41 thoughts on “LFM Review: Atlas Shrugged, Part I”

  2. Whoa, I completely didn’t expect that. It’s quite hilarious and disappointing at the same time. I was interested in seeing it, but now I absolutely have to, sounds train wreckish. I was worried that Rand’s narrative would translate poorly to screen, but sounds like they at least got the ideology right.

  4. Waitaminute….you can’t get away with that! For months I was prepared to root for this thing but wait until DVD. With your comment saying it was one of the “worst narrative feature films I have ever seen in my life”, now I have to search this pup out in the Canadian market to see this trainwreck theatrically for myself. Drat!

    I mean is it The Doom Generation, Grindhouse, Speed Racer unwatchable bad? Or is it Superman IV, Lethal Weapon 4 so atrocious its kinda fun with a pizza and a bottle of whiskey on a Friday night kinda bad?

    But seriously, I feel sorry for these folks. They even promoted it on my Toronto market radio station. The trailer just reeked of amateur hour.

  5. This truly is sad. You like me have waited for this day for a LONG time. There’s books that I’ve read that I thought would never be made into movies. The two best examples are Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I thought the LOTR trilogy by Peter Jackson was outstanding and out of that accomplishment it gave me hope for Atlas Shrugged. (I based that on the complexity and length of both books/series)
    It was obvious from the start that this was rushed and most egregiously it was left to people that didn’t appreciate…no have the depth of talent and ability to pull it off. This is an important book that needs to be treated seriously. No it’s not the Bible or the Koran, but it’s a landmark piece of literature nonetheless. The technology also exists to make quality movies for very little financial outlay. There’s no excuse for this.

  6. Jason,

    When you’ve had some time to get over your angry disappointment, it would be valuable for readers of Libertas if you wrote a critique of this project.

  7. That’s unfortunate, and you aren’t alone, it rates 6 percent favorable at Rotten Tomatoes, that being one favorable review from Kyle Smith out of 18.

  8. Okay, I just got back from seeing it, and my honest opinion is that you’re being unfair. It certainly has its flaws, but of the four of us who saw it, the two who’ve read the book liked it while the two who hadn’t thought it was horrid. I hope it does well enough that I can look forward to part 2.

  9. Well, Jason, I don’t know what your beef is with the picture, but I’m sure you have your reasons.

    I enjoyed the film — in fact, I found it to be far better than I thought it would be.

    I first read the novel back in the Fall of 2006, and again the day after Obama was reelected — I had to gather myself for the fight that was to come. SInce then, I’ve probably read “the speech” 10 times, and went through the book countless times in discussions.

    That being said, I found the themes, motifs and symbols from the book to be in the film, and used very efficiently. I loved the bracelet parts, the conversation between Francisco and Reardon, Dagny and Reardon, and the selective use of all of the collectivist organizations bearing down on the characters.

    The boiled-down dialogue, the editing (especially Hank signing over his businesses), and the music all gave the film a sense of urgency I didn’t expect. The cinematography was also better than I imagined: it mixed in news-reel footage with expansive shots of Colorado, and unique mixes of angles in buildings — I especially thought the one shot of Eddie and Dagny in the lobby of TT was was stylish, and something I always imagined seeing when I read the book.

    Sorry you didn’t have a great experience, Jason. Govindini gave a wonderful piece on the Robin Hood and Clash of the Titans remakes — and those films were detestable, I don’t know what your problems are with Altas Shrugged, but I don’t think anyone can argue that its heart is in the right place, and it is faithful to the novel.

    1. Vince, you’re my favorite reader – and a wonderful contributor to the ongoing dialogue at this website – but the last thing I would call this film is ‘faithful’ to Rand’s novel, or to her overall vision. If Atlas Shrugged is about anything, it’s about the relentless pursuit of excellence – and no such excellence was on display in that film.

      1. Thanks for the compliment, Jason. I will contribute to this site as long as it’s in existence — there’s not a site out there that’s more insightful, fearless, and on point with its craftsmanship and message than Libertas.

        I could’ve been clearer in my remarks; obviously, the film isn’t completely faithful to the novel. You’re right … the novel is indeed about the “relentless pursuit of excellence” but it’s also about the evils of collectivism, which I thought was in full force in the picture.

