Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment | Release Date: April 15, 2011
5.7
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 106 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
61
Mixed:
5
Negative:
40
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
StevieGJDOct 11, 2012
What a piece of junk. Ayn Rand's great novel turned into poorly made movie. It looks like a bad tv movie or a straight to video yawner. The shots are contrived and overly staged. The set designs are over the top in their attempts artWhat a piece of junk. Ayn Rand's great novel turned into poorly made movie. It looks like a bad tv movie or a straight to video yawner. The shots are contrived and overly staged. The set designs are over the top in their attempts art deco. The adaption of the story is basically fine and I suspect that all of the positive reviews are from people who agree with the underlying political philosophy of the story, and not what was made. At least I hope so. It does capture Rand's philosophical battle against big government. So if all you care about is a message you already agree with, and don't care about any of the other qualities of a well made film, this ones for you. Seeing it made me melancholy for what Albert Ruddy's version would have been like in the 70s, right after he made the Godfather. He loved the book and it's message. He had Faye Dunaway, Clint Eastwood and Robert Redford lined up. It would have been properly funded and produced. Seeing this piece of garbage made me weep for what could have been. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
0
jesusfilmmanOct 4, 2014
Ayn Rand wasn't a great writer. The fact that only Objectivists (which isn't even a "philosophy") like her books doesn't mean that they're enlightened and everyone else sucks. Rather, her books are objectively awful. They're aimed at teenAyn Rand wasn't a great writer. The fact that only Objectivists (which isn't even a "philosophy") like her books doesn't mean that they're enlightened and everyone else sucks. Rather, her books are objectively awful. They're aimed at teen girl capitalists who can't wrap their head around the evolving liberalism of the 20th 21st centuries. You can see how indoctrinated the readers are by the 10 reviews. "CORPORATE GOVT ALLIENCE RUINING CAPITALISM THIS MOVIE IS GOOD GO WATCH IT AND WAKE UP!!" Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
jgraham41Apr 21, 2011
Apparently the objectivist ideal for aesthetics is "painting the world as the artist envisions it is or should be...." and nothing at all else. So how well people are portrayed is irrelevant. There are *so* many 10's here. ReallyApparently the objectivist ideal for aesthetics is "painting the world as the artist envisions it is or should be...." and nothing at all else. So how well people are portrayed is irrelevant. There are *so* many 10's here. Really objectivists? That's your objective evaluation of the film? It is perfect in every aspect? Those reviews make about as much sense as the "10" ratings for Avatar which start with "Well the story is bad but...". So the movie is full of trite and unrealistic characters (which is kind of the fault of the subject matter) and the portrayals are awful and wooden. It's not very sexy but I expect that some of the sex scenes from the novel might even be seen as misogynist. Very little actually happens in the film and even ideologically I found myself yawning rather than seething at the bad guys. Which is better than Avatar where I found myself wanting the earth forces to win. Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
0
dean1Apr 28, 2011
This is of the same ilk as the left behind series. Oh how I wish it hadn't been.

The book was impossible to read and antisocial tripe. How could we expect a movie version to be otherwise. The heroism of selfishness is a contradiction in
This is of the same ilk as the left behind series. Oh how I wish it hadn't been.

The book was impossible to read and antisocial tripe. How could we expect a movie version to be otherwise. The heroism of selfishness is a contradiction in terms. Hero implies selflessness. Randian ethics are not ethics at all. Those values are those of a spoiled child who always wants candy.

