Atlas Shrugged: Part II (2012)

To me, this movie is perfection.

The Worst Film Ever

Strong and Moving!

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

When other reviewers write that many people rate this movie low because they disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy and values, they fail to realize that her characters - this movie's characters - are unsympathetic and almost across the board unlikable.The Screenplay and its character development, with the necessary creation of drama on which the story hinges, is the foundation of any film. This production failed from the start. I won't even go into the extreme mess they made of the politics behind the corporate machinations depicted here, except to say that this story was like Wall Street's answer to its fraudulent actions that caused the long-term collapse of our country's economy and the immediate collapse of the whole world's. Who can sympathize with those whose only goal is undying greed?In the end, who can or will identify or empathize with the characters here who show active disregard and even distaste for other human beings, like the ones buying the movie ticket?

I just got around to watching the first two parts of Atlas Shrugged in preparation for the upcoming release of Part III.Looking past all philosophical objectives, this book changed my life. I have never been so connected to a group of characters or a story line in my life as I was when reading it. I don't consider myself an advocate of objectivism, but the way Rand depicts the triumph of the human spirit has always proved to be uplifting for me personally, and I love all of her novels.That being said, I was terribly disappointed in these movies. I feel like the casts did what they could, and that the general idea was portrayed decently, but there is a depth and beauty in the novel that was totally lost in translation to film. The film is left dry and without any real feeling to it. Instead of feeling connected to the story and uplifted by the successes of characters I love, I was bored and disheartened by the total obliteration of one of my favorite books.I also hate how much they give away about the disappearances throughout the movies, when reading the novel you are left in a lot more suspense as to what is happening. So, basically, these movies are a lot like the book if you strip everything away from the book that makes it wonderful.

It has been so long since I read the book. I am sure there are legitimate complaints of how the story line does not follow the book-just as is the case in 99% of all movies. Whether or not the movie followed the book exactly does not make it good or bad for most entertainment purposes.I am not surprised that the movie is unpopular with people who dislike the Libertarian philosophy. It's almost funny to see them (including some critics) write that it is among the worst movies they ever saw. Actually, if most of these people were capable of putting aside their political and philosophical prejudices, they probably would rate the movie mediocre at worst and many would rate it better. Like John Stossel once remarked about someone calling his quite enlightening show the worst show on television..."The worst? Really???" This was not a book or movie made for entertainment purposes except to entertain the mind. It is a work of philosophy set to get one thinking of the virtues of selfishness and how natural it is for humans to form symbiotic relationships to celebrate that virtue.Still, I enjoyed the artwork, architecture, fashion and even the acting. Better in part two than one, in fact. I have seen poor acting before and there was, quite simply, NONE in this movie. Add to that the fact that the movie had not one dumb or corny moment in it-quite a feat for a movie these days. Unless you are one of those people who thinks everything you disagree with is dumb or corny.

As captivated as I was by Atlas Shrugged (and The Fountainhead) when I was 19 years old, I find the novel to be sorely lacking in both literary as well as philosophical rigor now that I am well into my forties.Now, onto the movie...It's simply a very bad interpretation of the novel.There are a number of mileposts that have to be honored on the development of the screenplay, but the screenwriter takes a lot of what's said by the characters in the novel and places them too literally into the mouths of the actors in the film. While Rand may have been a philosophical heavyweight and a writer whose output was as voluminous as it was coherent, no one ever accused her of having a gift for dialog and neither Duke Sandefur nor Brian Patrick O'Toole nor Duncan Scott will ever be confused with Aaron Sorkin. I may have outgrown what I consider to an unnuanced and juvenile philosophy -- Rand's Objectivism -- but I still have a tremendous amount of respect for its tenets, and I was very eager to see a steady-handed, well-informed and capable film made from the narrative and ethical standards that Rand set forth. It's as clumsy and difficult to watch as was Gary Cooper's performance as Howard Roarke, and the movie's dialog is terribly as stilted and dry.... and if that weren't bad enough, the casting in this installment is nearly as bad as the first one. I'd watch Taylor Schilling read a Chinese restaurant menu phonetically for two hours, which was enough to pull me through the first film, so the new casting of a less attractive and much older Dagny is a disquieting speed-bump in the transition between acts one and two. After that, Arye Gross as Ken Dannager? He's more of a James Taggart in my mind. Diedrich Bader as Quentin Daniels? Isn't he about 20 years too old for that role? A lot of this comes down to personal interpretation, but it just feels like there was too much dependence on the idea that everyone involved in the film on the producers' side of the camera had to be a libertarian first, without regard for whether or not they had any skill at their job in production -- which, of course, runs absolutely contrary to the principles of objectivism, and which makes this film feel like more of a manifesto than one of Richard Halley's symphonies. There are some truly excellent c- and d-level actors in Atlas Shrugged, but they all seem to be cast into the wrong roles. If you've read (and re-read) the novel like I have, and if at one time or another Rand played an important role in your development as a person (whether or not she's still a constellation that guides your character), you're almost certainly going to want to/have to see this trilogy, but I'm sorely disappointed in the producers for the way that they've cast the movie and written the script. The rest of it -- cinematography, effects, score -- is all (literally) just set-dressing. The script is a total failure, and the casting just makes the producers look like incompetents.