        But this is your house, Jason. If you don’t want to spend time on this picture, I can dig it. This site has been invaluable in a sea of others that just freak out whenever someone insults Sarah Palin. This place is more than that, and you’ve proven it.

        1. That’s very kind of you, Vince, I deeply appreciate your remarks – particularly regarding the detailed work we put in. I am also aware that I run a certain risk in doing posts like this; people come to this site, like any other, expecting content – rather than an absence of it.

          I felt the need, however, to make a certain kind of ‘statement’ that a 1000-word review would not quite provide.

  10. This is so lame but not surprising Before the transformation of this website and just after the ousting of Nolte or whatever happened I remember Apuzzo insulting Rayn fans by calling them randroids. This movie probably isn’t that great but a “review” like this on this website was inevitable no matter how good or bad the movie was going to turn out.

    1. You obviously don’t read this website then. Read here:

      https://www.libertasfilmmagazine.com/exclusive-lfm-visits-the-set-of-atlas-shrugged-director-paul-johanssons-first-interview-about-the-film-part-i/

      https://www.libertasfilmmagazine.com/exclusive-lfm-visits-the-set-of-atlas-shrugged-director-paul-johanssons-first-interview-about-the-film-part-ii/

      Long before people in the conservative/libertarian/Tea Party world began jumping on board this film’s train – indeed, when most of those people were belittling the film for its low-budget – Libertas was the first to report from the film’s set. It’s also worth mentioning that back in 2005 we did a special tribute to Ayn Rand at The Liberty Film Festival, in which we showed the restored 1942 film version of Rand’s We the Living (directed by Goffredo Alessandrini, with Alida Valli and Rossano Brazzi) and had filmmaker/restoration producer Duncan Scott and noted Rand scholar Jeff Britting speak. So we want these sorts of projects to do well, and your premise is false.

      Also: you might help your own cause better by spelling Rand’s name correctly.

        1. You’ll need to make your point a bit more clear, Ed. You’re tripping over your snark.

          Incidentally, I’d like to point out that Kurt Loder over at Reason has eviscerated the film:

          http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/14/atlas-shrugged-part-1

          … and the film is currently (as of my writing this) ranking in at a whopping 5% at Rotten Tomatoes, so I think we can dispense with the notion that I’m out on a limb here.

  11. Just got finished watching it and I enjoyed it, thought the CG was certainly low budget, thought the Galt’s missing people could have been better handled by newspaper clippings or Eddie’s updating Dagny, and I thought the last scene with Dagny screaming “Nooooo” reminded me of the hackneyed Darth Vader emergence scene in Revenge of the Sith, but overall, I thought the movie was enjoyable, not nearly as poorly acted as I thought it would, and definitely better than some of the other films I’ve seen over the past few years. I did agree that it had a certain “Dynasty” feel to it, but that’s okay, even soap operas can be somewhat interesting, especially when the material is so timely and necessary.

  12. Also, in regards to Vince’s “all they do is freak out when someone mentions Sarah Palin” rhetoric, perhaps they’ve taken the ball and run with it, perhaps you’ve implied it, or perhaps it is in fact your intention, but I’m not sure why everyone sees this site as the “answer” to those other places which shall not be named. There are certainly different ways to fight any war, certainly that is no different with the battle to bring conservative media into the pop culture conversation. I see Libertas as the alternative to such sites, an elite look at conservative media and certainly elite is not a bad word. You don’t cover the entertainment industry in the same fashion as that other site nor would I expect or want that from here, but I definitely want it.

    In other words, there is room for both approaches, regardless of any behind the scene squabbles that may or may not have happened.

    1. Shin, I happen to agree with you, but let me tell you something: the people who run that other site, whom I know extremely well, definitely do not look at it the way you do.

      1. That’s unfortunate to hear. Glad to see you keep doing what you’re doing regardless, because where the other site does have similar competition, Libertas definitely does not. It’s truly one of a kind.

        1. That’s very kind of you, Shin. For what it’s worth, it’s a great pleasure to read your comments and those of the other readers here throughout the week. I always enjoy the conversation, and the valuable insights you and everyone else bring to the mix.

