Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)

I am not in the film industry so maybe I didn't catch some editing issues since I thought the move was great. Ayn wrote Shrugged in such a cinematic way, it was great to see the sweeping landscapes, witty banter, and some steamy scenes come to life on the big screen. It was really great to see some beautiful scenes of the rail and steel industry.

The actors were excellent, especially the main characters. 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. I think people will enjoy it even if they haven't read the book, and hope it inspires people to read the book.

From the sounds of it, Part 2 and 3 are a go and will be released Tax Day 2012 and 2013.

Fmovies: There are other reviewers which have chosen to discount this movie because it was made on a relatively small budget, has no major Hollywood stars, or because it takes place just slightly in the future, instead of the distant past.

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. Combine that with solid acting and the overall feel of the movie, and they have delivered an enjoyable movie that I will see more than once in the theater, which is rare for me.

Not once did I feel that I was watching a movie that was "thrown" together as some have suggested, or that sacrificed quality or story. 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. Given the amount of material involved, and that it is being split into 3 movies, the first movie could have/should have been at least two hours long.

How is Atlas Shrugged different from any other movie? Why has is taken 54 years to bring Ayn Rand's epic 1,100 page novel to the big screen? Why is it lacking participation from the A-list Hollywood names once attached to it, Anjelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Faye Dunaway? Why did it open on only 300 screens nationwide, and why was that opening on April 15, 2011, coincident with the third annual Tax Day Tea Party? Why are the founders and top executives of the nation's most successful industrial empires disappearing without a trace, one by one? Why ask useless questions? Who is John Galt? Because they have answers, that's why. Those who have read Rand's 1957 magnum opus know the answer to the last of those questions. This posting will suggest an answer to the first, which may in turn offer clues to the others.

So, what makes Atlas Shrugged different? It takes place in the near-term future, 2016 (a departure from the book). That's not it; we have seen thousands of movies about an imagined future. The nation is in the worst economic recession in history. Nothing new there. People of former means are living in the streets, homeless and destitute, while the captains of industry and owners of large corporations grow rich. No departure from the Hollywood norm there. The story is told from the points of view of those ultra-rich tycoons and moguls, the movie's sympathetic characters. There it is. Never before has a major Hollywood movie departed from its pet formula in which the "bad guys" are the evil rich. 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. Readers may be disappointed that the monumental size of the novel does not afford time for the screenplay to take the user into certain folds of the full story, since many characters must be introduced, and much of the political/business climate must be laid down as foundation. As a result, much of the screenplay consists of dry dialog, and much of the action from the novel is absent, presented in exposition such as newspaper headlines. The train wreck with which the book introduces us to heroine Dagny Taggart's heroic can-do character is shown only on a television news screen, and mentioned only once much later in dialog. The story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company's failure is given in brief narration by Hank Rearden. The back-story relationship between Dagny and Francisco D'Anconia is not explored at all. 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. Only in the final cliffhanging scene does Schilling display the real passion of Dagny, in a single exclamation reminiscent of Scarlett O'Hara's anguished cry which closes the first half of Gone with the Wind. Some familiar character actors are present: Graham Beckel gives a compelling performance as oil magnate Ellis Wyatt, as do John Polito as steel competitor Orren Boyle and Michael Lerner as Washington lobbyist Wesley Mouch (conspicuously not pronounced, "mooch")

Atlas Shrugged: Part I fmovies. 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.

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.

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.