Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) Reviews

• Read This Before Seeing This Film:

  apostasy3622012-01-23

  Having read the book, seen the movie, and read a representative sample of user reviews, I feel I can confidently make a few points that may help those who haven't seen the movie yet. The negative user reviews found here can all be placed in one of three distinct categories: (1. Those who disagree with Rand's philosophy for whatever personal reasons they have and would despise the movie for that reason alone, even if it were a cinematic masterpiece (it's not -- not bad under the circumstances, but "The Fountainhead" it's not); (2. 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. I agree with Rand's philosophy (not the "all-about-me" world view that her dissenters accuse her of espousing), so seeing it on the big screen is refreshing for me. The main faults I find with it are no doubt due to condensing roughly 350-400 pages of book into about 90 minutes of film without butchering it beyond recognition (films adapted from Stephen King's works generally have the same faults) compounded by a woefully inadequate budget. 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.

  More

• Atlas Shrugged… and so did I

  RhyanScorpioRhys2011-05-01

  I have to admit that it's been years since I read the book (required high school reading) and while I struggled to get through it, I did appreciate the concepts of a dystopian United States, the philosophy of Objectivism and the idea that civilization and society simply cannot continue to exist where there is no creativity. Almost none of this is covered in this first part of the trilogy. Don't get me wrong, the film covers a lot of ground, in fact it's front-loaded with heavy doses of exposition. 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. Go in with no expectations. Hell, it might even make you want to pick up the book and give it a read.

  More

• Better Than I Expected

  Jaybird2482011-04-15

  I was prepared to cringe at this Atlas Shrugged, universally panned by the critics for its low budget and no-name cast. Instead, I was pretty impressed. 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. I just hope the producers can raise the financing to make them.

  More

• Atlas Shrugged

  valahey2011-04-22

  The movie isn't awful, but it isn't that good. To anyone who has read the book, the movie lacks in several ways. The movie jumps in right at the point where the Taggert Transcontinental crashes after derailing. There's no background on the peoples' lives. You don't understand the relationships between Dagney, James (her brother), Francisco (her friend and first love) and Eddie (her friend and employee). You don't understand how much Dagney loves the railroad and how she took any job at the railroad when she was younger. It doesn't show how much the employees respect her versus James. You don't understand how intelligent and creative Francisco is and how he respects his ancestor who sacrificed everything for his love and his future generations so you're not confused (like you should be) why he's acting like he is. I didn't get the "feel" of how desperate the general public deals with everyday life. Yes, there were a lot of street people, but the viewer doesn't understand why or that not everyone is lazy and/or greedy. You don't "feel" the disintegration of everyone's life and the country. You see superficial greedy, politicians but you miss the fear in most everybody's eyes. Also, it doesn't show how hard Dagney works to save the railroad by building the "John Galt Line." It doesn't show her frustrations or the long hours she puts in and how weary she becomes, but doesn't give up. 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. The figure paces back and forth and then walks away. I think it's important to the story because later you find out it was John Galt and how he knew that it wasn't the right time to talk to her. The movie ends just like the book (part 1) with Dagney screaming "no!" at Wyatt's Torch. The movie is only 97 minutes long so they could have added more depth to the movie without tiring out the audience. I don't think the movie will recoup the expenses of making the movie. If not, it doesn't seem they will truly continue with part 2 or 3.

  More

• An exhilarating ride!

  mjkt2011-02-25

  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. Indeed, the characters have more depth and complexity in the movie version. Most impressive is the production quality. I'm told this is a low budget movie, but it doesn't look that way. 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.

  More