46 votes

Atlas Shrugged Part 2- My Review For DP

Just got back from seeing Atlas Shrugged Part 2 --
SCORE: B+

As a movie: Second tier actors, who are nonetheless strong in their roles, bring a gritty reality to the film. The somewhat halting or jerky delivery of the dialog lends to a sense of watching real people in crisis. Furthermore, unlike most films of our day, wherein the heroine falls off a cliff and in the next shot has perfect hair and lipstick, Atlas 2 lets things go from bad to worse as Dagny and Hank's appearance deteriorates in mirrored reflection to the situation around them. By the end of the film, we see Dagny clinging to life, looking dirty, sweaty, bloody and beat to hell, but finally finding out the answer to the question that has continued to hound her . . .

The special effects of the film are definitely low-budget, but work well in a story that is (again, unlike the majority of today's films) driven not by CG effects but by plot, character development and...conviction. The real star of this film (as well as Parts 1 and 3) is the story by Ayn Rand. The ideas that are presented in "Atlas Shrugged" are more relevant now than ever before. As our world continues to collectively march down the path toward statism and slavery for the "common good," we can see clearly how Rand's prophecy of Atlas Shrugged has already come to be. Liberty is a withered tree. And so, the only thing left to do is to honestly begin asking ourselves...

"Who is John Galt?"




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Debbie's picture

I loved both Part 1 and Part II and am looking forward to

Part III ! I was initially disappointed because I was looking forward to it being filmed in the time period (1950's) that the book was written, but still loved it. Am planning to read the book now.

Debbie

Finally I saw Atlas Shrugged Part II

I agree with many comments on this thread comparing parts I and II, still, I LOVED the threme, and I appreciate how it remained strong in supporting and defending those who build, and showing clearly how a government is bent on destruction of producers in the name of equality for all.

It was very good to see how producers are SHORT in supply, while the masses want, but are unable, by their own wants and needs to create, establish and produce for ALL, let alone themselves.

This is a great movie to see for Independence Day.

One idea I had while watching the movie is that the book, which I read decades ago, was a road map for the destruction of the USA as a nation that produces.. we have failed to esteme those who produce, and rather than get in and fight to be producers, instead many of us become part of the destruction with arrogant self righteous idea we are entitled, we can wait for someone else to terar them down rather than get in the good fight for PROSPERITY.

One more review

I liked this much better than Part 1, mostly due to improved screenwriting and a new cast.

Samantha Mathis as Dagny Taggert looked more like a businesswoman and less like a fashion model. She also seemed to be more emotionally involved with the events. Definitely an improvement over Taylor Schilling in Part 1.

Jason Beghe as the new Hank Rearden was a bit more rough and gruff than the more intellectual, quizzical Grant Bowles in Part one. I preferred Bowles' characterization, but Beghe does a perfectly fine job.

Francisco is played by Esai Morales in Part two, elegant and charismatic, and he is a MUCH better choice that the overweight, unremarkable Jsu Garcia of Part 1.

Eddie Willers is now played by a big black guy (Richard T. Jones) who looks like a football lineman -- not a smart choice for a diffident, self-effacing character. All the villains seem to be well cast.

The story is framed by a flash-forward to Dagny's airplane pursuit into the Rockies, which works magnificently well and is an immediate attention-grabber. In general, I found the script moving more smoothly, with occasional notes of humor. I thought Rearden's trial was well done, but Francisco's "money speech" was a major disappointment: that speech was really the heart of the book for me, and it was brutally edited down. Should have been about five minutes longer, with more reaction shots of Hank Rearden listening to it. THIS, and not Galt's speech, is the single speech that wins hearts and minds.

As regards the storyline, my main regret is that the growing friendship between Rearden and Francisco is not as fully developed as in the book -- for me, that was the most interesting relationship in the story, much more so than the many loves of Dagny Taggert.

