Atlas Shrugged

A bad movie's a bad movie and there's nothing more to it.

Once against Rand's popularity amongst a very small minority of people is distorting things. The 85% popularity rating on RT is the same as what happened to the Modern Library poll.

I've read the book (I should state for the record and purposes of objectivity that I did not like it) and seen the trailers. Even though I did not like the book I still think that, from what I could see in the trailer, they were trying to sell it as something that it is not.

Is this what you envisioned when reading the book?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM

The film couldn't get any proper actors. It's directed by someone most famous for being in One Tree Hill and it's been entirely funded by someone who might have a political agenda *cough* as a vanity project.

To me it comes as entirely no surprise that it's getting a critical mauling.
 
Last edited:
I read the book. I saw the movie.

"The film couldn't get any proper actors. It's directed by someone most famous for being in One Tree Hill and it's been entirely funded by some rampant conservative as a vanity project."

This one the most ridiculous things I have heard yet. It is brilliantly cast and spot on. And the fact that you used the term "rampant conservative" tells me all I need to know about you and where you're coming from (the same place as the agenda driven critics).
 
Last edited:
Careful, folks. Remember, the 3 things to never talk about on a trade forum is religion, politics, or anything else. :D
 
Instag8r said:
I read the book. I saw the movie.

"The film couldn't get any proper actors. It's directed by someone most famous for being in One Tree Hill and it's been entirely funded by some rampant conservative as a vanity project."

This one the most ridiculous things I have heard yet. It is brilliantly cast and spot on. And the fact that you used the term "rampant conservative" tells me all I need to know about you and where you're coming from (the same place as the agenda driven critics).
Click to expand...

That's fine and that's your opinion.

Granted I've only seen the trailer (the film has no chance of getting a UK release) but I wonder why they couldn't get big name actors to join the project? She may be a very fine actress, I don't know, but look at Taylor Schilling's IMDB page and tell me that that's a serious leading actress in an international film.

It also seems remarkable to me that a book which many people consider to be great is trusted to such an inexperienced director.

It's fine that you think it's excellent but I'm also inclined to listen to the opinions of top film critics like Ebert, Travers and Todd McCarthy as well.

This is what Rotten Tomatoes has to say in it critical summary:

Passionate ideologues may find it compelling, but most filmgoers will find this low-budget adaptation of the Ayn Rand bestseller decidedly lacking.
Click to expand...

Seems like you're demonstrating exactly the appeal of the film to a certain demographic.

CamVader said:
Careful, folks. Remember, the 3 things to never talk about on a trade forum is religion, politics, or anything else.
Click to expand...

Sage like advice CamVader! :D

I'm just trying to judge it as a film and from what I can see it's a really strange, half baked production that very few critics (or moviegoers, it's box office reports tell me) are interested in.
 
This is what get's me about your post. You say, "A bad movie's a bad movie and there's nothing more to it." And you haven't even seen it. This is beyond comprehension to me.

The movie is very visually appealing, emotionally engaging, intellectually challenging (makes you think, if you have that ability) and leaves you wanting to know what comes next. What more do you want from a movie?

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, though, gave the movie zero stars, and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave it one.

Peter Travers, the man that gave Jackass 3D 2.5 stars and Roger Ebert who gave Arthur 3 stars. Give me a break. I stand by statement that the critics have shown themselves for who they really are.

As far as box office reports, it was only able to open on 299 screens and no network (except for FOX) would allow them to run advertisements/trailers, all for editorial reasons they stated. Editorial reasons my ***.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... I think you need to chill out a little and just accept that there isn't a conspiracy by film critics everywhere. You liked it but almost none fo the critics did. That's all I'm saying- sometimes a bad movie appeals on a personal level, where it doesn't to the majority of people.

I found Arthur pretty funny but that got a critical mauling. Does my personal opinion mean that all the critics who hated it are full of BS?
 
Hollywood is a very politically Liberal, Progressive community. Ayn Rands novels (and consequently the film "Atlas Shrugged") and other writings are very Libertarian and Capitalistic. There have been rumors for years of some entities wanting to purchase the film rights to "Atlas Shrugged" expressly for the purpose of preventing the film from being made. Having read quite a few reviews the language is definitely inflammatory and focus on the political philosophy of the film and not how well (or poorly) the film was made.

With that background that the film was made at all is amazing; that it was made for about $10 million should be a study in what can be done on a "small" budget.

