Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) User Reviews (134)

What would Ayn say?

[robbit-5 · 4/10 · 13 October 2012]

After paying $11 to see ATLAS SHRUGGED at a local Cineplex, I felt compelled to write this review for IMDb. The earliest review for this movie I read for this movie appeared to have been written by someone who hadn't even seen the movie yet! (It was also posted the day before the theatrical release) In fact, the extreme polarization of the majority of IMDb users appears to be strictly along political lines, since most gave the movie either a 10 or a 1! It seemed obvious to me that neither perspective was likely to be accurate or helpful in assessing whether this movie would be worth seeing.

For full disclosure, I would consider myself to be a political moderate and a longtime fan of Ayn Rand's work. While I do agree with many of Ayn's sentiments about socialism, I do also resent the fact that her work is now being appropriated (and attacked) as some sort of political manifesto. Therefore, the film should be judged solely on its own merits and faults - NOT because you're a liberal or a conservative.

The original 1957 novel was intended as Ayn's most extensive statement on her philosophy of Objectivism and is considered by many followers to be her masterpiece. I would instead judge it to be an important, but flawed masterwork. ATLAS SHRUGGED is her love letter to the America that inspired Ayn to become such an advocate for individual freedoms, liberty and capitalism. It can also be viewed as a dire warning that allowing more government and socialist policies could transform our nation into the Russia she so bitterly left behind in 1925.

The main problem I found with the book was that the characters were unrealistically polarized in their attitudes about the individual's role in society. As a result, I often found them a bit rigid, cold and lacking in any sort of personality that the reader might empathize with. Instead, Ayn entirely expected her readers to embrace the heroes in her work for their ethics, virtue and idealism alone. What she didn't anticipate were the mediocre actors that would wind up portraying her heroes and villains This "character weakness" in her original writing is greatly magnified in this theatrical rendering,especially with the B and C list acting talent that was enlisted. To make matters even worse, budgetary constraints forced the producers of ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART 2 to recast almost ALL of the main characters?! Having watched PART 1 over a year ago, this wasn't entirely bothersome since most of the original actors weren't all that memorable to begin with. However, I can see this change being a bit more perplexing if I were to view both parts back to back. Samantha Mathis did an acceptable job with the Dagny Taggart role, but most performances were fairly unmemorable. The only semi-familiar faces I could pick out were Diedrich Bader (best known for The Drew Cary Show) and Arye Gross (from Ellen).

Many of the core ideas of the book, such as "The Strike" that part 2 covers, are presented awkwardly. Therefore, the reasoning behind the actions for the strike might seem hokey or incomprehensible to those who are unfamiliar with the original book. Also, the story has been given a bit of a modern face lift which I don't necessarily take issue with. The signs advertising gasoline for $42 a gallon at various points in the movie are both chilling and somehow humorous at the same time. I say humorous only because the story seems so fantastical at some points that I couldn't help but question the credibility of this ominous vision of the future. But more often I found myself struggling to remember what was originally in the book versus what was added by the screenwriters. Regardless of who is to blame, the results are a blemish upon my memories of the original book.

The decision to chop the book into 3 parts with widely staggered release dates has only served to make this controversial and often difficult book into a confusing mess. And by presenting the story in such delayed and mismatched parts, it's far less likely anyone other than a devoted Rand fan would bother to see all three parts. I actually made a point to see the movie during its opening weekend for fear that it would leave theaters quickly. (ATLAS SHRUGGED PT. 1 lasted only a few weeks in Atlanta and was next to impossible to find on the Internet for the following 6 months.) ATLAS SHRUGGED PT. 2 (and the series as a whole) is a disappointing and confusing representation of the original book. While I was initially thankful that someone finally managed to bring this book to celluloid, that feeling has now turned to regret. I felt very conflicted about the movie after leaving the theater and my friends (who were less familiar with the book) were fairly negative, even though they were politically sympathetic to the ideas in the movie.

Although I will probably watch part 3 (IF it ever gets finished), I can't see giving this movie anything more than a 4/10 score. I can't really see a casual viewer with little knowledge of Ayn Rand's work or the original book getting much out of this production. This alone should be considered the film's most grievous failure.

But as Ayn Rand would say, don't trust anyone else's mind before your own. If you are a fan of her books, then take the time to see these movies and find your own perspective. Her ideas alone are worth discussion and maybe someone else can be inspired to do this book justice.

Unfortunate Recasting

[brmoran22 · 5/10 · 12 October 2012]

I'm surprised by the reviews I've read stating that Part II was better done than Part I. I saw Part II with four friends, all have read the book and had seen Part I.