  13. Thanks, Jason. I had been planning to buy a ticket mainly to spite the other side, but your short (if not sweet) review has saved me from 102 minutes of cringing. From what I’ve read elsewhere, people like the film (or claim to) not because it’s good but because it’s ideologically pure, which, I suspect, is precisely why the movie became a trainwreck. Truly talented filmmakers have been dismissed over the past couple of decades because they wanted to take liberties with sacred writ in the interest of making a better movie. An artful adaptation of “Atlas Shrugged” would have reached mainstream audiences, while this kluge will simply preach to the choir. It’s a shame.

    My wife half-jokingly remarked that only the Russians will ever be able to do cinematic justice to “Atlas Shrugged.” She had in mind the 10-hour, 1968 epic “War and Peace.” She may be right. It is, after all, a Russian novel in more ways than one, and they’ve already lived the story.

    1. Don, thanks so much and that’s a marvelous insight. It’s fascinating to imagine what the Russians might’ve made of this. Atlas Shrugged is, to a very great extent, an ironic reversal of the classic communist ‘strike play,’ with the ‘productive’ sectors of society going on strike rather than the ‘proletariat.’

      Odd personal fact: years ago I almost worked for Nikita Mikhalkov, and came damn near close to attending film school in Moscow. Long story. Glad it didn’t work out.

  14. I saw the film on opening night, and while I thought right after seeing it that it was at best OK, the more I think about it the more disappointed I am. I first read “Atlas Shrugged” in the mid-60’s as a teenager, and have read it several times since, so I’ve followed this project with great anticipation and hopefulness. I share Jason’s sense of letdown, but more with sadness than the anger he (perhaps understandably) feels at this missed opportunity.

    It’s hard to know where to begin, so I’ll mention only two major points. The film is so rushed that there are no back stories to the principal characters, and consequently, the film’s value as entertainment and as a means of getting out Rand’s message is totally vitiated. Being knowledgeable about the book, I could fill those back stories in, but as my wife pointed out, probably half the audience had actually read the book, and they dragged the other half along with them. If you don’t know the back stories, the actions of the principals in the film have far less significance and impact both dramatically and philosophically. Dagny and Rearden might simply appear to be the selfish bastards Rand’s critics say they are.

    For example, the love story of Dagny and Francisco is mentioned in passing in a sentence or two. Without understanding that love and Francisco’s seeming betrayal of it, the scene in which he turns down her request for funding for the John Galt Line is rendered close to meaningless. Without understanding the years of effort that went into the creation of Rearden Metal, not to mention the years of toil Rearden endured to get to the point where he could even begin to try to create it, the scenes in which Rearden gives his wife a bracelet made from the first pour of the Metal, and in which Dagny trades her a diamond necklace for it, lack resonance, meaning, and drama. In these days of 150+ minute films, surely more of this context could have been provided.

    Rand saw and characterized herself as a Romantic novelist, so it is extremely disappointing that the filmmakers utterly miss the themes of love and sex in the novel. Leaving out the Dagny/Francisco back story is bad enough. But they also gave short shift to Rearden’s acceptance (in Part I) of the looter creed of love and sex (as embodied literally and figuratively by his wife Lillian), namely, that sex is a joyless, dirty, animal urge. Consequently, the book’s treatment of Dagny’s ravishing by Rearden, his loathing of her for enjoying it, and his self-loathing for responding to the best woman he’s ever known with the lowest of all his urges, is transmogrified in the film into a slow-motion, romantic, tender interlude that didn’t move either of them as much as would a one-point drop in their companies’ stock prices. Assuming the filmmakers make Parts 2 and 3 (and on the strength of Part 1, I hope they don’t), leaving out Rearden’s conflicted attitude toward his love for Dagny will undercut his forced betrayal of her and himself when he signs over the rights to Rearden Metal to avoid having their affair publicized.

    I think the makers of this film tried to stay true to the novel, and I give them credit for that, but unfortunately they redacted the life out of it, leaving a husk devoid of the passion, ideas, and love that have kept this novel a best-seller for over 50 years. The additional problems of the one-dimensional acting, non-existent directing, death march pacing, and plausibility due to its being set in a time that is essentially our own simply drag it down even further.