All that being said -- I still loved the movie, where I did not much care for Part 1. It captured the intelligence and the basic morality of Rand's work much better. I'll be buying a DVD of this one, when it comes out.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

SteveMT's picture

Peter Schiff interview of Atlas Shrugged producer; 10-22-12

Today's guest is Harmon Kaslow, Hollywood-based movie producer, on his new film, Atlas Shrugged, Pt. II..
Click on Harmon Kaslow Interview
http://www.schiffradio.com/site

It was fair worse that part I - the cast is terrible

Let me start by saying I love Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. I agree with everything in the book. So I am a fan I am not a progressive big government tool. With that said I went to see the 9:40 show on Friday when my family was home sleeping. I didn't want to not be counted for the opening day. In addition I have watched Atlas I numerous times and enjoy watching it - the final scene is incredibly moving. And I know Part I had its faults and was low budget but it was still very watchable.

I am afraid part II is a bad movie experience and it has nothing to do with the book. The work still speaks for iteself IF IF IF the crowd will understand it which they likely won't. Either way the movie felt cheaper than part I. The cast was TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE. The only one that was better was Mouch and maybe James Tagert was a push - otherwise everyone else was BAD. Dagney was terrible. Hank terrible. And maybe the worst was Francisco his money speech was laughable. Honestly the acting is bad.

In addition the screenwriting wasn't great. The disappearance parts were so much weaker than part I.

Also the score (music) was terrible in my opinion.

I was kind of bummed when I left the movie, a few scenes were great because of the content - the court scene and train scene I felt were powerful. The rest eghh.

I doubt it will play in broad release next weekend. Sad but I am being honest.

I hate to say that you hit the nail on the head

I didnt think that the money speech was all that bad and I liked the actor that played Hank, not as much as the actor that played hank in the first movie, but he this one didnt do a terrible job in my opinion. I really loved the first movie, i found it inspiring and thought that they did a very good job considering the budget they were working with. I was really disappointed with part 2

I liked the first cast better

This movie felt hokey from a moviegoer's perspective. I also honestly don't know if most of the public is educated enough to understand the movie even though it tried to make the issues accessible to simple people. Also couldn't stand that they put that clown Sean Hannity in there for a scene.

Not a bad way to spend an afternoon

If you want to see the first film before you see the sequel, its streaming on Netflix, so you can check it out there. Despite having different actors, and I think a different director, the second film has very, very much the same style, tone and look of the first, although it does look like they had some extra money for things like nicer looking interiors.

I never saw the first one in theaters cause it wasn't playing in many screens and wasn't playing near me, but that's not really a problem for this one, playing at a very suprising 1,000 screens. I suspect it won't be so easy to find next week, so check it you now while you can.

The real problem for both films is that they are very short and compressed. They sometimes feel like the recaps that some TV shows will do to remind you what happened last week. Sort of like you expect an announcer to start the whole film by saying: "Previously, on Atlas Shrugged". And with this being a trilogy, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for it. Lord of the Rings had 3 3-hour movies. This is closer to 3 1.5 hour movies. Why not cut it to two 2+ hour movies if you're intent on making the story that super-compressed? It was actually worse in the first film, cause it extended past the screenplay to the editing. The first film didn't even allow the pace to be slowed by having reaction shots of the actors, which at least they allow in part II.

The source material is so interesting and the producers seem to love it so much that the overall movie experiences can't help but be interesting, and most of the negative criticisms I've heard have been pretty much nonsense and say more about the bias of the reviewers than about the films they're reviewing. It's fun to see how they adapt things to make it a modern day version of the story and there are actually a suprising amount of good acting performance in both films, despite the fact that these are kind of hard charactors to play.

My advice: Check it out for sure, just don't go expecting some sort of great, definitive film version of the novel.

I loved it!

I guess I don't know anything about movies, I thought it was great! I didn't noticed anything was low budget... ok the street scenes looked kinda... shall I say "real"... but that seemed to fit with the movie... the whole thing seemed all to real. No need to apologize for this one, it was really good movie.

What good is Freedom of the press, if the Press will not Press For Freedom? - UR

http://PressforFreedom.com

Ask not what your government can do for the people, ask what can the people do for the people. - UR

Saw the late night show in KC

Something like 9 people in the attendance. Made sure to let everyone know that we are working in the city for free markets and the antithesis of the statist policies depicted in the film (many of which is playing or has played out in history and is hardly far fetched).