This isn't post-rapture times. We are on the planet together and if we don't embrace a commonality soon, there will be no one left behind.
Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
2
DiatonixApr 16, 2011
Just got back from watching this movie... and I must say that it was HILARIOUSLY BAD! Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave at the wooden dialog and horrific acting (with the exception of Taylor Schilling) on display in this movie. ThisJust got back from watching this movie... and I must say that it was HILARIOUSLY BAD! Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave at the wooden dialog and horrific acting (with the exception of Taylor Schilling) on display in this movie. This movie is the living embodiment of the mediocrity that she spent her life rallying against. Expand
7 of 15 users found this helpful78
All this user's reviews
0
joesonkaApr 17, 2011
A giant steaming pile of sh*t. I loved the secret Scooby Doo door they find near the end, though. Marginally fun to laugh at, but better to wait until you can watch it cheaply.
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
1
scarh791Apr 17, 2011
All politics aside, the movie is late-night made-for-tv awful. I remember reading the book in high school and I vaguely remember my 18 year old self finding it "a long way for a little bit". The movie did nothing to change that. Those withAll politics aside, the movie is late-night made-for-tv awful. I remember reading the book in high school and I vaguely remember my 18 year old self finding it "a long way for a little bit". The movie did nothing to change that. Those with political leanings aligned with the film are no doubt going to continue flooding the User Score section with 10's but the movie, regardless of its ideology, just doesn't hold up. Thankfully, having read the book gave me some idea of how to follow what was going on. I'm no lack-wit, but the film feels crammed and ungainly with lots of expository dialog covering ridiculous plot holes or contradictions. The predictions for the very near future are laughable, like the $37 gas prices and the country having been laid entirely to waste by "altruism". There's so much going on of so little importance or sense that your brain reels for something to care about. Rand believers are going to crow that the critics are hating on Part 1 because they're socialists or something but the critics got it right and they've done their jobs well. Boring, interminable, sloppy sub-Lifetime dreck. People posting 10's didn't see it or they'd feel foolish. I'll give it a 1 because the actress who played Dagny actually tried a bit despite the dialog she was handed and I'd feel bad not at least throwing her a bone for her efforts. Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
0
PaperclipApr 18, 2011
There is not one single person who has seen this film who can like it on anything other than ideological grounds. It is boring, didctic, and pedestrian. The acting is straight out of 70s prime-time, and the director seems to have studiedThere is not one single person who has seen this film who can like it on anything other than ideological grounds. It is boring, didctic, and pedestrian. The acting is straight out of 70s prime-time, and the director seems to have studied USA Network made-for-TV movies of the 1990s quite well. As a film, it is poorly made; even if you consider yourself an Objectivist, save your money on this dud. Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
2
DurdenApr 16, 2011
For this movie to have gained any positive reviews, users must have been blinded by their own personal politics. To suggest that the professional critics have panned this movie as part of their own liberal agendas is absurd. I think that eachFor this movie to have gained any positive reviews, users must have been blinded by their own personal politics. To suggest that the professional critics have panned this movie as part of their own liberal agendas is absurd. I think that each one of these reviewers states quite correctly that the book used for the source material is both complex and thought provoking. The same cannot be said of the film. Take out the politics and all you have left is a low budget, poorly constructed, tv movie. It is equally clear from these user reviews that despite this film being shockingly bad, there is a ready-made audience that will help ensure the sequel. Expand
4 of 9 users found this helpful45
All this user's reviews
1
TheHierarchApr 16, 2011
I'm a big fan of Atlas Shrugged. In fact, I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand in general. And I'd like to point out that it is true that if you gave this movie a positive review, you are definitely blinded by your love of Rand/the source material. ThisI'm a big fan of Atlas Shrugged. In fact, I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand in general. And I'd like to point out that it is true that if you gave this movie a positive review, you are definitely blinded by your love of Rand/the source material. This movie is awful. The trailer looks like a video production student put it together. The lines were poorly translated from the style that Rand uses in the book to a style that will sound normal when not delivered on stage (note, I love the style she uses in the book. But it just isn't how people talk in real life, so when seen in a movie, it appears quite absurd). On top of that, the acting was bad, the filming was bad, everything about it screamed "amateur", and to top it all off, this book is kind of too slow for the majority of the story to be made into a likable, 3 hour (or in the case of a trilogy, 9 hour) movie.