    The only thing I can say, Jason, is that it took four tries to get “The Maltese Falcon” done right. I have to believe that a movie worthy of this book will be made some day.

    1. Paul, your comments here are eloquent, subtle, and deeply insightful with respect to the many inadequacies of this adaptation – particularly with respect to the psychology of the characters, and Rand’s attitude toward sex (arguably the most interesting and under-valued aspect of the novel). I endorse all of your observations, and had I been able to emerge from the cocoon of rage the film encased me in, I would have added in my review about a dozen other ways in which the project represents, in my opinion, a betrayal of Rand’s deeply romantic spirit.

      This film, which could have been a Blade Runner or Metropolis (or even something more?), was instead turned into something like Law and Order or CSI: Miami – a pedestrian TV programmer, albeit without the pizzazz. I encourage you to read my friend David Ross’ thoughts on Rand’s novel below. I don’t believe David’s seen the film yet.

      https://www.libertasfilmmagazine.com/ayn-rand-atlas-shrugged/

    2. Paul:
      “Rand saw and characterized herself as a Romantic novelist, so it is extremely disappointing that the filmmakers utterly miss the themes of love and sex in the novel.”

      I’ve never read that, but I have read and seen Rand consider her work “romanticism” — and herself not a writer of “romantic” novels, where the primary focus is a love story. Her work is characterized by huge stories where the characters preach and not necessarily converse — and everything is done to service the themes. She said on many occasions that the only work similar to hers was Les Miserables.

      To me, Rand has always sought to separate the mind and the body. She believed that a person can still be whole if he or she gives into physical urges. This probably stems from her attitudes toward religion, which see the mind and body intertwined.

      Reardon has always seen himself at a traditional family man, and that his physical urges should always be in the context of his marriage. So I agree that the film didn’t do a good job of drawing that theme, because Dagny and Reardon were on opposite sides of that idea, but we got a sense of his sex life with his wife.

  15. “Critic” to you, means “one who finds fault” and nothing more.
    Rand’s message needs to get out in order to prevent the US from turning into the soviet union.
    I have a feeling that Jason would have ignored Paul Revere because of improper syntax/grammar/tense. The British were not coming, they were already there.
    How about you comment on the message and whether they did a good enough job of getting a very important message across?
    The best part about this crappy review… any objectivist would not care in the least what Jason has to say. We think for ourselves.

      1. Actually, the movie’s doing pretty good in that, according to your Box Office Mojo link, it’s third in per-screen earnings at $2250. I assume that’s mainly existing Rand fans and curious conservatives and libertarians. The real test will be how it does next weekend. I suspect that it won’t attract the general audience and will drop pretty sharply, but who knows?

      2. Actually, that was for Friday. It’s 4th on Saturday and Sunday, but the point that it’s a respectable per-screen performance (at least for now) still stands.

          1. “Hang on to that”? It was just an observation, and I still maintain that it was a valid one. And I actually predicted a sharp drop-off in my comment.

            1. JIC, I didn’t intend that to seem harsh. The box office performance of the film as an indie going out in a few hundred theaters was fine, but not anything special – particularly considering how much attention the film got in the right-wing media.

              I’m not trying bum people out here, it’s just that the standards by which this film is being judged have been so downsized. This is one of the biggest selling novels of all time, and people are now trying to figure out whether a $1 million+ opening on a few hundred screens is ‘successful’ or not. The whole thing is sad to me.

              1. The box office performance of the film as an indie going out in a few hundred theaters was fine, but not anything special

                I described it’s per-screen performance as “pretty good”, so we don’t really disagree. In fact, I don’t even really disagree with Brandon Gray’s analysis, because he essentially just wrote a longer, more negative version of what I wrote: opening weekend crowd probably made up of Rand fans and conservatives/libertarians, probably won’t cross over, will probably drop off sharply.