We all felt the drop off in acting quality was extreme. Unfortunately, this is magnified by an inferior director as well. The plot is for the most part accurate to the book, though the time-line was slightly altered and curiously skipped certain important details while forcing others less significant details into the screen play.

The new Rearden and D'Anconia are painful. The new Dagny isn't as painful but the actress in Part I I felt was far superior.

Its unfortunate that this trilogy is going to fail to transform into film yet again.

New cast makes this one not nearly as good.

[gt_speck · 4/10 · 12 October 2012]

The pace of Part 2 was much better than Part 1, but then that's true of the book as well. Didn't think much of the new cast nor the new look - it's as if the producers tried to glam it up to make this one look more appealing than the first - for example all the female characters were well endowed and showed it off needlessly, including a very cheap scene with Dagny early on. On the subject of Dagny, the actress in that role was terribly miscast - too old for the character, and she had a very bloated look which probably looked worse than it was because of the slim, trim Dagny we saw in Part 1. Acting was well short of the first. Overly dramatic at times and poorly acted in general. Bader turned in a good performance in a small role, as did the rail line worker Dagny spoke to alongside the train near the end. By far the most believable character in the film. Too bad, I think the original cast would have done a good job with this story.

The cow jumped over the moon: the worst movie I have ever witnessed

[CabbyG3 · 1/10 · 25 March 2013]

Full disclosure: I hate Ayn Rand and all she stands for.

That out of the way, and that aside (I will get back to that in a moment), this was an incredible stinker of a movie. The acting was horrible. The choice of actors was horrible. The production values on any HBO series would trounce this movie 10 times over. The plot meandered, and then the movie was over. 2 hours of my life wasted and nothing was very different than when it started.

The plot? Oh boy, where to start: it could not have been more contrived. If you had started with "well first thing is, a cow jumps over the moon" ... that premise might actually have some merit. SPOILERS AHEAD: The movie has an anti-climax about half way through, where the guy you keep expecting to be recruited by John Galt, Hank Reardon, is tried in court and in the same breath the judge dismisses his whole verdict in a jingoistic, snarky, diatribe about how they can't let "the job creators win." Literally, this movie could not have been more neo-con ra-ra cheerleading if it tried. Faux News broadcasters literally showed up in this movie to plug it. I could go on for hours, but I don't want to bore you the way this movie bored me-- it's would be a crime against humanity.

I could not sit through Ayn Rands books, she was an awful writer. However, I wanted to watch this movie to try and grasp what it was all about more than excerpts had done. Nothing in this movie gave me any idea. I watched the first installment, and begrudgingly, it was a tolerable narrative; coherent. This garbage? Wow. The term 80's B movie kept springing to mind. The zany plot twists and changes were so ridiculous and rife that you would think they would start with "first the cow jumped over the moon, and THEN..." You would stop listening after the first sentence of that joke...

The government in this movie is reduced to a simpering 80's villain from the A-Team (or something lame like that) where they inexplicably start seizing assets and making rules and doing all kinds of insane things for no reason. Things or stated, rather than shown, no exposition involved. The plot is flat on the face of it, no attempt to make logical progression or sense. Given that almost nothing happened in the movie, it is amazing it took 2 hours. And when it ended the way it did, very sci-fi indeed, no explanation, no realism: (spoiler) she goes through a pseudo-worm whole, in a plane she bought on the spot, learned to fly on the spot, from a guy just hanging out down the road... crashes said plane after somehow successfully piloting it for a few minutes, goes through the worm hole, crashes in spectacular fashion (cue digital effects), plane is disintegrated, except for the tail and nose. She emerges barely harmed, and lo, within seconds, dozens of town people are gathered around as if they had "caught her" from falling from the sky (I mean seriously, they were just THERE!) John Galt (whose name is thrown around like a random word throughout the movie, literally in places it should not be as if it were a replacement for the word "of" in sentences)... John Galt is there hand outstretched to pull her from the rubble as though he were John the Baptist pulling Jesus from the water in "King of Kings." That was just the silliness in the last 3 minutes, to give you an idea. Silly is OK, if it is the tongue in cheek, Evil Dead sort of thing... but this? Oh my lord was it garbage.

I have never written a review for a movie before, and I have been on IMDb a VERY long time (1997)... this was awful. I could go on about the pseudophilosophy or Rand, but suffice is to say, I don't need to. This movie was just horrible. At least movies like "Plan 9" were FUNNY-bad! As a movie aficionado, this was some of the worst I have ever seen. The rushed plot and wacky progression reminded me of nearly every episode of "Sliders" where the premise seems so "yeah, what if THIS happened!" and crashes in an utterly implausible, stupid, horrible plot that leaves you wondering: was that a cow that just flew over the moon, or did I just waste 2 hours of my life, plus 15 minutes to write a review of this stinker. Yup, that actually happened.

A big disappointment

[hpande504 · 1/10 · 25 October 2012]

I had liked Part I very much and was waiting to see Part II as soon as it was available in our local theater. What a let down it was. I could accept that the key roles were played by different people than in Part I. But the actress who played Dagny was a big let down. She just did not fit the image of the smart, tough and independent Dagny. The director portrayed her as a sexy woman by focusing too much on her cleavage and showing her chest in almost all shots. Her acting was also not impressive. It was not so in Part I even though it included sexual scenes. I was hoping that Part II would be as good or better than Part I and I was going to buy both DVD's for my collection. But now now. I cannot say anything good about this movie.

Another really well done movie

[asygoing · 7/10 · 12 October 2012]

While I have never read the book, the way this movie is filmed and the lack of big named stars really took me in. This is a wonderfully produced movie with some incredibly deep overtones of the situation that the US is currently potentially facing.

The acting is excellent and the dark feel and sense of hopelessness really gets inside of you as I realize this is a possible future as being orchestrated by the powers that be. Art imitates life so to speak and being someone who deeply distrusts the main stream media, seeing it as the 100% propaganda that it is and has researched a lot into the darker truths about those running our country, its almost as if Ayn Rand was seeing the way the power structure of the world was setting up the world to achieve its goals of domination and subservience of the US population.

Fear is rampant in this moment and the government uses that fear to take even further control from the people. This movie should hit home and make us take stock of what we have and wake up to what the military industrial complex, bankers and power elite have in store for those of us that continue to stand still with our head buried in the sand while all of our liberties are taken by us one by one.

Waste of Time

[bbuttercup · 1/10 · 16 October 2012]

Well that's 1hr 52 minutes that I will never get back. The acting was simply awful. The plot seemed like it was written by a sixth grader. There wasn't even an attempt at character development. It would have been nice if the message was artfully woven into the story rather than being beaten over the head with it for almost two hours. It was clear that parts of the story were merely a set-up for poorly written speeches rather than fitting into a well written story. I'm not even sure if it qualifies as a 'B' movie. They could have saved the money and just had us sit there looking at a flashing neon sign with the same message for over an hour. It would have been just as subtle. The premise could have been interesting. I really wish they would have at least tried. The best part of the movie was the Junior Mints I purchased at the concession stand.

A decent follow up to part 1

[imdb-20212 · 8/10 · 12 October 2012]

I just came back from watching part 2 and up front, I will say that I was disappointed that the original cast was unable to return for part 2. That being said though, once the movie started I didn't really care about that anymore.

I thought Dagny being portrayed by an older actress was actually more in-line with the way I viewed her when reading the book, and the same goes for the other actors, like Eddie Willers, etc. I'm unsure how I feel about DB Sweeney portraying Galt himself since I never considered him a very strong actor, but that's a moot point in part 2 anyway.

As others have noted, the special effects in this aren't exactly top quality, but they're passable. It reminded me of the type you'd see on a SyFy original movie or something along those lines... not bad, but not great.

Overall, it was a good movie. Let's face it, if you liked the book, you'll like the movie. If you hated the book (or never read it, but hate the very idea of it), you'll hate this movie too. But that hatred would have nothing to do with the movie itself, but about your views of Rand's philosophy.

I'd give the movie a technical rating of 5-6 because it wasn't too bad, and some of the cinematography was actually pretty well done. Content I give it a 9 because I appreciate where Rand is coming from, so let's call it an 8 out of 10 overall.

Disappointing

[statchmo-317-162086 · 6/10 · 15 October 2012]

I only give six stars because for some reason I have long loved "Atlas Shrugged" the novel and for years have longed for a movie version of it. But the bottom line is that this is a pretty poor excuse for a movie and really doesn't do the novel justice.

I guess somehow they came up with a bigger budget for this one and have re-cast all the major roles with.... well .... somewhat higher level actors. Maybe you could say they moved from D-list actors to C-list actors? Unfortunately in some ways the "unknown" actors in the first movie were much better than the familiar faces you will recognize in Part 2. To call them D-list actors is perhaps unfair...when really they are just unknowns.