My take, the first film grew on me a bit after multiple viewings. The second might be the same way. I guess this time around I was expecting something a little more Hollywood just so people wouldn't have an excuse to miss it over the quality of the art.

I hope this reaches people but certainly not the impact of films like 2016 on the audience as I was wishing for.

Like some of the libertarian cameos including Teller.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

Loved the Teller cameo.

Loved the Teller cameo. You'll be surprised what he does that he never does in his stage act.

lol

I am sorry, but when I heard that term 'second tier actors' I had to laugh.

ie. like acting is some kind of important skill and a productive benefit to society...well I guess it is for lawyers :) So like Mr. Sheen or Pitt or Walken for example are first tier actors? lmao

If it was not for his father he would be trimming rutabagas imo and would be somewhat productive.

p.s. I guess it does take some concentration not to blink ;)

I am confident almost everyone who has ever lived has done some acting in their lives in order to get something they wanted or needed.

Porn actors and stunt doubles in this case should be more revered in this acting industry.

donvino

I was trying to point out . . .

I was trying to point out that they are less well-known actors and that NONE of them would be nominated for an Oscar or anything like that.

Liberty will reign in America!

Vote for Liberty!
http://www.dailypaul.com/166975/vote-for-liberty-video

Ayn Rand Cult

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812693906/counterpun...

"Jeff Walker debunks the cult-like following that developed around the author of the classics Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead--a cult that persists even today."

Love her novels, and economic principles

... but yeah, things got a little bit weird around Ayn Rand.

Sorry to burst the bubble for people that didn't know. I didn't.

Acting like a cult

I didn't know either once. It's people that tried to hide the original post your replying to that did that. They hate facts, and are not objective.

They acted the same way before the internet, when I grew up. It was easier to hide information then. Same tactics, less chance at getting caught at it.

It's a huge propaganda split. Rand came over here from Russia after working for the communist party, and Greenspan became head of the federal reserve.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Thanks, I hadn't read that.

Thanks, I hadn't read that. Have based my opinion entirely on having read all her works - including her newsletter, when I was a kid.

She was a nasty person. That one of her inner circle, Alan Greenspan, becomes the head of the federal reserve, and specifically the one that caused our bubble, should say a lot to anyone with eyes.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

reedr3v's picture

And are you a part of the AntiRand cult?

Walkers's book published in 1998 is hardly useful in today's world. Perhaps you don't read widely in libertarian literature, but the Liberty movement has moved on from the early followers of Rand's philosophy to the cutting-edginess of today's freedom thinkers.

Rand's fiction works have not been surpassed in their depiction of the social forces that rule our world today IMO. Her nonfiction has been endlessly and usefully parsed and surpassed by later libertarian writers and thinkers.

Your obsession with debunking Rand is a bit out of date.

Nice Wake Up Call

The timing is perfect as Ayn's "true" message of collectivism vs free market is playing out in the real world right before our eyes.

This should piss a lot of people off as authoritarian government is spot-lighted and shown for what it really is, a looter and parasite.

On the movie itself... well done considering the subject matter. New cast is better - except for Dagny. She did ok, the other was perfect.

SPOILERS ALERT:

Lots got cut, naturally, but I was looking forward to Dagny's karma to come back around when her brothers new wife finds out he lied and now she respects Dagny, then freaks out and kills herself... good stuff.

The significance of the gold $ cigarettes was down played as was the fact that Galt is working at Taggart and tight with Eddie. Also, I was VERY disgusted to see Hannity spouting the virtues of the Free Market - Aaaaccckk.

Lastly, I wish they would have injected more about how the 'producers' were on strike. Without that, I think if you hadn't read the book, you might be a little lost.

estanislao

Just saw the movie this afternoon and agree w/you.

It was so much better than Part I. Everyone should see it. Make up your own minds. I enjoyed it and want others I know to see it, too! Can't wait to tell them about it and can't wait to see Part III.

I didn't think it was

I didn't think it was anywhere near as good as part I. I think movie was far worse actually - and the cast and shooting of the movie took away from the material.

