this movie based on the 1957 Ayn Rand book, which now seems very prophetic 55 years later.There was a rumor that the sequel was not going to be made, but that is not true.
I admit, I am a fan of Rand but that makes it all the more creditable that this movie stayed true to the point the book was making which is that people seem to have 2 points of view.
When I found out Atlas Shrugged was being turned into a movie I was initially excited as a fan of the book....then I read the reviews and was concerned the movie wouldn't do the book justice...so I couldn't have been more surprised at how good the movie was, especially considering how quickly it was put together and on a low budget.The movie was visually appealing, the story flowed well, and the acting was fine (for the most part) despite what I've read in reviews.On the downside, I didn't think the movie was as effective with the phrase "Who is John Galt?" as the book was and there were a few instances when the movie's low budget could be seen, but these instances were few and far between.All in all it was a good movie and all the more impressive considering the low budget and the challenges that come with turning a book by Rand into a movie.....unfortunately there is a lot of garbage that hits the big screen that get more attention than this one ever will, probably because of the lack of explosions..
They were new at movie-making, didn't know what the film would eventually cost, and were either ignored or scorned by those in the movie world.Yet they got pretty good acting, a little slow pacing at first, and some good drama - the John Galt Line creation.
I wish the characters could have been developed better for those who haven't read the book but it would have ended up a 4 part movie instead of 3.
While reading this book, before I knew that there was a movie in the offing, I often hoped that it would come to the big screen, and just as often despaired that it never could -- just too hard.
Those who know and love the book will want to see this movie, those who don't know the book will enjoy it, and even those who disagree with Ayn Rand's basic premise can, if they have an open mind, watch this movie and come away with a better understanding of what those who move the world must feel these days.
(Spoiler Alert) My only complaint about the movie is that I didn't like the way the character of John Galt was handled - I don't think it was believable that he could have recruited all these "captains of industry" to his cause by stalking them late at night at their residences or in dark corridors where they worked..
Rearden's character is played perfectly and the attention to detail with the lesser roles such as Wyatt is near perfection.The only reason for the 9 instead of the ten is due to the Dagny character (played by Schilling) being a little stiff at the outset, but as the movie goes along, her character becomes more credible and believable.I can't wait for the sequel..
'Atlas Shrugged' the movie could wind up turning off people who've not had the pleasure of reading Ayn Rand's most famous book..
Then when the trailer for 'Atlas Shrugged Part 1′ hit this past February, I was hoping that maybe it was just one of those badly cut trailers, but deep down, it was obvious what we were in for.The time couldn't have been better for a movie of this magnitude to hit and be a success as the story has some great cinematic moments, plus it could expose Rand to an entirely new generation that would have never paid much attention.
When one sets out to put to film the book that started out objectivism, one should expect the job to be hard & spend most of ones time contemplating how to put the basic philosophy on the screen.Instead, Atlas Shrugged spends the entirety of the film trying to decide if it wants to do philosophy, a bad mystery or a straightforward story of shallow depth.
The film lacks the substance of the philosophy and the solidness of the storyline of the book and while it shows spots of brilliance in trying to put the story in modern times, it skips over just about all examples of real life of our age that could deliver the message of the book - it's as if the screenwriter read the 10-page summary of the 1170 page actual book.
If you have NOT read the book, you will understand it a bit less, but love it anyway!Cheers and Kudo's to the entire cast, directors, producers - GREAT job!!!!.
Though not a great film, it is certainly a "must-see" movie, at once entertaining and intellectually provocative.Strong points: * The best thing here is Rand's compelling plot itself.
An entertaining story that shows what will happen if the producers and capitalists go on strike and leave the parasites of society to fend for themselves.Does a good job of squeezing the main points, best quotes, and all the main characters of the novel onto the big screen.
Amazing job for a low budget production outside Hollywood.Like all trilogies, you hate to see part one end and you wish you didn't have to wait another year for the next installment.Liberals hate the truth and message in this movie so ignore the main stream critics and decide for yourself..
their failing life extended only by the $60 billion we taxpayers were forced to pay to the unions in Detroit, to keep them in business a few more years, which will never be recovered.Unfortunately, the message will likely be missed by all those under 30 (and maybe even 40), who will not understand the battle, or it's terms, or certain outcomes - having been brain-washed by their incompetent, subversive educators, who would never have included Atlas Shrugged on their required reading lists, and would have banned not only the book from Boston, but also this great movie.But, alas...
ATLAS SHRUGGED is a movie that should have been made decades ago simply for the fact that Ayn Rands book is essentially responsible for defining modern conservative thought.On the good side, the filmmakers were able to create a scenario whereby the railway industry could actually be the lucrative industry required for the protagonists to be relevant in modern times.
I am a fan of the book and felt like the movie did a good job of expressing the feelings and ideas expressed by the author in a modern day story.
I read Ayn Rand's books a couple years ago and was quite surprised by parallels with today.
Now I need to read the book." So, whether you a fan of Ayn Rand's works or not, the movie is enjoyable and leaves you wanting more..
Characterizations could have been more in depth, but that would have required even more dialogue which would dilute the central theme.Considering that most mainstream movie reviewers are immersed in the glittering Hollywood culture, it's not surprising that this low budget, independently funded movie received lower ratings from them than from its viewers.As "Atlas Shrugged" has been a perennial best seller in book form, it's likely that the movie will have a long life on the DVD shelf after its theatre run ends.As for Parts 2 and 3...
I believe because Ayn Rand wished this story to be told across several generations, for any time.Several times while watching this movie I was completely taken aback at the attention to detail taken from the book.
Having read the book during my school years, when it was new, I was surprised to find it had, only recently, been made into a film, apparently low budget with lesser known actors.
Atlas Shrugged A Work Ayn Rand Would Be Proud To See. Turning an 1168-page novel, especially the world's best selling and presumably most read novel, into a movie is an extraordinary undertaking.
If you enjoy a good story and an entertaining movie, treat yourself to Atlas Shrugged Part 1.
While not "Excellent", I think this movie did a "Good" job of conveying Rand's ideas.