Anyway, just thought I'd prove that a real Objectivist is actually objective, even when reviewing the Atlas Shrugged movie.
Expand
5 of 12 users found this helpful57
All this user's reviews
0
d4rksh1n3sApr 15, 2011
Ironically, if this movie becomes a success, it will prove that the free market is completely untrustworthy. It's a badly made movie adaptation of a badly written book pushing a dysfunctional ideology. I have no problem with thoughtIronically, if this movie becomes a success, it will prove that the free market is completely untrustworthy. It's a badly made movie adaptation of a badly written book pushing a dysfunctional ideology. I have no problem with thought experiments, but people who honestly think extreme market deregulation is the best system need to take more economics, or at least read The Jungle. Expand
7 of 17 users found this helpful710
All this user's reviews
1
MikeMoApr 20, 2011
Having read Atlas Shrugged in high school a long time ago, I went to this movie hoping to see something at least modestly entertaining. Really it just sucked, I'll lay it out there. The acting is wooden, the whole central idea of high speedHaving read Atlas Shrugged in high school a long time ago, I went to this movie hoping to see something at least modestly entertaining. Really it just sucked, I'll lay it out there. The acting is wooden, the whole central idea of high speed rail (something in real life conservatives are rushing to de-fund) lacked realism as a business endeavor, and there were too many minor characters stuffed in that didn't contribute to the story line. The book was a challenging read, but the screenwriters did no favors by not doing some constructive editing and parsing of plot lines and characters. Can't recommend this unless you're going for political reasons. Kind of like a Michael Moore film in that respect. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
0
dimpossApr 20, 2011
Stilted white people droppings. Sociopaths on the prowl. I can understand how this would appeal to most heartless, un-Christian Republicans - it panders to their worst thoughts and actions.
3 of 8 users found this helpful35
All this user's reviews
0
ManWithNoPlanApr 16, 2011
So, the positive reviews typically say: A. The message of human freedom is important or B. It was poorly made, but A still applies. The problem is, the message is getting destroyed by this mediocre film. The fact of the matter is that ifSo, the positive reviews typically say: A. The message of human freedom is important or B. It was poorly made, but A still applies. The problem is, the message is getting destroyed by this mediocre film. The fact of the matter is that if you like Ayn Rand's attack on rewarding mediocrity in modern society, you have to dislike this movie. It is bad throughout. I am on-board with Rand's philosophy and was excited about this movie, but it is horrible through and through. There is not one good line of dialogue in the entire film, it ends awkwardly, and half the shots are trying to be fancy for fancy sake. I am praying that they stop now and don't make the Part II or Part III, that is the only way that this book or its message can be preserved. Ayn Rand would be disappointed in everyone who because of their ideological affiliations excused this poor effort. See this movie only if A. You are a railroad lobbyist or B. you are escaping from the police and need a dark place to hide out. Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
0
Grim13May 4, 2011
Read the book. It was awful... Saw the film. Clearly, I'm a masochist! It was actually worse than the book! Ayn Rand was not a nice lady. I can't help but feel her characters would have left her behind as well...
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
2
cylixdemasAug 3, 2011
While the acting was at the level of an expensive day time soap opera, the movie does employ some very good low-budget special effects. In fact, that is basically all the film has going for it. When you begin to observe more of the film youWhile the acting was at the level of an expensive day time soap opera, the movie does employ some very good low-budget special effects. In fact, that is basically all the film has going for it. When you begin to observe more of the film you will realize that the storyline is very archaic and unimaginative. This retelling of the Ayn Rand novel does not come off as very sensible in execution. Again, the acting is just above terrible, the script is very sloppy, and application of Ayn Rand's economic utopia does not fit the generation that this film is made for. But, I can not wait to until part 2 is released. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
stewiemitchAug 30, 2011
If you are a libertarian, you will love this libertarian porno of a film. If you are not, you will finally have an oppurtunity to see what all the hype is about. Unashamed selfishness, of course the movie points out clearly that selfishIf you are a libertarian, you will love this libertarian porno of a film. If you are not, you will finally have an oppurtunity to see what all the hype is about. Unashamed selfishness, of course the movie points out clearly that selfish people will be called selfish by "moochers and looters" ideologies aside lets look at it from a movie point of view.

1st the special effects are awful.
2nd the dialouge is awful, but this is rand world where characters speak like robots, ok so English wasn't Rand's first language, but still you do feel like you are watching a movie dubbed into English rather than a movie where the characters are speaking their native language.
3rd I'm glad to see that "market forces" will make sequels possiblly unlikely.. irony! It seems most proponants of this film live entirely on the internet or at tea party conventions, I am glad that the reception of this movie has confirmed that libertarians are a small "fringe " minority who are nothing to be worried about.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
0
OdlenatorDec 2, 2011
This is not an entertaining movie. Do not reward anyone who participated in its production. The people that support this poorly made film are violating their own rule. They are rewarding this lazily made mediocre movie.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
1
SinisterVortexJan 8, 2012
This movie is devoid of any soul. I'm not just talking about the acting. I'm talking about how it praises anarchy by attempting to demonize the very concept of a governing body, how it misguidedly casts the wealthy in society as heroes, andThis movie is devoid of any soul. I'm not just talking about the acting. I'm talking about how it praises anarchy by attempting to demonize the very concept of a governing body, how it misguidedly casts the wealthy in society as heroes, and how it hatefully calls the underprivileged "looters" and "parasites" . If you actually agree with the moral code (or should I even call it that?) of this movie then you must have no concept of reality whatsoever. Indeed, this movie is little more then an elaborate sermon intended to indoctrinate people into an ideology of pure greed and selfishness. The actors monologue way to much, proving that their only point in the movie is to rant about Rand's insane beliefs. Never mind the fact that it repels any notion of God; even the atheists I know would be disgusted, and probably insulted, by watching this movie. Overall, this movie is a tribute to nothing more then hatred, selfishness, greed, and the chaos of anarchy. If you are a mindless automaton who thinks in nothing but the terms of the political conservative ideology, then this movie is for you. But if you have a mind and soul, steer clear of this abomination. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
KadeemluvmusicOct 22, 2012
Crappy documentaries like this one should've received a Razzie for Worst Picture this year. What is Atlas trying to prove: finding a sunken ship or just how stinking bad this movie is?
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews