Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) User Reviews (342)

Atlas Shrugged

[valahey · 5/10 · 22 April 2011]

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.

An "Objective" Review from an Ayn Rand Fan

[Atlantis_Resident · 5/10 · 22 April 2011]

A pro vs. con analysis of the AS movie from a life-long Rand fan and Objectivist sympathizer (but not associated w/ any particular "faction"):

PROs: Nice production design, visuals, cinematography, sets, costumes, effects, and soundtrack. Adequate script. No sign of the "low-budget" look & feel that I feared going in. With some exceptions, the casting captured my life-long mental image of the characters very well. A couple of scenes (not many) were as good as I hoped for.

CONs: Extremely lackluster and perfunctory directing and acting. The movie was far too low-key and undramatic. This story calls for constant tension and dramatic flare -- instead, the acting was flat and lifeless. Dagny and Rearden had near-zero chemistry. Some scenes (e.g., the anniversary party, Dagny's encounter w/Hugh Akston, all scenes w/ D'Anconia) utterly failed to convey the whole point of the scene from the novel. The overall effect is to almost trivialize Rand's grand theme.

If I'd seen this movie without ever having read the book, I'd say "What's the big deal? Two business people struggle to modernize a railway and end up in bed, while some stranger in a hat is whisking away other business people -- so what?" Too bad. A different director and better acting might have saved this script.

Good minimalist portrayal

[bobjohnson994 · 7/10 · 13 May 2011]

How do you take a 1000+ page novel and reduce it to the key events and discussions? Well, like this movie does it.

Let me state up front that I am an Objectivist, so you can factor in some bias you might suppose I have. On the other hand, Objectivists are famous for trying to remove emotional bias from their words and deeds.

I rate the story itself a 9, and the acting, production values, etc., a 5 resulting in my 7 score.

One of the things I liked about how the story was handled was the minimalist approach. Important ideas should not need a lot of fanfare, they need to be experienced for what they are. It kind of reminded me of Dances With Wolves. There is not tons of exposition, you have to glean to principles from simple events.

I think the acting by the principal actors was "good enough" for an indie production. I also think that is is good that the principal actors were physically attractive, after all, these are Rand's archetypal heroes.

Very funny to see Armin Shimmerman. As many of you know he played "Quark" the Ferengi on Star Trek DS9, who make a religion out of profit. Here he plays one of the looters, a nice tongue in cheek approach.

If you are afraid of the juggernaut that is the federal govt coming for everything you have, everything you are, I recommend you support these small voices of protest, because we might at least delay the complete takeover of our lives.

I strongly recommend the novel Atlas Shrugged, as well.

Atlas Shrugged and so did I

[RhyanScorpioRhys · 1 May 2011]

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.

The best we could expect under the circumstances

[TheGreatAmericanNightmare · 6/10 · 20 July 2013]

(Disclaimer...I posted this, my first and only review under a different user name and have since combined accounts and am re-posting this review, unchanged.)

VERY minor spoilers maybe...

Atlas Shrugged is a massive book and a pretty big read for somebody as young as I was when I read it. I have long felt it would be nearly impossible to make into a movie. Not only because of the scope and depth of the novel, but also because chapter long speeches (thinly veiled as a speech by a character but clearly laying out Ayn Rand's philosophy) would not make for great cinema. I also never thought there would be a wide enough audience to justify the expense of the kind of production it would take to convey the story without a major hatchet job to the original material.

The book resonated for me and I think led to helping form my philosophy of life. Don't get me wrong, it has never dominated my thoughts or tempted me to join the Objectivist movement, though I have identified with Ayn Rand's core beliefs. Perhaps not to the extreme, but the foundation of her philosophy is much the way I feel and try to live my life. I suspect the movie would be much more difficult to swallow for someone who has not read the book but I rather enjoyed it.

I gave it only a six based on the actual production value and not based on my impression of how well it followed the book, which it did, though hardly inclusively. If I could give it 6.5 I would. There is little passion in the acting, though I don't feel Taylor Schilling was as stilted and dry as others here have implied. As in the book, Dagny Taggart is a very driven and businesslike lady but not a robot. The Rogues Gallery of actors portraying the politicians bent on 'leveling the playing field' are the usual typecast actors playing the same role they play in every movie I've ever seen them in. The leads do a serviceable job, but I think their roles are kind of dictated by the need to cram as much information into a 90 minute movie as possible. To the filmmakers credit they don't use an excessive amount of flashy and annoying quick-cut MTV edits that are so popular today. That makes my head spin. Guess my age is showing. There are actually lingering establishing shots and decent visuals. There isn't much time to actually feel invested in the characters though. An earlier review stated that characters in the movie have, "More depth & complexity than the book." Wow, did we read the same book!? Entire chapters of character development have necessarily been left out of a movie that would take twelve hours to cover the source material properly. As a stand-alone movie it struggles to draw the viewer in and it feels a little soulless. It does succeed, rather haltingly, in conveying the protagonist's feeling (and the author's philosophy) that each person should succeed or fail on their own merits and the government shouldn't exist to redistribute wealth and opportunity. I feel much the same way. The grand conspiracy within the halls of government and the ease with which public opinion is swayed is bit much for me to swallow but I can see the seeds of it existing in reality.

Rand's loathing of the communist agenda is clearly the core of this, but again if you haven't read the book then perhaps it is not immediately obvious. As someone who DID enjoy and identify with the novel, not to mention having read many of her works(some of which are pretty dry) I look forward to the remaining parts of this movie in the hopes that once we know the characters we will enjoy it a little more. Short of making a 12 part mini-series out of it, I think this is the best we can hope for out of an adaptation of a work this large.

Atlas Sucks

[mnpollio · 1/10 · 25 May 2011]

I went into this film as a blank slate - someone completely unfamiliar with Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I am aware that there are a number of people who cite her novel Atlas Shrugged as a life-changing blue print for living and society and others who dismiss it as complete bilge with incredibly destructive properties.

I cannot attest to how faithful this film remains to the source novel, but I can attest to the fact that it is an utterly deadening, mind-numbing and thoroughly unenjoyable viewing experience. If I understand the gist of the Rand philosophy embodied in Atlas Shrugged, it seems to be that personal self-aggrandizement, selfishness and greed are the most important aspects of society and should be encouraged, while the average working man is so much forgettable dross to be dismissed and trod over. I believe Michael Douglas encapsulated this in a memorable speech back in 1987s Wall Street. It only took him a moment to convey it, whereas it takes Atlas Shrugged the entire film (plus a projected two more) to convey the exact same message. If I am incorrect about the Rand philosophy, then blame the film as those I went with came away with the same impression. I find it deeply disturbing that anyone finds this lunacy a blue print for society.

The story is pretty much a bunch of nonsense about uncompromising glacial blond Dagny Taggart teaming with Hank Reardon to build a new high speed rail system in the US against the obstacles placed there by the villainous government regulations. Anyone who disagrees with Dagny and Hank are depicted as either weaklings, villains or preferably both.

The story is purportedly set in the near future, but it is utterly laughable because it seems to exist in a hermetic bubble that has no relation to the world we actually live in. The fact that so much of the story depends on the success of high speed rail transit is ironic considering that conservatives, libertarians and Randians alike are currently trying to throw assorted obstacles into the path of such a plan currently being developed. The lunacy the film spouts about regulation and Big Government is pure hilarity considering that regulation has become progressively extinct in the US since the 1980s and it has proved to be to the detriment of the country not to its success. The film fails to mention anything about such modern conveniences as the internet and mentions nothing about the progress of other industrialized nations. Whereas we are currently looking at a corrupt government weakened by corporate brown-nosers answering to the highest business bidder, Atlas Shrugged seems to present such a thing as a utopia.

The film looks suspiciously like a made for TV movie, but made on the cheap. The cast is a wash-out with an array of unknowns and barely familiar faces trying to invest some degree of passion or emotion into the proceedings to little success. Taylor Schilling is hopelessly out of her element in the central role and she is ill-supported by the remainder of the cast. Director Paul Johansson casts himself as the elusive John Galt, an enigmatic mystery man behind the disappearance of the supposed cream of the crop in business, but this plot thread is so uncompelling as to be rendered comatose.

Laughably, despite the reported nadir of the country in the film, everyone we meet is wealthy, well-to-do, dressed to the nines and impressed with themselves to the nth degree. The "action" is basically a series of business meetings set in different random places. If you think your average staff meeting is provocative and sexy, then this is definitely the film for you. Imagine an episode of Dallas or Dynasty with lower production values, an absence of the campy characters that make the shows a guilty pleasure, and completely set in boardrooms/meeting areas and you have Atlas Shrugged down pat. Considering one must imagine the producers had some degree of passion to bring this to the screen, it is woefully absent on screen. The film lumbers to an exhilarating crescendo wherein we see people ride a train...quickly. This realization of this dream is so much for Dagny and the married Hank that they must consummate their romantic ardor in a scene with all of the erotic splendor of a memorandum. The complete ennui which dogs this film leaves the viewer soporific by the time it grinds to a halt.

Based on this initial effort, one can only wish that the world will not be victimized by Parts 2 and 3. As drama, it fails miserably. As a propaganda piece, it is more stillborn than the least interesting story from Pravda. As a life-changing film, one can only pity those who feel there is something of depth or worth here. Over the weekend I decided to give Rand another chance and caught The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. The story was more nonsense which is purportedly about an uncompromising architect, but seems much more interested in jackhammers plunging into the earth while Patricia Neal lasciviously looks on posing provocatively in her impressive foundation garments next to the sky. It was foolish, but you know what? At least the overt sexuality was fun and Neal was amazing looking, both ingredients missing from this rotten mess.

I was pleasantly surprised.

[thesuthernman · 7/10 · 16 April 2011]

I almost gave this movie a higher rating because of the tough budget and critical bias against movies that have something positive to say about capitalism. But to be consistent with my other ratings, I considered all things equal and just based it on what I saw on the screen.

I expected to dislike this film and only went because of my friends. Wow was I surprised at how entertaining it was. It is very difficult to keep ones interest with no car chases, gun shooting, sword sparing or hot naked bodies - etc. etc, etc.. However, this film kept me entertained throughout by great writing (and a timeless story). The cinematography was also pretty decent. The acting, perhaps the weakest link, still had enough stand outs to overcome the obvious flaws. The lead, played by actress Taylor Schilling, was played very well. Perhaps no Meryl Streep but a far cry superior than other Oscar winners such as Julie Roberts. A hard character to play because she must be both strong, vulnerable and likable. Shilling accomplished all the above and more.

I don't need to talk about the story and the changes form the original novel. The message and the entertainment value all remained in tact.

What is this unimaginable flatulence?

[kira02bit · 1/10 · 1 July 2011]

I have little to no knowledge of Ayn Rand or her philosophy, but if this odious cheap-looking stool sample is an accurate depiction of her feverishly acclaimed novel, then there are a lot of delusional psychotic people in the world.

The plot and action has all the momentum of winter sludge. Self-impressed icy blonde Dagny Taggart struts and preens all over the place in some daft effort to convince us that she is "uncompromising" and "bold" as she attempts to pursue high speed rail with an amazing new super-steel against the wicked machinations of the almighty government regulation and evil unions. The film is so laughably black and white in its depictions of everything that it fails to attain even the depth of a Dick and Jane preschool book. In short, Dagny and her married semi-lover/compatriot Hank Rearden are pinnacles of brilliance, while the rest of the world is comprised of either villains trying to stop them or an offensively simplistic depiction of the average working American as slovenly unimaginative ingrates whose fates are of no concern so long as Dagny gets her way. Given that Dagny and Hank are supposed to be such larger-than-life legends, it comes as a real shame that neither has a distinct personality.

Incomprehensibly, the film is set in the future, yet the action centers on the importance of rail transport. It would be hilarious if the film obviously did not regard itself with such outlandish relevance and undeserved reverence. Minimal effort is made to update the story, with little to no acknowledgments of such issues as air travel, the internet and the technical advancements made since Rand wrote her tome. The material would have fared far better if it was set in the past, but then again that would only have exacerbated the idiocy that nothing predicted in the novel has come to pass and, in fact, many of the policies the book/film seems to advocate so strongly for have led to very real disasters out in the real world. Of course, that doesn't stop this myopic piece of fiction from steadfastly advocating them anyway.

The country presented in Atlas Shrugged is supposed to be a notch above a wasteland, yet nearly every character that promenades across the screen seems to be a billboard for wealth and privilege. Admittedly, the film has little interest in the unwashed masses that it hold beneath contempt because it reasons they have no valuable contributions to make in the grand scheme of things. The events that do not unfold on the rails do so in ritzy clubs and swanky boardrooms, with the characters freely imbibing and trading such banter that sounds like it came from a particularly dry article of Money Magazine. A lot of what they spout is suitably incomprehensible gobbledy-gook, but then we average folk are not supposed to comprehend this level of brilliance. Given that this is only Part 1 of a planned trilogy, one can only hope that the action speeds up to a crawl by Part 2.

The look and feel of the film definitely smacks of cheapness, and Paul Johansson's stagnant direction is a further detraction. The only cast members I vaguely recognized were Michael O'Keefe and Michael Lerner, both of whom have fallen a long way from their forgotten glory days as Oscar-nominated actors. Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler are the ostensible leads of the piece - both are undemonstrative and forgettable. It is admittedly difficult to portray larger-than-life ideologues, but neither Schilling nor Bowler have the charisma to bridge the mammoth personality black holes that pass for characters. If you think they lack as singular characters, as a couple they have all the charm of inanimate titanium rods. Their "love" scene is not only one of the most chastely filmed in the history of cinema, but has all of the heat and passion one associates with clenching a block of ice between one's butt cheeks. The film does not so much build to a conclusion or a "cliffhanger", so much as it resembles a comatose patient that expires on the operating table in front of us with no warning or fanfare.

For all of the film's bloated self-importance, it comes off a lot like that old relative that everyone dreads showing up at family events, who talks too loud and has a ragingly unpopular opinion on everything, and whose grip on reality is tenuous at the best of times. Yes, much like that relative, Atlas Shrugged is in dire need of being put in mothballs or consigned to the old age home of broken philosophies where it can mercifully fade away into the oblivion it so deserves. In the meantime, for those who similarly endured the torment of this film, you have my sympathy. And for fans of the film, you have my pity and I sincerely hope your therapist is a good one.

An exhilarating ride!

[mjkt · 10/10 · 25 February 2011]

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.

It Has Its Virtues, or Not So Bad That Its Sequels Might Not Be Good

[Miles-10 · 7/10 · 23 April 2011]

I watched "Atlas Shrugged: Part I" with low expectations, knowing that it is a rush job, knowing that "Variety" complained that it lacks the passion of the Ayn Rand novel on which it is based, knowing that the leads are relative unknowns with few achievements (though many of the supporting roles went to fine actors like Graham Beckel, Patrick Fischler, Edi Gathegi, Michael Lerner, Jon Polito, Armin Shimerman and Rebecca Wisocky).

It turns out that too low expectations are not completely justified even though too high expectations would lead to disappointment. Chief among the things about "Atlas" that are good would be Grant Bowler's performance as Henry "Hank" Rearden. Bowler is understated but exudes confidence when he needs to. (He reminds me of a young Gary Sinese.) As Rand's flawed hero, Bowler is the most nearly perfect of the leads. Rearden harbors a degree of self-loathing because he buys into how other people see him—even though he often says he doesn't care how others see him. This is an aspect of his character arc that could have been handled better. Here, Rearden does not treat the heroine, Dagny Taggart, either passionately or shabbily enough. His conflicted relationship to her changes in the course of the novel, mirroring the other changes in his character. The movie has not built a foundation for that here, but they could still make up for this by developing Rearden's conflict more in "Atlas Shrugged: Part II," which the producers hope to be able to make.

Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart is, I am afraid, adequate. Adequate can be good sometimes; however, for more than fifty years, this has been one of the most anticipated roles in the history of fantasy casting; so merely adequate will not do. Dagny needs to be the strong center of the story, and Schilling unfortunately doesn't rise to the task.

. Rand would have been glad that the movie does not overlook the raw power and even glamor of productive industry, using shots of Rearden in his office high above the floor of his steel mill, where sparks pour off of molten metal. She might have appreciated the scenes of men and machines systematically tearing up worn old railroad track and then replacing it with shiny new rails. Much has been made of how "Atlas" was kept under budget by using CGI for the high-speed train run, but I found this an enjoyable vision, even though all those who have read the book are not exactly going to be on the edges of their seats over the outcome.

Set in 2016, the movie reflects today's climate of anti-free-market capitalism with its paradoxical undercurrent of crony capitalism, even as it uses footage of the recent anti-capitalist unrest in our world to illustrate the world in which the movie's characters live. This is not an imposition on Rand's text, but rather it is a fulfillment of it: Rand's novel used to strike me as something of a satire or parody, exaggerating the economically enervating tendency of government and big business to get into bed together, but today life seems to be imitating her art. What the government czar, Wesley Mouch*, does to Jim Taggart's competitor in the movie is what politicians and regulators have done and are doing to real life companies as well as to whole industries today. Read the headlines of your newspaper, and it looks as if we are living in the dystopia that Rand dreamed up more than half a century ago.

This movie represents only the first third of Rand's novel. I think that while it is not as good as it might have been, it lays enough groundwork so as not to close off the possibility of improvement in any subsequent entries in the trilogy that there might be. (Who knows? Perhaps even Taylor Schilling might improve.) I would, however, wish that each producer who has taken on "Atlas" through the years had not commissioned a new script each time including this. I intuit that a dramatic improvement would be effected if they could get the rights to Stirling Silliphant's 1970s script for "Atlas" that probably is just sitting in some file cabinet; yet it reputedly has in it the passion that seems to be missing from "Part I".

*In the movie it is pronounced "Mowsh" while I had imagined it being pronounced "Mooch". I wonder what Rand intended.

Wow. Just... wow.

[michael-tuffli · 2/10 · 20 April 2011]

Having long-ago read both Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue Of Selfishness, I knew exactly what I was getting in to when I made the improbable decision to check out this film. If you haven't already figured it out - I'm not a follower of Ayn Rand's... peculiarities.

But that's not what this is about. This is about the translation of a work of fiction from novel to celluloid.

The Successes: I have to admit that it qualifies as a motion picture, by definition. Kudos.

The Failures: The acting is terrible - excepting a handful of familiar faces, the cast must have been plucked from Kirk Cameron's Left Behind series, and even Michael O'Keefe hasn't done anything of note since Caddyshack. The dialogue is comical - I'm assuming it wasn't drunkenly improvised as there's a screenplay writer credit. The cinematography is sub-blargh - most of the film is set indoors and the entire look is just strange, as if some days there weren't enough people to hold the various lights and reflectors. The directing is nonexistent - I say that only because the film is directionless. The production quality is borked - the interiors were clearly done on the cheap, and (as one famous movie reviewer has pointed out) come the hell on, Wisconsin looks nothing like New Mexico. Even the costumes are junky - they're the kinds of outfits that Marshalls eventually sells to dollar stores. To top it off, the film isn't even entertaining-bad like an Ed Wood film - it's simply an exasperating, self-important POS.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I is an anti-masterpiece; if one of its empty film canisters were to come in contact with one of Citizen Kane's, the universe would explode.

Two stars, since it's twice as crappy as every other one-star film.

Electrifying from beginning to end

[E-Z-Rider · 8/10 · 25 February 2011]

I was convinced Atlas Shrugged could not be put on film, but this movie proved me wrong. It has a contemporary look and feel, while retaining the Art Deco elegance of Rand's novel. The acting is superb, particularly Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart and Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden. Bowler manages to cram more meaning into a half-cocked eyebrow than most actors in a dozen lines of dialogue, and Shilling captures the sleek, cold elegance of Dagny, while giving just a hint of the passion simmering beneath the surface. Indeed, all the performances are impeccable.

This is a beautiful movie to watch, with sets, locations and costumes that are both gorgeous and convincing. The run of the John Galt Line is thrilling, and when it crossed the bridge made of Rearden Metal, I wanted to stand up and cheer.

Director Paul Johansson (who also plays John Galt) obviously knew exactly what he wanted to put on the screen, and manged to do it. He is faithful to Rand's story, and in particular to the philosophical message that is at the heart of the work, while maintaining the excitement of the plot.

During her lifetime, Rand did not allow the novel to be made into a film, perhaps for fear that the movie would not be faithful to the book. It's too bad that she didn't live to see this movie because, I believe, she would be surprised and pleased by how well it captures the essence of her work. This is clearly a labor of love that will help make Rand's ideas accessible to many who have not yet read her work. And it's exciting and rewarding for those of us who have been Rand fans for many years. Can't wait for Parts 2 and 3.

Cerebral film

[colortini · 7/10 · 17 April 2011]

I haven't read the novel, so I cannot say how closely the film tracks Ayn Rand's original concept. However, I found the film to stand on its own quite well. Taylor Schilling, as Dagny, steals the show, although the supporting cast is excellent. I loved the "look" of the film despite some compromises required by the relatively small budget ($20 million). The general theme of the film involves government bought by corporation lobbyists, and corporations, in turn, controlled by government officials who seem to have decided that socialism trumps capitalism. It's a disturbing alliance to some, and I won't elaborate on this point as it might give too much away. I look forward to Atlas Scrugged, Part II, although I am skeptical if this interesting film will generate enough box office receipts to warrant a sequel.

Atlas Shrugged Years Ago

[AlanSKaufman · 1/10 · 29 August 2011]

The title of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged analogizes the legendary giant holding up the world, who finally tiring at receiving no thanks, decides to shrug. My eyes are tearing as I report that while retaining the book's name, the movie shrugs its intricate underlying story and moral teachings.

Published in 1957, the opus largely transpires in a not too distant future. Describing the ruination of the '50's culture of hope and prosperity due to the welfare state forcing people making a living to pay for those too lazy to work, John Galt leads the best minds to cease contributing their time and talents, thereby causing the country's collapse.

The author was prophetic. Although Galt was fictitious, the railroads, the mills, the family farms have since disappeared, joining other productive jobs now overseas. Doctors no longer make house calls: the true cause of our health care crisis. Atlas Shrugged years ago, the novel standing as a history lesson needing to be understood if humankind is to recover.

The movie ignores that history, commencing five years from the stagnant present day, the railroad and mills incomprehensibly restored. We're fed merely flashes of newspaper reports on the bad economy with no comparison to America's glorious days.

In contrast, the novel opens with Eddie observing specifics of decay as he walks New York City streets. The scene shifts to his railroad boss Dagny experiencing first hand the circumstances ordinary folks endure as she rides a train stopping from negligence. Later, we're presented the essential backstory of Eddie and Dagny growing up together, how their past shaped their present. Context, focus, and drama, so frustratingly absent from the motion picture.

In this feature, hero Hank looks Hollywood handsome and initially seems more upright than today's crooked businessman in bed with politicians. Except noble Hank literally beds rival Dagny who displays a mindless grin after their tepid sex. Dagny's earlier relationship with Francisco in the novel is richly complex, although in the film he's a nitwit, so I guess it doesn't take much from Hank to satisfy her. Oh, by the way, Hank's cheating on his faithful wife Lillian. Missing is novel Hank's guilt and struggle over his affair with Dagny. You see, back in the book's time, it was wrong to violate one's marriage. Today it's common behavior, so the movie, yes, I'll say it, shrugs this immorality and its consequences. (I'm a Hitchcock fan, and had he been director, I imagine he'd have had Hank take a shower. . .)

In the novel, Dagny's brother James is a villain who drives his wife Cherryl to suicide. The film does not reference her. Indeed, James is portrayed as a nice guy over his head as chief: he's bullied by his powerful sister, his subordinate. Ergo, Dagny and Hank are painted hedonistically, their suffering victims being James and Lillian.

John Galt in the novel is a man of mystery and integrity. On screen he becomes a shady figure in a ponzi scheme luring people with promises of higher profits derived from later investors.

The film abruptly halts. Parts two and three depend upon ticket sales. On opening weekend, I attended a nice theatre in a nice suburb with a tiny audience most of whom fell asleep. The online rave reviews came from book admirers desperately reading into the movie the countless pieces lacking. In the tome, Dagny and Hank wouldn't hurry a project to finish on time, they'd do it right or not at all. Whereas the movie makers failed to practice what they ineptly preached as they apparently rushed through this mess to meet a completion deadline.

The novel's concluding chapter is entitled "In The Name Of The Best Within Us." An authentic version of Atlas Shrugged could be filmed by someone who hasn't shrugged. Perchance, kind reader, how about you?

Better Than I Expected

[Jaybird248 · 15 April 2011]

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.

An Enjoyable Low Budget Political Drama

[nj-register · 6/10 · 25 April 2011]

I had read several exceedingly harsh professional reviews prior to seeing this movie which probably prepared me for the movie a bit. I had no high hopes for a movie from a One Tree Hill director on a shoestring budget, but in some ways was pleasantly surprised, while in other ways deeply disappointed, thus overall it was about what I expected.

I will start with the negative before looking at the positive I found in this film.

I had three major issues with this film, and one or two minor ones. Firstly, there were a great number of shots in which heads were inexcusably cut off. This is okay in certain situations, but this was applied just about every chance they had. One shot in particular had Henry Rearden's (the leading man) head entirely missing from the frame.

This was further exacerbated by my second issue: the editors, for some unexplainable reason, had a desire to add the worst vignette effect I have ever seen. It is normal to darken the corners of an entire movie -- just watch any major motion picture and you'll notice it. This, however, darkened every edge which was very distracting...especially when something important was made barely visible due to this heinous post-production which had nothing to do with the relatively low budget.

Finally, I found every performance acceptable and pretty much entirely believable save the main character, Dagny Taggart. The character seemed far too stiff with such an incredible lack of depth up until the last half hour of the film.

A minor issue I had seemed to be everyone else's major issue which they seemed to let drive their negative review of the film (regardless of its artistic merit) -- the politics. I personally hold to libertarianism so I agree with the politics, but the way it was presented was just too "in your face" to keep it from being raw propaganda. Yes, how governments should be run should be different from how corporations should be run and both should be different from how individuals live their lives, and yes, individual freedom is the most important thing in all of this, but jeez...glorifying what was supposed to be such a selfish attitude was begging for negative reviews.

I couldn't believe how awful it was put when Dagny's line was spoken, "What's up with all of this altruism lately?" (this may not be an exact quote as I'm going off memory). *People* should be altruistic, but not forced to be so, and I think that message wasn't pushed forth clearly enough in this adaption.

Also, it was a little frustrating to watch how forced the romance appeared to be. I'm not sure if it seemed the same in the novel as I've never personally read Atlas Shrugged, but even if it was, I think it would have been prudent to deviate from the book in this instance. I personally couldn't take the romance seriously until the morning after.

Finally, here is what I enjoyed about Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

I was surprised by how much of the cast I recognized. There was "Big Love" from House M.D. playing Eddie. And over there playing his normal bossy self was Buddy the Elf's dad's selfish and cruel boss. It took some googling to figure out that I had seen over half of the cast in various films, but it was a nice surprise.

I think the large amount of railroad shots they had worked very nicely, and was caught off guard a bit by how many there were, once again, considering the budget. There were actually a variety of shots that I was impressed with.

The pacing was pretty decent (although I felt like I had just watched two stories in spite of it actually only being a third of one), and it actually made me interested in seeing the sequels. The cast was mostly enjoyable to watch, although far from the best I've seen. It was a solid film, regardless of the director's affinity for beheading the talent, and I would actually recommend it to anyone with a decent attention span.

Overall, I think this was a decent film, but if you're expecting anything more than a relatively low budget political drama, you'll be sorely disappointed.

Kidding me?

[javierc01 · 1/10 · 30 October 2011]

The book itself is complex with an immense story line and many inner monologues that make it hard to present in a movie. However this thing that apparently passes for a movie makes it seem like a day to day thing.

I understand that it was on a budget bla bla bla but it sucked... period.

It was too fast paced, did not exploit each scene when 2 seconds later the answer to the problem or a bigger problem took place. Either I have to big of an imagination for every scene or these guys are trying to earn an buck while they can.

Did not enjoy it...