  16. Haven’t seen it and have been depressed ever since I found out who was involved in adapting it to film. John Aglialoro, the investor and fitness equipment manufacturer decided this whole screenplay thing must be really easy to do. Just take text from the book and cut and paste it into Final Draft. Discounting taste or creativity for a belly full of hubris, Aglialoro perfectly encapsulates the saying, “When all you have is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail.” This was Fatal Mistake No 1. Instead of investing a chunk of money into a reputable script doctor, he hired Brian Patrick O’Toole who has very few credits other than low budget video games to co-write. Fatal Mistake No 2. Not satisfied his team was mediocre enough, Aglialoro decided Paul Johansson, an actor with a few credits directing a small TV series, was the perfect guy to direct an epic film with millions of hardcore fans. What a surprise when the trailer looked like an episode from One Tree Hill. Fatal Mistake No 3. We are now left with a project lacking in subtlety, nuance, allusion or metaphor. Should we be surprised?

  18. Thoughts on Atlas Shrugged the movie: Reviews I’ve seen for Atlas Shrugged have been on the negative sidebut after seeing the movie, I can’t figure out why unless it’s for its”conservative” viewpoint. Sure, it was slow to start, with a lot ofcharacters you have to keep straight, but you soon figure them out andonce the film reaches the point when its heroine Dagney Taggertdecides to go it alone with her own train project, interest mountsquickly. I actually got a tingle down my spine when her new trainsucceeds in its maiden run! After that, as political forces gather totake her and partner Reardon Metals down and Taggert and Reardon beginthe search for the creator of a new kind of revolutionary engine, thesuspense mounts and holds your attention. Throughout the film amysterious stranger in overcoat and fedora seemingly recruits the mostpowerful men in industry and takes them into hiding as part of asecret foundation. Does the mysterious stranger go by the name of JohnGalt that is on everyone’s lips during the picture? Is John Galt thebrilliant but unnamed “third student” who disappeared years ago from aclass taught by the chairman of the state science council that hasbeen bought off by federal money? Is he the inventor of the new enginebeing diligently search for by Reardon and Taggert? Stay tuned! As all those threads begin to run together, the movie ends on a powerful noteas Taggert confronts the burning oil fields of one of her trustedpartners who has become the latest figure to disappear. The last shotof the movie has a really powerful shot of the heroine looking outover vast burning oil fields and shouting “Noooo!” as she falls to herknees in despair. It all left me looking forward to seeing the nextpart (it’s supposed to be a trilogy).

    Another noteworthy element ofthe film to me was its female lead…strong, smart, tough but stillfeminine…not like all those fakey feminist fantasies that crowd mostfilms today…you know the type…shoot big guns, beat up gangs of menlike they were nothing…kicking down solid oak doors etc, in otherwords, it’s as if their parts were written for men and then a woman iscast instead. Blechh! Give me Dagney Taggert any day!

    Finally, for uscomics fans there’s an interesting Steve Ditko angle to the story. The mysterious stranger bears a definite resemblance both in look andphilosophy to such Ditko created characters as the Question and Mr. A.From there, we all know that the character of Rorshach from AlanMoore’s Watchmen was based on the Question. Rorshach was the real heroof Watchmen being the one who refused to compromise his principleseven unto death. Something the Question and I think, the mysteriousstranger in Atlas Shrugged would understand completely! To bring thiscommentary full circle and address another criticism of it in reviews,I saw nothing wrong at all with the direction or acting. This was aprofessional looking film that kept my interest from start to finish.The acting was fine, the sets good, and characterizations strong. Soif a person doesn’t mind doing some thinking while watching a movie (Idare say that this movie will have more substance in it than any otherfilm this year) I’d recommend it! I’ll buy it on DVD, if that’sendorsement enough for you!

  19. Yes, all quite true…poor screenplay, production values, etc. Pregnant with possibilities broken on the ground. I hope this production does not put an end to future attemps to bring Rand to the big screen.

    BUT (there is always a “but”) …I would stil recomend seeing the film if only for its oddly disorienting effect. Watching it was like looking through the looking glass of Hollywood culture to see it’s perfect chiral image: it is the conservatives who are beautiful, the statists who are ugly, progressive rhetoric is gross, productivity is admirable….I’m telling ya I was so dizzy I thought it might have been one of those nausea inducing 3D effects for a moment. Hollywood has become such mono-culture the the break from the norm was refreshing.

    And who knows, if the movie makes a profit maybe part 2 and 3 will be made (in a more compelling manner of course)

    Bruno

Comments are closed.