The most glaring casting problem here is Samantha Mathis, and I cannot adequately express how much this pains me to say because I have long loved her and think she is a talented actress. But all you can say about her role here is, "What in the WORLD happened to Samantha Mathis?!" First of all physically she is all wrong for the part; too old, too bloated, too tired-looking. Once upon a time she might have been able to pull it off, but that time was past a decade ago. If you've read the novel you know what I mean. Dagney Taggart is a force of nature and Samantha Mathis spends the entire movie looking confused and exhausted. You know who would have been an awesome Dagney back in the day? Someone like a young Lauren Bacall---the body type, the facial features, the intensity....that's Dagney as described in the novel. Samantha simply doesn't have it, and it makes every scene she is in excruciating to watch.

The other thing is this movie is extremely talky, and honestly if you haven't read the book I am not sure you would be able to follow what was going on. The movie is 2 hours long and at times it drags. Blah blah blah, talk talk talk. Works in the novel, but not in a movie. Show don't tell.

I like the other casting choices although the jury will be out on D.B. Sweeney as Galt. They don't show his face in Part 2, but honestly I have seen some of his recent appearances in movies and TV, and he looks about as tired and done-in as Samantha Mathis (maybe this is what they are going for, a matched set?)

I will go see Part 3 if it gets made. I did notice a lot more people at the showing I went to than when I saw Part 1 (literally watched the first movie with one other person in the entire theater). So maybe this one will actually make money? I would like to see them re-cast Dagney although I know that's not likely to happen. Still if they could do it once....

The Corporation is Your Friend----Not!

[larrys3 · 2/10 · 24 February 2013]

To me, this film provides the same hokum as Part I. If we just leave corporations and their ingenious stewards to their own devices the world would be a terrific place. Also, the government just wants to nationalize all the businesses, kill any creative thinking, and distribute all their profits to everyone equally.

Was I hallucinating when unregulated large banks and corporations brought the world to the brink of depression some five years ago? Was I also on another planet when the government saved their butts with enormous capital infusions, then got out as soon as they were paid back?

Don't get me wrong in that I'm a big fan of big government. It can be incredibly incompetent and untrustworthy. But we do have some checks and balances in place to prevent the crapola that's presented in this film.

I will state this, that corporations left to their own devices have proved to me that will shield their profits and thus taxes to the U.S.A., try and destroy or limit unions. fix prices, cut benefits for workers, fire experienced personnel so they can hire low paid workers, etc.etc etc.

One of the main points of the movie is that the government just stifles the great innovative thinkers of industry. Perhaps I can suggest two movies that come to mind--the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" and Greg Kinnear's film, based on a true story, "Flash of Genius". There are many other examples but in these films the large corporations did all they could to either quash or steal new innovative ideas if they were any threat to their bottom line.

This film turned my stomach and made my blood boil. I saw on Wikipedia that Part III will be coming out in July, 2014. Good, this will give me plenty of time to get my blood pressure medication renewed.

Better Than Part 1

[AngryPatriot · 10/10 · 12 October 2012]

Just finished watching this. Moves better than part one for sure. The acting is better as well. Some of the graphics still show it is not a high budget movie, but they didn't detract from the story.

They did a great job of connecting the story to today, as is quite easy to do with the subject material. The signs held outside protests were from today...

As with the first one, some of the 'bigger' concepts and ideas the characters were discussing went by fast and for people not familiar with the work already, those parts will be hard to keep up with.

And to be clear, for all who have actually watched the movie, there is no need to wonder why they made a sequel... It isn't a sequel, it is Part 2.

Doesn't Live Up To Part 1, But Does Pull You In To See The Rest

[steve-3599 · 6/10 · 12 October 2012]

Just saw the film, and was disappointed that the original cast wasn't involved. The 2 lead characters, Dabney and Henry, don't have the same appeal or chemistry as the leads in part 1. The film seemed very uneven, and didn't flow well enough to engage the audience, but the thematic material was so relevant to what is going on in America today, that I'm sure every audience member was angered at what was a very clear representation of the destruction of America, as we've known it, which is in progress today, because of the 99%ers. This film is ultra relevant, and should be seen by as many people as possible, just like "2016, Obama's America". People have got to start acknowledging that socialism is destructive, de-motivating and only a cover up for an "elite" group who will have total control of everything and everyone. See the film, for the message. In that context, it's very powerful.

A difficult movie to get involved with.