Lilian Rearden was PAINFUL to watch versus part I and frankly so was Dagney.

SPOILERS

It was much better in terms of production values, in other words you could tell this one had a bigger budget. The only thing this one lacked (for me) was the emotional sucker punch the first one packed. In the first movie, the actors weren't the best, the sets often looked like sets, and the computer animation was a little rushed looking, but I could feel the heart of the people involved in getting the movie made. This one left me a little cold, but it won't prevent me from recommending people see it anyway.

Ayn Rands views are not scientific when looking at the biologica

necessity built into the human brain for altruistic behavior. Recently Neuroscience has shown that the brain has evolved a special pathway for altruistic actions and are dedicated for that. This undercuts Rand Premise at the onset. She was wrong.. But she only had certain data to work with so now we have to look at a larger picture regarding human behavioral mechanisms than her fundamental claims. I am sorry all you fans of her. but her views are falling out of vogue as they are not scientific but rather a religious dogma.

The Theory on Moral Sentiments

by Adam Smith is a pathway to better understanding of this subject.

Self Interest and Altruism are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are often the same. One can give plenty of examples where Self Interest can be called Altruistic and Altruism Self Interest. Smith points out the war between Hume (Self Interest) and Hutcheson (Altruism) was a case of two people ignoring pure morality (observing natural rights) and instead took polarizing positions on how to be moral. Mission vs Methods.

Smith shows quite smartly that both are required for true Happiness. In fact, Jefferson's "Pursuit of Happiness" is derived from Smith. Happiness is Self Interest in Combination with Altruism. One has the Right to pursue Self Interest and Altruism Freely, without Coercion. Sad how Americans are not Free to do either.

Rand's Objectivism is often confused with a lack of Altruism, however it is simply Voluntary Altruism (as she calls it Self Interest) for Forced Altruism is oxymoron.

Rand does hammer pure Altruism as evil/collectivism, however it is useful to understand her paradigm in order to argue against State Forced Altruism/Collectivism which was the model for the USSR and The US today.

Hutcheson's 'Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue' is not to be ignored either.

I disagree

Your point is well taken, though I have never seen such research. From my experience, it is undeniable that I have an instinctive inclination towards helping other humans in most cases. While I do not take Rand to be the authoritative voice on all things, nor do I wish to change your mind, I nevertheless think that your assessment is not entirely accurate.
First, is the pathway truly "altruism"? That is, does the pathway really cause behavior directed blindly to the benefit of another without regard to one's own well-being? Even if the answer is affirmative, in interviews and writings, Rand discussed rational self-interest (as opposed to altruism) as man's PRIMARY moral obligation. The recent biological evidence you reference helps to explain why I have instincts that direct me to help others; however, I don't believe that life works if those pathways are primary, trumping even my desire for self-preservation AS A HUMAN. I emphasize that qualifier because there is an element of the golden rule in the objectivist tenet that man aim at a moral life "qua man." That is, even if a certain action benefits my immediate survival, if such action taken by others were detrimental to any individual's life (pursuit of rational self-interest) then I don't think it could be ethical by the standards of Objectivism.
Regardless, I am happy that these ideas seem finally to be finding a forum. Your insight is valued.

Unlearning and self-teaching since 2008. Thanks, Dr. Paul!

reedr3v's picture

In case you hadn't notice TimC,

it is Rand's novels that dramatize Individualism vs Collectivism that have remained soaringly popular since they do forecast the very problems faced in today's overwhelmingly statist societies all over the globe. Her Virtues of Selfishness makes a radical and valid point, but Rand's nonfiction works have been improved upon by subsequent libertarian theorists IMO. she was an early pioneer, not the last word.

Religious Dogma,

+1, yes, she was into the zionist one, where money is worshiped, & usury is sacred, & this witch was a racist.

I hated part one

I was so disappointed. Everyone I told about the book I had hoped they didn't watch the movie in fear they would think I was feable.

Highly disappointed and will recomend the book over the movie. It was lacking some serious content and way too rushed.

Not sure about part 2 but if done by the same producers don't waste your time.

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

I'll be seeing this post

I'll be seeing this post haste!