One thing for sure, it is a "fan film" for devotees of Ayn Rand and the novel.
 
"Having read quite a few reviews the language is definitely inflammatory and focus on the political philosophy of the film and not how well (or poorly) the film was made. "​


This type of reasoning is, to me, absurd. A film's ideas are not divorced from its execution. It's a total package.

If an ignorant philosophy of greed and selfishness is dressed up in a fancy, glittering facade, with flattering lighting and smooth camera moves -- so what? They're the same underlying malignant ideas that people are rejecting.

Deal with it.
 
polfilmblog said:


If an ignorant philosophy of greed and selfishness is dressed up in a fancy, glittering facade, with flattering lighting and smooth camera moves -- so what? They're the same underlying malignant ideas that people are rejecting.

Deal with it.​
Click to expand...


"ignorant philosophy of greed and selfishness"

This is hysterical and you just proved my point. You're clueless. And I'm done with this thread.​
 
WTF.

You said this movie has no real actors?

Then WTF is Justin Timberlake doing at 1:39 in the trailer up there. He's in the movie.

Don't give me that "no real actors" business. I definitely see Justin Timberlake.
 
ROC said:
WTF.

You said this movie has no real actors?

Then WTF is Justin Timberlake doing at 1:39 in the trailer up there. He's in the movie.

Don't give me that "no real actors" business. I definitely see Justin Timberlake.
Click to expand...

Ahem! That is no JT! I should know -- I have four posters of him on my wall. :lol:

On-topic, though I can't really comment on the movie, cuz I haven't seen it (nor do I plan to), the reviews are quite harsh, and only a handful of them mention the politics. In fact, there are even a handful of reviews that say that they like Ayn Rand's novel, and that it deserves a better production than this.

But hey, this is all subjective, so if you like it you like it, there's no right or wrong.

There's no question that Rand's writing is very politically-charged, and I think it's impossible for a viewer to completely disconnect themselves and just watch a movie objectively.

Though, I'm not convinced that America's critics are left-leaning. Alcove correctly pointed out that Hollywood tends to be left-leaning. That's a relative point to make, in regards to the difficulty of getting this movie produced. It has no bearing on the reviews, however, because film critics are not part of the "liberal Hollywood".

The most common way for a film critic to get their start is as a beat reporter for a newspaper. The right loves to point out how left-leaning the media is, but from my liberal perspective, I think the media tends too far to the right. With that in mind, I think the collective national media is actually probably a pretty fair and accurate sampling of middling-America.

I'm inclined to believe that the poor reviews are based on the merits of the movie, not the political commentary.
 
ROC said:
lol I tried to lighten up this thread :P
Click to expand...

It was a tough assignment so we'll be curving the grade. :lol:

Like many political conversations, it started off with a conspiracy theory then regressed. Welcome to Thanksgiving at my house.
 
Instag8r said:
You're clueless. And I'm done with this thread.
Click to expand...

This is too bad, because I was hoping to read your review of the film in opposition to the myriad so-called agenda-driven reviews. I encourage you to come back and defend your position in a civilized manner. Give us your honest, agenda-free critique of the film as a film.

The nicest review I could find came from the conservative Washington Times newspaper, and it was far from glowing.

"The film deserves some slack, given its humble origins, including a modest budget and rumors of an industry less-than-eager to support it. But many indie filmmakers thrive under similar constraints, making the movie’s stiff acting and oft-tortured dialogue impossible to explain away."
 
Last edited:
The trailer put me to sleep. It felt clunky and uninspired. Even if I were a fan of the book, it didn't create any interest in this viewer. I'll pass.
 
"This is hysterical and you just proved my point. You're clueless. And I'm done with this thread. "​

Good to see I possess the power to shut you up. Talk about "hysterical."

Rand was influenced by the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, and the extremes to which government expanded control over people's lives.

Her response was to go, knee jerk fashion, in the exact opposite extreme with a childish notion that all evil in society comes from government. Not true. And most people don't fall for that mindless position.

Government regulation of the abuses of big capital are quite welcome. We already tried it the other way. In Rand's utopia your children would be chained to sweatshops for 16 hours a day in the name of freedom. Grandmas would be dumpster diving for dinner in the name of society only rewarding the winners.

Other, rational thinkers have seen the implications of Rand's work and the radical right's misguided thinking -- and rejected it. What they have produced in its place is far from optimal, but we can clearly discern what the WRONG direction would look like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top