A solid, impressive rendering of Rand's masterwork

[NewIndividualist · 7/10 · 16 April 2011]

"Atlas Shrugged--Part I" is a fine film adaptation of Ayn Rand's 1957 magnum opus. 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. The film is remarkably faithful to it. It's also faithful to Rand's philosophy. Whether you like Rand's ideas or not, the filmmakers are to be credited with doing no violence to the controversial author's worldview.

* Grant Bowler and Taylor Schilling are well cast in their pivotal lead roles as Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart. Graham Beckel was strong and likable as oil magnate Ellis Wyatt. And Rebecca Wisocky was a standout, deliciously nasty as the manipulative Lillian Rearden; she also made difficult lines of dialogue, which otherwise might have sounded stilted, seem completely unaffected and natural.

* The novel's political themes of individualism vs. statism, of entrepreneurs vs. crony capitalists and government bureaucrats, are rendered potently and explicitly. Rand's ethics of rational selfishness is presented more by implication, but the actions of her heroes are clearly motivated by that ethics.

* The film, like its two lead actors, is easy on the eyes. The wardrobes and sets are good, and the special effects are impressive -- especially convincing during run of the John Galt Line and the climactic Wyatt oil field fire.

* As sheer entertainment, the film was fast-paced and engrossing throughout.

Weak points:

* Too much plot condensation using narration and explication. This film should have run 2 1/2 hours to do more justice to the nuances of plot and characterizations, and to rely more on "showing" rather than "telling."

* Overly quick pacing. Probably a byproduct of the excessive condensation. Little time was taken in key scenes to show the subtleties of character motivations and reactions.

* Occasional miscasting or inappropriate acting. Michael O'Keefe's interpretation of the Hugh Akston character was off, both in look and manner of expression. Jsu Garcia's Francisco came off more as a real playboy pretending to be an aristocrat; instead, he should have played it as a true aristocrat faking that he was a playboy. (There's a difference.)

* Lack of subtlety. The film was at its nuanced best during the scenes where we see the attraction building between Hank and Dagny. Grant Bowler's understated reactions to several emotional blows also were spot on. The movie would have benefited from more of this kind of thing, which the lickety-split pace prevented.

Overall, "Atlas Shrugged--Part I" is a better film than the 1949 production of "The Fountainhead," and certainly a far better film than major reviewers and critics are reporting. Alas, they seem incapable of separating the film's merits as good storytelling from the controversial story itself -- a tale that fundamentally challenges today's reigning intellectual Narrative.

This is an entertaining, thought-provoking adaptation of Ayn Rand's masterpiece. I hope that Parts II and III will benefit from fewer constraints in their budgets and production schedules, and that each film will run at least 45 minutes longer. That would allow for a deeper and richer exploration of the iconic characters and fascinating subplots of Rand's complex and challenging tale.

So bad it could be a conspiracy

[jskin001 · 1/10 · 17 April 2011]

"Motive power ? thought Dagny, looking up at the Taggart Building in the twilight ? was its first need; motive power, to keep that building standing; movement, to keep it immovable." (1.4.1.1, Ayn Rand)

I saw Atlas Shrugged (Part 1) last night in the Peoples Republic of Berkeley. Without a doubt the worst movie I've ever seen. It deletes almost all her essential content while condensing her remains into 15 second scenes without context, depth, or original meaning. The acting is so poor you're startled when a line is delivered averagely.

The film is a re adaptation of Atlas Shrugged taking place in 2016. The opening montage is thrilling, civil war in the middle east, gas prices at $36 a gallon, continual bank bailouts, sky rocket inflation, widespread unemployment Etc. So I was excited the first and only time during the film for about 118 seconds.

It was so bad. Berkeley students were supporting the novel. "Well the movie sucked but the book's not that bad. Ya, its important to understand other points of view." In one night, Atlas Shrugged was transformed from the right-wing bible to a retarded child who happens to be conservative. "It's not nice to tease the mentally challenged." Apparently, the company that made the movie had less than 10 weeks because their rights to the novel were about to expire. But still, I could have made a better film with my cellphone

The book was finally made into a solid and enjoyable movie

[dmcdesgn · 8/10 · 15 April 2011]

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.

Cool flick, shoulda been longer

[darthpatzer · 7/10 · 16 April 2011]

I'm one of the few people who loved the book but didn't love this movie. I liked it, though. The most annoying part of it was Jsu Garcia's hair, which doesn't seem like it should have been a big deal... but you'll see if you haven't yet. I saw it today with my wife, who never read the book and is also a loyal Democrat (go figure). She said she liked it, which tells me there wasn't too much of Rand's philosophy in the movie forced upon the audience.

It was true to Rand's vision, though. But what makes it tolerable for a non-objectivist is it was Part 1 of the novel crammed into an hour and 42 minutes, which wouldn't give Rand enough time to convey her message to anyone, much less a progressive. This made it hard to follow for those who haven't read the book, and annoying for me because the more meaningless flicks playing in theaters (that would be all of them) are longer. This one could have used an extra half-hour, but I guess it wasn't in the budget.

POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE: How can you spoil a 50-year-old critically-acclaimed story? The producers of this movie may have done that more than I am now. As in the novel, Part 1 ends with Wyatt's Torch (as mentioned in other reviews). What I didn't appreciate was the off-screen announcements made by John Galt and Ellis Wyatt at the end because it revealed too much, in my opinion. In other words, Part 1 may have spoiled Parts 2 & Three. The movie would have been much better without that because it would have left the mystery for those who don't know it.

Overall, I'd say it's good enough for us Randroids and safe enough for a moderate progressive. I suspect Part 3 will be neither because of the John Galt speech. (How are they gonna pull that off?) It's too low budget a flick to be appreciated much as it should be and the story has too much of a cult following for the movie to be reasonably criticized. Nevertheless, I recommended it for any educated movie fan. I'll be in the theater for the sequels if, for no other reason, to support a story worth making into a movie.

Like a bad TV movie

[tjlarson_ · 2/10 · 13 April 2011]

Got free tickets to see this. Even with very low expectations I came away sorely disappointed.

I'm not a fan of the book, but it's at least popular enough to warrant a legitimate adaptation. 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. Updating it to modern times, but keeping the industry as railroads and steel feels weirdly anachronistic and is explained via a rather absurd backstory. 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. For most fans of the book, it will be a terrible bastardization. Only the hardest core ideologues of the story's objectivist message desperate to see it popularized in the mainstream can I imagine championing this. Whatever else it may be, this is by no means a quality or even competent movie.

Loved it - entertaining and true to the book

[a-teem · 8/10 · 7 April 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.

Pretty Good

[bob-rutzel-1 · 7/10 · 10 November 2011]

Dagney Taggart (Schilling) is having a hard time keeping her train company going during the hard times hitting the United States. Rearden Steel owner Henry (Bowler) is no longer allowed to own more than one company. The Science Institute says the new steel Henry developed is not safe and they won't let union workers ride the new rails Dagney is putting in place.

As a teenager back in the day, I saw the paperback, Atlas Shrugged, and saw that it was 10,000 pages long, um…okay, 1000-plus pages long. I said I would never have time to read something like that. And, I was right. I said, "wait for the movie." Well, here it is now, some 40-plus years later. Why did I wait? Because I saw The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand and was hooked.

I am so glad they decided on Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. I remember reading the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell back in the day. The only way to describe Durrell's writing is to say it's like poetry, no it is poetry. You will never read anything as beautiful in your entire life. Anyway, they made a movie out of the Quartet and called it Justine. This movie encompassed all 4-books and it was a complete mess. So Parts 1,2 and 3 make sense.

Part 1 was very good with basically unknown actors. The pacing was good, the dialogues are spot on and the cinematography was convincing. It may be too early to talk about the chemistry between Dagney and Henry as they are just now somewhat tentative in their relationship. Parts 2 and 3 may answer that question.

But, make no mistake about the theme: this is conflict between socialism and capitalism and in many ways mirror what is happening in our country today. You decide.

There are hooks that are intriguing in here. The question is asked often, and without notice, "Who is John Galt?" And, we come to learn that many top businessmen disappear and no one knows why. My question: is John Galt an assassin? And, Atlas Shrugged? Why? Stay tuned.

Violence: Not really. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Not really. Only words heard were the BS words

'Red Dawn' more realistic

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 25 November 2013]

I don't want to make this a philosophical discussion on Ayn Rand. I rather talk about movie logic, and story construction. I've never read the book, and I'm not going to. It's the movie I'm reviewing and it has many problems.

The general level of production is much better than a syfy TV movie, but it's much lower than most big screen theater releases. For a $4.3M production (if IMDb is accurate), it's actually pretty impressive. I have no problems with the production or Taylor Schilling's acting. She does a good job as the driven woman executive. The problems lie elsewhere.

I don't know how hard they try to follow the book, but I think they would be better off to abandon the storypoints and keep the philosophy. It's written in the 50's by a woman who doesn't know much about business or steel. It was questionable at its time but is incredibly outdated today. I don't know why the filmmakers believe steel would sound futuristic by people today. They are talking about steel...Right? We're watching IronMan and Transformers and steel is the new material?

This is an apocalyptic world on film. There is nothing new there. Every other movie is the end of the world. But the filmmakers really need to set it up better instead of some generic oil crisis. They're trying so hard to gin everything up to recreate the Atlas Shrugged storyline that it has no relevance to today's world. Instead trying to adapt the feel of the book, I think they try to recreate the book for today. Maybe it made sense when it was written, but it makes no sense today. It makes 'Red Dawn' look realistic.

I have many other problems with the movie logic here. Let's just say I rather not get bogged down. It's not a bad production if they could make the story more logical.