Freedomain Radio

http://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/movie-rentals/atlas-shrugged-part-1/

...it's in the top 20, which is not bad.

This has surprised me. I love the book, but the movie gave me goose chills...and not in a good way. I did not find the book to be "corny" (except for the very end), but the movie has several moments where I was actually embarrassed. There is good in the movie as well. The scene where Rearden's brother is asking for anonymous money was excellent. I think that scene was actually better in the movie than it was in the book. I am on the fence here. I am glad the movie was made, because it exposes more folks to Rand. However, I fear that the movie cannot fully convey the philosophy behind Atlas Shrugged and therefore perpetuates the, by now, canned criticisms of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

I am new to the forum, so I apologize if this rehashes old discussions.

Heath Long

The idea of Ellis Wyatt as a fat old curmudgeon sipping burbon by his Wilford Brimley fireplace is just appallingly ridiculous. And what was with Dagne's airplane hangar apartment with star trek window blinds? 

There were dozens of cringe moments in this movie. The Carmen Sandiego meets creepy Amway salesman cameos of John Galt: "Have I got a deal for you!", the sexual tension between Reardon and Dagne being reduced to "I'm married, but... aww fuck it!", Dagne's "Kahhhhn!" moment at the well fires, Ellis Wyatt announcing proudly on his answering machine, "I'm Ellis Wyat, and I'm not here anymore!", and on and on. 

Some books really, really, really should never be made into a movie. 

I hear you. The film had some problems, but I would venture to say that any jump from one medium (in this case, a novel to a film) will face considerable problems with regard to interpretation.This may be due to the fact that a novel is not a screenplay. In addition, the multi-sensual experience of a novel can be very personal, and any external interpretations will almost always fall short of a readers experience and interpretation of "a work." Also, film can be a very rich medium, so I'd imagine that subtle discrepancies between the mediums will be magnified to a degree that can be glaring. Add in the fact that feature film making is an "art by committee" endeavor, you can often have a mess on your hands due to compromise, and lack of time/budget to tweak until everything is just right. Just an opinion, tho' : )

I watched it tonight, I loved it.

Actually, I liked the brevity of it as compared to the book, which seems to be the objection everyone tosses around about the movie. I must say the audiobook was equally well read too. 

There were only two nitpicks from my part. One I wouldn't have included the nerd talk about the engine when they look at the blue prints, and two the jazzy music at the party was too damn loud!

I did it in reverse, I saw the movie and then started reading the book.  (I knew this movie has no mainstream appeal when I had to drive for an hour to find a theater that was showing it.  Geez.) I'm thankfully able to keep both separate and enjoy both as unique entities.  That doesn't usually happen.  Although perhaps it's because I don't LOVE the book fully.  Some bits are kinda silly and cruel, SPOILER

like where the Comet train crashes and Rand makes a list of all the crummy socialist bastards who died in it.  I mean talk about a *MUWHAHAHA!!!* moment!  But it's kind of cool that her books wear the philosophy on their sleeves and that Rand discards narrative momentum when it suits her.  It's maybe a little more honest than trying to disguise the preachiness in some sort of grand metaphor.

She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), one of the few men whose genius and commitment to his own ideas match her own. Rearden's super-strength metal alloy, Rearden Metal, holds the promise that innovation can overcome the slide into anarchy.

Doh!

This movie reminded me of The Room -- except The Room actually had a plausible excuse for being so bad: it was deliberate. While watching Atlas Shrugged, I don't think I went longer than a two minute stretch without either cringing or laughing out loud at the poor acting or script.

As someone who hasn't read the book, I guess I necessarily will have a different experience of it than those who have. So, for those who have read it and liked the movie, and want to know how those who haven't will receive it, this is how: the budget of the movie was apparent in every scene. The budget was practically the main star of the movie. It seems to me as though the plot was moving way way way too fast. There was constantly, constantly, something going on, some new turn in the story. I personally think a movie needs some down time, some break in the action. It's exhausting to watch a movie that's so full of words, and that's what this movie was: full of words. Nothing was left to implication or guessing, seems like everything that could be said was said. No subtlety.

