I've decided to start a list of new(wide) releases that I am confident I'll never see. EVER! I'll be happy…
Atlas Shrugged: Part I
Who is John Galt?
A powerful railroad executive, Dagny Taggart, struggles to keep her business alive while society is crumbling around her. Based on the 1957 novel by Ayn Rand.
The book Atlas Shrugged is a vile thing partially redeemed by the rubberneck value of seeing an author’s scarred psyche and bigotry transformed into a meticulously thought-out yet repellent philosophy that denies the existence of abstract beauty or humanity. Reading it is an alternately hilarious and disturbing experience, but it helps you understand the workings of the moneymen who arrogantly and incorrectly assume that their blind luck and ruthlessness in gaming the system is evidence of their Übermenschian superiority over the riff-raff.
Atlas Shrugged: Part I can’t even get that right. It’s incoherent and tedious, as soulless as the people who find value in it, and yet mundanely evil. It advocates the worst behaviour, it celebrates the worst of our…
To be clear, I'd give the movie 0 stars but I don't want you to think I didn't give it a rating at all.
A lot of people who have given this movie a bad review (and there were a LOT of people who have done so) have been accused of simply disagreeing with the film's political stance, and to be fair the film makes its socio-political views very clear. That's not why this is a bad movie, though. This is a bad movie because it's a dull, overwrought, poorly-written and poorly-acted affair. I may not be the biggest Ayn Rand fan in existence, but the woman was a good writer and Atlas Shrugged is a well-written story. John Aglialoro and Brian Patrick O'Toole, the writers behind this film, are clearly not anywhere near her or your average screenwriter's league. To be fair, they…
It's technically serviceable but that can only get you so far when your production is plagued by wooden acting and TV-movie mise en scene. Unlike The Fountainhead, which I admit I enjoyed (both the film and the book), and regardless of your personal views on Rand's literature or philosophy, the material here just doesn't translate well into film, and especially not as a vehicle for Rand's political ideology. No amount of screen magic can make a film about a fucking railroad exciting (or at least it would take a team of talent many orders of magnitude more skilled than the one on display here), and when you pair it up with Rand's two-dimensional mouthpieces engaging in dry monologues about the…
I have not seen this movie, but I have to share a story a friend just shared with me about seeing this movie in the theater.
My friend went to see this movie when it opened in San Diego. The theater was packed. He was sitting three rows behind an older man sitting by himself. A group of five college students entered the theater and looked for five seats together where they could sit. Seeing a number of seats open around the older man, they politely asked him if he wouldn't mind moving towards the middle so they could sit together. He looked at them and said passionately, "No. This is my seat." Shocked, the college students separated and sat in two different groups. Here's to you, Ayn Rand.
Not even redeemable from a filmic point of view, let alone the whole objectivisim thing, which is also stupid.
If I was forced to make a choice between watching this again or shooting my own dick off, I'd already be loading the gun.
"Not a great film. Not a bad film. Certainly unfairly savaged by a large number of critics. I haven't read the book but didn't have any trouble following the fairly simple plot. The complaints of wooden dialog might fairly apply to the occasional line delivery but overall the performances were more nuanced that I had been led to expect. It gave me a bit of the sense of a ""Heaven's Gate"" with epic aspirations falling short but not nearly as far short as ""Heaven's Gate"" fell.
I'm sufficiently interested that I'll be there for Part II if it makes it to the screen - and even be a bit disappointed if it doesn't."
The silliness of the last sequence will go down as one of the worst but funniest events in flop history.
Too bad the shrug turned out to be contagious...
Knowing nothing of the title or anything associated with this film, at first I was excited, thinking that this was an ambitious, original, dystopian screenplay of the near future. Its not; its a novel adaptation, which basically makes this a politically charged soap opera. Since so many reviewers want to curse this for its complete lack of humanity, I will cite the protagonist's determination in spite of adversity, maybe thats worth something. Any serious debate of the story falls under the jurisdiction of economic theorists and literary critics, not film critics.
Only a movie this shitty could make looking at Taylor Schilling for 90 minutes a chore.
Awful source material, nonsensical acting, and worse direction/editing than the greenest film student. Anyone who thinks this film is any good a) doesn't know film, or b) is grinding a pro-Ayn Rand axe.
Absolute fucking shit, dripping with contempt for empathy and humanity and all that is good in the world. This blinding compendium of bollocks is such an embarrassment to the art of filmmaking that even in a world where capitalism is considered the only viable economic system this leaden, stupefying dull, sagging opus failed to strike a chord with anybody beyond the most blinkered hard-line Randians. Having endured 102 minutes of the grotesquely warped philosophies of the inexplicably named Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, the two least likeable characters in all of fiction, I advocate an immediate redistribution of producer/co-writer John Aglialoro's wealth amongst the workers in order to prevent the completion of the third installment of Atlas Shrugged - the…
I tried reading the book but I just couldn't. It's amazing to me that so many people have read it and it continues to be a widely read book even today not only because of its message, but because it seems conventionally boring and features characters that I would imagine most people could not identify with. The protagonists of the movie are emotionless millionaires who only care about freedom and making money. I don't know if they were better characterized in the book, but in the movie it felt weird to think about them ever having any sort of romantic relationships, especially with each other, because they seem like robots with human faces. I like objectivism and think it's definitely…
I am someone who has read Ayn Rand's famous novel. With its myriad of characters and often times excessive preaching is not for everyone and that's too bad because there are some great lessons about self-reliance and perseverance found within its pages. It's overly long really and one of the interesting things to me was to see just how they would cut down the story and still retain the book's fascinating characters. The bad news is that they didn't or maybe just couldn't.
I don't think the problem is with the acting or direction. Instead the issue is that there is just too much story to relay even in a trilogy of movies. This story is much better suited for…
- Rock of Ages
- That's My Boy
- Dark Shadows
- American Reunion
- Weekend at Bernie's
- Weekend at Bernie's II
- Battlefield Earth
- Pirates of Silicon Valley
- Ernest Scared Stupid
Groaning audibly, electronically, together, since September 2011.
- End of the World
- On the Beach
- Day the World Ended
- Invasion of the Body Snatchers
These are all films that relate to the theme of dystopian societies, or include worlds different from our own.