[cfb-150-652465 · 5/10 · 16 October 2012]

This movie series is based upon the book by Ayn Rand. It is a political movie with a sci-fi, world of the future flair. What is the world like when the "rich pay their fair share" is taken to extremes? What if the most talented people begin to disappear? And who is John Gault? One problem with this movie is that you need to have seen Part 1 first. It is currently available streaming on Netflix. The second problem is that none of the actors/actresses in Part 1 are in Part 2, even though their characters are. This discontinuity is disturbing, especially since the actors in Part 1 were better. The third problem (minor I agree) is that the Foley (sound) artist seems to think that a jet sounds like a WWII propeller plane when it goes by. The fourth and biggest problem is that there is a Part 3 to the story, but no announcement that Part 3 is in production. If this movie does poorly, there may not be a Part 3 and you'd be left hanging unless you buy and read the book. It doesn't look too promising since there were three people in the theater when I saw it (including me). I was pulled into the story (both Part 1 and 2), so I didn't find it a waste of time. But I'm going to have to get the book to find out the ending. My recommendation is that unless you're a die-hard movie goer like me, pass on this movie.

Plot, characters, theme, special effects: LOWEST ever!

[gariji · 1/10 · 8 February 2013]

I am writing this in the hopes that I can spare somebody the frustration of having wasted their precious time by watching this film. This has got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen, and I am ashamed at having sat through it. Probably because I hoped that it would get better or have SOME redeeming value. The characters are flat, unattractive, the theme, that of state versus free enterprise in a context of economic crisis, is but shallow propaganda of the knee-jerk type, with everything turned around. I have never read Ayn Rand from who's novel this film was taken, but now guess that she is the darling of the kind of paranoid individuals who religiously watch Fox News as if it were anything but a sick joke, The political arguments are a mere travesty of any sort of intelligent thought or analysis. The plot mechanisms are completely flat and unbelievable. In fact just about everything in the film is unbelievable. It's pretty outrageous that financing was found to make such a film, but I guess some right wing lunatics (and I mean that word literally, anyone buying into this film's thesis is borderline insane if not worse,) use every means possible to spew their nonsense. If you are intelligent or sane, you will probably be angry at yourself if you watch this film all the way through.

Atlas Shrugged -- Far worse than Part 1

[jonathanruano · 2/10 · 20 September 2014]

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is about a socialist dystopia coupled with an unusual love story about two people, Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, who prefer having intellectually charged conversations with each other about business and technology than engaging in artificial small talk with everyone else.

Many of these thrilling elements were already lost in the first instalment of Atlas Shrugged which made the mistake of trying to make its protagonists, Dagny and Hank, seem like normal people. This was a mistake that even good acting by Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler could not remedy. The second instalment compounds the error by making these two characters, who are supposed to carry the film on their shoulders, even less appealing and interesting than they were in the first part of the trilogy. Samantha Morton (who replaced Taylor Schilling as Dagny) was never a good actress, but at least she had a youthful spark and sex appeal back in the 1990s. Now middle aged, Morton is just an unattractive actress who can't act. Yet if Morton's acting is bad, then Jason Beghe (who replaced Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden) is an even bigger drag on the film. He comes across as a grumpy 1950s grandpa who orders children to get off his lawn. Why these two characters would take any interest in each other at all is beyond me.

The plot can be boiled down to one message: the right-wing entrepreneurs are noble, chivalrous creatures who benefit all of mankind by making big profits and inventing fantastic gadgets, while the government, the state-funded science academies, and the Occupy Street rabble are stupid, jealous, losers who want to confiscate the hard- earned wealth of these captains of industry. To be sure, I have no objection to the film making this argument or any other argument. The problem is that I got this message at the beginning of this movie and I do not need to be reminded of it in subsequent scenes. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in this entire film that adds to this message which seemed new and sexy for the 1950s, but is quite dated and unimpressive now given that right-wing think tanks and the lobbyists for the so-called noble right-wing entrepreneurs largely control public policymaking in Washington D.C.

Good job

[jameshkramer · 7/10 · 13 October 2012]

I love Ayn Rand's works, especially Atlas Shrugged. I saw part 1 of this series twice, and thought it was pretty good.

This is not the Atlas Shrugged film rendition of my dreams, but it is a serious and respectful presentation of her story, ideas and attitudes. The story has been brought out of its age (the fifties) to our times. This works, but is not what I would have preferred. The principles are timeless - why not present them as she did?

The main characters (Dagny, Hank, Francisco) are done very well and do seem like Rand heroes. This is critical, of course, and is the best aspect of the movie. The film is also faithful to the main story line, though much has been left out. Not everything can fit in the time allowed.

If you admire Rand, or don't know her, I think you should go to this. The ideas are important, and it is a pleasure to see them in action in a great story.

Read the book instead

[red82991 · 3/10 · 15 October 2012]

I love Atlas Shrugged, it's one of my favorite books. So even though I didn't expect too much from this film I was very excited to see it. But much of the appeal of the novel to me is the challenge of trying to connect with the philosophy behind the story of railroads, metals and motors. On those terms this adaptation of Atlas comes across as extremely watered down, almost like I was watching a film adaptation of a summary of the novel, not the novel itself. The problems start in the very first scene with the huge cliché of showing the ending first and then presenting the movie as a flashback leading up to that point. Forgivable, but gimmicky. Second, I'm not used to groaning or rolling my eyes during a film, but this one had me doing it often, particularly when any character asked "Who is John Galt?" I felt like it was used to remind us that we were watching Atlas Shrugged. And worse, it was used SO incorrectly! The exposition on the film was horrendous, lacking in any sort of artistic ingenuity. The film's method of informing the audience about the past events was basically "Hey Dagny, remember when we built the John Galt Line and everyone tried to stop us but we did it anyway?" "Yep Hank, I remember that."

In short, details aside such as I've mentioned, I can't imagine how the film could have been better. I can't imagine how somebody could do a decent adaptation of Atlas Shrugged without losing the entire purpose for which it was written. I can't say I'm disappointed, only because I didn't have high expectations to begin with.

Better than the first; Initially difficult to pair with Part 1

[jehyatt455 · 10/10 · 12 October 2012]

Atlas Shrugged Part 2 followed Rand's magnum opus very closely: in terms of plot & storyline. Overall an excellent depiction of the book. Fifty years later, the message is still (if not more) relevant and just as rejected by looters.

The acting in the second Atlas Shrugged movie was much better than in the first Atlas Shrugged. The cast selections in this movie matched the appearance and demeanor conceived by Rand in her book better so than did the thespians in the first Atlas Shrugged movie. However, due to the fact that I had the previous cast images in my mind (from the first movie) it was initially difficult (right-brain-wise) for me to invest in the story being told as the sequel to the first movie.

The special effects and sound quality were indicative of the purpose for which the movie makers were aiming. This, however, was not a huge negative for the film as anyone expecting such entertainment value from this film obviously miss the objective of the movie makers. Similar in objective to the movie "I (Heart) Huckabees", this movie attempts to put into picture and sound the abject ideas found in a philosophical system ...and similar to "I (Heart) Huckabees", this movie entertains those who are seeking such entertainment more so than it does those who are looking for just entertainment by means of flashy effects and dramatic plot-lines.

This movie (and its predecessor) find their place on my favorite move list somewhere between "I (Heart) Huckabees" and "Memento". I do not separate this movie from its predecessor due to the fact that it is its sequel and an excellent one at that. There are few films that offer as much as does Atlas Shrugged (I and II). For a movie that entertains, presents the tenets of a world-view, begs discussion and debate, and educates; while also engaging in a wonderfully crafted story: there are few films that function on this level and even fewer films that functions as such so well.

Both better and worse than the first

[ejonconrad · 6/10 · 11 July 2013]

In my review of the first part of Atlas Shrugged, I described it as "better than I expected", and I was honestly looking forward this installment. I guess it's roughly as good as the first. On the positive side, some things actually *happen* in this movie, which is a step up, but other things pull it down, so it's kind of a wash.

First, although it takes up where the first left off, all the actors have magically changed - and for the most part they're worse than the originals. I actually liked the first Hank Rearden, but this guy is smug jerk who goes through the whole movie with a superior smirk frozen on his face. Dagny has bags under her eyes and a permanently strained look that I couldn't help but interpret as menstrual cramps. The smoldering passion between the two of them that was in the book went from lukewarm in the first part to nonexistent in the second. While we're on that subject, the makers shied away even more from Rand's penchant for rough sex, and toned things down even more than first, which was already strictly Hallmark Channel to begin with.

The Wesley Mouch of the first movie really captured the insidious evil of the character Rand had written, while this guy's just kind of annoying. One of the only ones who did a halfway good job was the guy who played Ken Dannager, the coal magnate, but he has a small part and disappears around the middle. The only truly good casting was Dagny's brother. Rand would have been pleased.

Easter Egg alert: keep an eye out for a short cameo by Teller (of Penn and Teller) - in a speaking role!

The movie also abandons the atmosphere of the first, so now it looks more like "the future" than a weird alternate history of the 50s. This arguably makes more sense, but it also loses some of the charm of the first - and charm is in short enough supply. It also makes it even more implausible that railroads are suddenly so important again.

Rand has a rather simple point to make, and she doesn't believe in subtlety. In the first move, she makes her point by repeating things, and in this one, she does it by getting sillier and sillier, and her plot is even more ridiculous as a movie than in print.

Things pick up a bit with some dramatic tension after Dagny goes on vacation and the railroad begins to fall apart. This is the high point of the movie and it's actually pretty good for a while. Here, the movie actually makes its point in the action, rather than by preaching, but it's too little to late.

Those who have read the book will recognize the beginning as foreshadowing Dagny's arrival in "Galt's Gulch", which gives you hope you will actually see their vision of Rand's Utopia. Unfortunately, the movie ends with that arrival, so you'll have to tune in for the third installment - presumably with totally different actors and settings - for the payoff.

Once more, the movie is pulled down by slavish devotion to the book. Rand believed that great men could follow many paths: engineers, scientists, artists, architects, businessmen, authors, musicians...pretty much anything by comedians. Like the book, and all her books, there's not a trace of humor in the movie. The closest thing to a "joke" is when Francisco D'Anconia sets fire to his mines to bankrupt his investors. Yup, a real knee-slapper that one. He is polite enough to warn Rearden (making it both arson *and* insider trading) - and of course nobody else matters.

Even so, although Rand's writing is devoid of humor, she at least gave them a certain "joie de vivre" that's totally lacking in the movie. The actors deliver their lines, economic lectures, and sermonettes without a trace of joy or passion.

It struck me that James Taggart's wedding is a good representation of the movie as a whole. If listening to a political debate at a wedding reception is your idea of a good time, then you'll probably love this movie. Otherwise, like me, you'll probably want to shout "lighten up" at several points.

Still, if you watched the first one, you'll probably want to watch this one, and if you watch this one, you'll find yourself hoping they'll finish the trilogy. I want to see their vision of Rand's Utopia. Personally, I've always wondered who cleans the toilets in a society populated entirely by arrogant supermen.

Just stick to the book...

[highvoltage-3 · 2/10 · 22 November 2012]

Initially I had hopes that Part II of the trilogy would be better than the first, since the producers promised a longer running time and larger budget. I am sad to report that Part II is significantly worse than the first.

As with the first movie, this one also suffers from the ambitious attempts to pack the complexity of the novel's plot into a 2 hour movie. It proved impossible. A lot of disjointed action and scenes that don't really connect well. They work well in the book because they are so detailed in their descriptions. In the book, the character become alive. In the movie - not so much. It feels almost as if the director and script writers had never actually read the book and made the movie based on the summary of a 12-year-old. Production is abysmal. It feels like a movie made for TV, only worse. I haven't seen worse special effects since Escape From LA (although that movie makes up for its cheesiness in other areas).

Whether or not you are a fan of Ayn Rand's novel, I don't see how I can recommend this movie. Its only redeeming feature is the fact that made me want to re-read the book in order to forget how awful the movie actually is. Maybe that's what they were shooting for in the first place...

Very good movie.

[six2561 · 9/10 · 13 October 2012]

I haven't read the 1100 page book, Atlas Shrugged, written in 1957! I liked Part 1 very much. I loved part 2. Forget ghosts, paranormal, aliens, zombies....this is the scariest movie I've ever seen. And we're living it right now. I didn't even notice a change in the casting of characters. I didn't remember. And it doesn't matter. The story is great and extremely relevant to today. Even if you haven't seen Part I you will stay engaged with the story and be riveted to your seat. I thought it played like a high budget Hollywood movie. Decent special effects in my opinion very good acting. Scary. Hard to be left hanging until 2014 for Part III. Hope we're all still around to see it.

Part II - new cast

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 7 March 2013]

Part II of the film version of Ayn Rand's famous book "Atlas Shrugged" has a bigger budget and a better known cast, consisting of Samantha Mathis, Jason Beghe, D.B. Sweeney, Esai Morales, John Rubinstein, Ray Wise, Diedrich Bader, Arye Gross, and Stephen Macht.

There are some knockout interiors, but the process shots, especially in the beginning, are horrendous.

Ayn Rand was a controversial person, and her philosophy of Objectivism is also very controversial. However, she was a visionary. In The Fountainhead, she talks about the rise of mediocrity in the arts, tabloid journalism, and the lack of artistic integrity. She believed in independent thinking, and in not compromising in your art.

In "Atlas Shrugged," Rand again proved herself prescient as the world in her story is just about the world we live in today - too much government intervention, gas prices sky-high, and a major recession. All the independent thinkers have disappeared, and the question on everybody's lips is, "Who is John Galt?" We learn here that John Galt threatened to "stop the motor of the world." He's just about succeeded as Part II progresses.

The characters in Atlas Shrugged are difficult to relate to, as were the characters in The Fountainhead. That's because they're symbols. Somehow they're easier to relate to in the books, I'm not sure why. Everyone does as good a job as they can, but this is a film about politics and ideas, with characters representing them.

I'll say this is better than Part I, it's better acted and less cheap looking. I hope there is a Part III, and I hope they keep this cast.

I can't say whether or not I recommend this. I would recommend reading the book first. I still believe in Rand the writer, even if her philosophies are tough to take.

Who is John Galt? Who Cares?

[RaiderDuck · 3/10 · 7 July 2013]

Acting: Uniformly mediocre, with Jason Beghe's steely Hank Rearden being the only (mildly) bright spot. Teller's blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo is neat, and Robert Picardo, Paul McCrane and Michael Gross all play bureaucrat versions of their famous TV characters. Nobody else registers in the slightest. The cast is completely different from Part I, which is almost unprecedented in a sequel filmed so soon after the original (the similarly cruddy Sting II is the only other example I could think of). The only saving grace was that Part I's cast was so mediocre in itself, I couldn't remember any of the performances, so it didn't seem jarring.

Production design and special effects: Some of the most obvious CGI you'll ever see. Also, the occasionally interesting "Bioshock"- influenced architecture of the first film is gone, probably because they halved the budget for this one.

Dialogue: As with other Ayn Rand films I've seen (Atlas Shrugged Part I and The Fountainhead), completely inane. I will say that Beghe delivers the standard Rand sound bites with a straight face better than anyone before (even Gary Cooper), because he so earnestly sells what he's saying.

Plotting: Once again, Rand's inability to deal with the real world shows itself. Everyone is either a misunderstood saint or an eeeeeeeeevil bureaucratic caricature. The US government in this movie calmly delivers edicts that even Kim il-Sung and Karl Marx would find ridiculous, and anyone thinking of the public good for even an instant is derided as a misguided fool or worse. Meanwhile, Francisco d'Ancona blows up his mines, and we're supposed to admire him for this. Or something. And the revealed origin of the phrase "Who is John Galt?" makes its constant repetition even less plausible. It says a lot when Sean Hannity (!) is arguably this film's moral center.

To summarize: Who is John Galt? A complete sociopath, from the looks of it.

Mumbo-Jumbo Corporate Fantasy, Part II

[doug_park2001 · 2/10 · 5 July 2013]

Even more soap operatic than Part I, Part II also lacks the few scattered exciting moments and variations in scenery we had in Part I (to which I gave three stars).

Regardless of one's political persuasion or stance on America's current economic problems, I can't see how anyone could regard this film as anything but ludicrous. Example: The corrupt sell-out CEO James Taggart encounters a fawning groupie of a sales clerk in a bargain store where he's stopped to purchase a tie and immediately marries her. One of the dumbest confrontations in Filmland history takes place at the wedding, where mining mogul Francisco d'Anconia engages Taggart in a heated philosophical debate about the basic function of money in human society.

Additionally, most of the acting and script are even more stilted than those in Part I. Still, I must give ASPII an additional star because it's quite funny --albeit, unintentionally--in a number of places. So, maybe watch it as a comedy (?) Nothing really gets resolved here, so I assume we're in for a Part III.

Trash, utter worthless trash.

[geraldconques · 1/10 · 30 July 2013]

The first movie was a pile of garbage, this movie is a pile of garbage with vomit on top. Where do I start. The special effects were crude and looked home made, like on a laptop on the kitchen table bad. The acting was so mechanical and bad, Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks its funny, but he won't be coming back. And the script, who wrote it, Linda, Heather R., Heather B., Heather L., Heather A., Blair, Ashley Binder-Joiner-Pinker-Kelssey-Pugner-Koch and Cindy Bowen. It reads like a bunch of prep school girls wrote it while they were mad at their teacher and were stuck at the Mall because their dad's limo couldn't come pick them up for two hours and there was no cell phone service (the horror) at the Mall. This "movie" failed on every front, why, because it deserved to. This move is a narcissistic ego trip trying to pass itself off as a thinly veiled attempted by the morally corrupt elite "right" to portray itself as the "victim" of the all consuming poor. This movie is completely disconnected from reality, it is fiction, no worse, its bad fiction, even worse, its preachy bad fiction. If I could find out where to write to demand my money back, I am willing to spend hours to do it, just so I could know that NONE of my money went to the support the "groups" that made this huge pile of puke. Trash.