I personally don't think this movie will attract much new interest in the book or in libertarianism. It may inspire some people who already wanted to read the book to read it. It also may influence some people who might have wanted to read it (like me) to decide that they actually really don't want to anymore.

I agree all of the above statements. I cringed. (Dagny was working on the Colorado line railroad in heels and a skirt, and then Rearden appears in the middle of Colorado's semi arid mountains in a suit...just walks over a hill in the distance. No vehicle took him there, he was just walking though South West Colorado in a suit.) I was disappointed by the pace, although I understand why it had to be done in that way. The scene with Rearden and his family was intense and well done.

Considering the movie was shot in 5 weeks, and that the budget was ~$5 million dollars....I have to say that I am impressed. There are some really terrific scenes. The Dagny scream (Kahn moment) was not one of them.

I am not sure it is possible to make this movie. They tried for ~40 years and this is the result. I think that in order to direct this movie, one must first value the subject matter. If this were true, the movie would probably be shot in 4 parts, each running ~2 hours in length. Try selling that idea. Ha! Maybe the new setting should be a distant planet and Wesley Mouch could have James Earl Jones voice over his lines.

nathanm:

She is drawn to industrialist Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), one of the few men whose genius and commitment to his own ideas match her own. Rearden's super-strength metal alloy, Rearden Metal, holds the promise that innovation can overcome the slide into anarchy.

Doh!

Bear in mind, Rand was strongly opposed to anarchism, and was not at all averse to the use of violence to achieve an end.

Witness, in the book, the thought process that Dagne goes through, when murdering the watchman. Not, "I love Galt and I'll do anything to save him!". Not, "These thugs are going to kill him!". Not, "There is no time to spare, and he's armed!" Instead, it's a several page long rationalization ending in "he's already dead on the inside, anyway, so I'm just making the outside match the inside."

The scene wasn't just random plot movement. She meant it.

Ahh!  I've been spoilt!  (I'm only 54% into it, according to ye olde Kindle progress bar)  Oh well, no biggie.

I'm no expert by any means, I haven't done all the research; but from what I've read, if she's against anarchy she sure has a funny way of showing it.  When you spend your entire time railing passionately against government and overall collectivism, well to me that thing there looks and swims like a duck so I'm going with the "duck" label.  It's a heaping anarchy sundae she's created, and okay so there's a rotten minarchist cherry on top, but I'm still looking at creamy scoops of anarchy.

The movie would have been better as a TV series. It's not as though there wouldn't be enough plot to eke out! I also think it would have garnered a bigger audience. 

GregG:

The idea of Ellis Wyatt as a fat old curmudgeon sipping burbon by his Wilford Brimley fireplace is just appallingly ridiculous. And what was with Dagne's airplane hangar apartment with star trek window blinds? 

There were dozens of cringe moments in this movie. The Carmen Sandiego meets creepy Amway salesman cameos of John Galt: "Have I got a deal for you!", the sexual tension between Reardon and Dagne being reduced to "I'm married, but... aww fuck it!", Dagne's "Kahhhhn!" moment at the well fires, Ellis Wyatt announcing proudly on his answering machine, "I'm Ellis Wyat, and I'm not here anymore!", and on and on. 

Some books really, really, really should never be made into a movie. 

This and so much more. Awful movie.

Stefan Molyneux:

I watched it tonight, I loved it.

I don't understand how you could have.

nathanm:

Ahh!  I've been spoilt!  (I'm only 54% into it, according to ye olde Kindle progress bar)  Oh well, no biggie.

I'm no expert by any means, I haven't done all the research; but from what I've read, if she's against anarchy she sure has a funny way of showing it.  When you spend your entire time railing passionately against government and overall collectivism, well to me that thing there looks and swims like a duck so I'm going with the "duck" label.  It's a heaping anarchy sundae she's created, and okay so there's a rotten minarchist cherry on top, but I'm still looking at creamy scoops of anarchy.

 

You're going to weep at how clownishly big the "cherry on top" ends up being.