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
5
JoeyKApr 20, 2011
Reading the reviews, it's pretty obviously a love it or hate it film, depending on whether or not you sympathize with the message. Personally, I'm surprised it is so polarizing. It was not well acted or shot, but not so bad that it ruins theReading the reviews, it's pretty obviously a love it or hate it film, depending on whether or not you sympathize with the message. Personally, I'm surprised it is so polarizing. It was not well acted or shot, but not so bad that it ruins the movie. The story was interesting, but it suffers in ways you'd expect from a movie adaptation of a wordy novel. And the dialog was frequently weird. The visual style they went for was great. The sets and costumes looked good, but it was sometimes uncomfortably obvious how often they were reusing set pieces. Bottom line, the critics are right when they say it is not a well made movie, but the flaws didn't ruin the movie. It was interesting and entertaining and completely worth watching. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
7
dbschlosserMay 3, 2011
A creditable job adapting a difficult original source. The primary acting is better than most of the directing, which is better than most of the script, some of which is a pretty blunt instrument. The necessity of condensing the originalA creditable job adapting a difficult original source. The primary acting is better than most of the directing, which is better than most of the script, some of which is a pretty blunt instrument. The necessity of condensing the original material means some of the dialogue and circumstances are cardboardish; a couple of scenes are barely one step above a high school stage production, and a couple of a little indulgent a la the rave scene from the later Matrix sequels. That said, the protag pair are terrific, especially Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden, and the story is a compelling one - particularly because as stereotypically cliche as some of the dialogue is, it sounds as if it's literally ripped from today's political headlines and plariarised from more than a few of the country's political rulers. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
fredbreakfastApr 15, 2011
Jehkul, I'm gonna say this in as few words as possible: No.

If this movie were about World War 2, it would be bad. If this movie were about the moon landings, it would be bad. If this movie were about the life of Moses, it would be bad.
Jehkul, I'm gonna say this in as few words as possible: No.

If this movie were about World War 2, it would be bad.
If this movie were about the moon landings, it would be bad.
If this movie were about the life of Moses, it would be bad.
If this movie were an adaptation of any other piece of literature from any other time or place, it would be bad.

That's at least what the critics are saying, especially Roger Ebert's review. Never mind the political ideology, this movie is so bad that the philosophical underpinnings are irrelevant and don't need to be brought up to give this movie a negative review.

The irony is that this movie is a perfect exercise of self appraisal, as a critic does not need to ask what he is she is contributing: they are all saying "don't waste money on cinematic crap" and frankly that is a good service to society by telling them to go see something else. I appreciate that contribution to society, and anyone else who says otherwise probably takes such things for granted or are just being obtuse for the sake of salvaging their own beliefs.

If you want to talk about institutional bias, rating a movie a 10 because of its message is pretty high on the list of examples, especially when you admit it doesn't deserve that rating.

Don't care about personally rating this movie, but I have to, so I'm gonna say 5 to be neutral.
Expand
10 of 16 users found this helpful106
All this user's reviews
5
grandpajoe6191Feb 14, 2012
Based on the book written by Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1" doesn't really live up to the book's premise. The actors really have no clue of what they are doing and the background and materials are heavily limited. Even if they had added aBased on the book written by Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1" doesn't really live up to the book's premise. The actors really have no clue of what they are doing and the background and materials are heavily limited. Even if they had added a extra budget, I really think it would be a good movie either though. Some books are left not to be interpreted into movies. "Atlas Shrugged" is one of them. Expand
5 of 8 users found this helpful53
All this user's reviews
8
BiowareFanApr 17, 2011
The funny thing about the reviews is the tug of war. Learn to enjoy it people. The critics are mostly of a background that has rejected Rand's principles ages age and fervently hate her. Their reviews are hardly worth noticing. The movie isThe funny thing about the reviews is the tug of war. Learn to enjoy it people. The critics are mostly of a background that has rejected Rand's principles ages age and fervently hate her. Their reviews are hardly worth noticing. The movie is good. I have to give it 8 stars because of the long overstretched dialogues. Expand
8 of 13 users found this helpful85
All this user's reviews
10
Smills91Apr 15, 2011
Excellent! It's funny, I typically use the user reviews to determine whether a movie is good or not. The 'critics' reviews are mostly well-off for my tastes. I appreciate a good movie, with a good message that gets the movie snobs out ofExcellent! It's funny, I typically use the user reviews to determine whether a movie is good or not. The 'critics' reviews are mostly well-off for my tastes. I appreciate a good movie, with a good message that gets the movie snobs out of their comfort zones. Bravo. Well done! Expand
9 of 16 users found this helpful97
All this user's reviews
10
Tuned_InApr 15, 2011
This film is a testament to those who are struggling to freely exist within this corrosive society of government/corporate alliance which can only lead to the eradication of individual rights. The film does the best it can with so manyThis film is a testament to those who are struggling to freely exist within this corrosive society of government/corporate alliance which can only lead to the eradication of individual rights. The film does the best it can with so many philosophical ideas to address; but instead just focuses on the storytelling to further the plot. Fans of the nanny state will no doubt dislike it; but those who "smell a rat" and understand that this is not the way for human beings to live will see it for the greatness in all of us that is presented. Expand
12 of 22 users found this helpful1210
All this user's reviews
10
crmchicagoApr 16, 2011
I saw the movie today....read the book years ago. I like that it has no major celebrities but great actors who were believable. The movie follows the book closely which I was also pleased with , but of course in a modern setting. I highlyI saw the movie today....read the book years ago. I like that it has no major celebrities but great actors who were believable. The movie follows the book closely which I was also pleased with , but of course in a modern setting. I highly recommend to all Fans and people who are trying to understand the current divide in this country between tea party, republican and democrats. Ayn Rand was a great visionary who could see what was coming down the line....incredible that she nailed it so many years in advance. Expand
6 of 11 users found this helpful65
All this user's reviews
8
A7sus4Apr 18, 2011
Overall I am amazed at how well they abridged and adapted the first part of the book. That being said, gripes include the poor handling of the emotional element between Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart; and the shuffling of events surroundingOverall I am amazed at how well they abridged and adapted the first part of the book. That being said, gripes include the poor handling of the emotional element between Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart; and the shuffling of events surrounding the "new engine." Further, though well done, the story line, which builds more slowly in the novel naturally felt rushed. Having said that, it was really impressive how all the essentials were covered; and though they weren't as developed as they could've been, if say the movie were 3 hours, they're points were delivered clearly and tactfully. I enjoyed it very much. Expand
7 of 13 users found this helpful76
All this user's reviews
10
FrankBApr 17, 2011
Loved, loved, LOVED that Mouch was played by an actor who looks just like Barney Frank! How appropriate, and what is funnier (sadder) is that people like Barney Frank would most likely watch this movie and not have any idea what was wrongLoved, loved, LOVED that Mouch was played by an actor who looks just like Barney Frank! How appropriate, and what is funnier (sadder) is that people like Barney Frank would most likely watch this movie and not have any idea what was wrong with the bad guys. Honestly, this movie is great. As a gimme to those who either do not have the time or inclination to pick up Ayn's book, this works just fine. And besides some slight flaws (the transition to the whole motor-hunt was abrupt in the book as well) they did a great job with meager funds. Oh, and for the the critics who have blasted this effort as horrible, there is a nice little montage in the film regarding media bias just for you. The Washington Post's review is especially funny ... Funny since readership has gone down and the newspaper industry has sought government largess to remain afloat - don't take too kindly to Ayn calling you out as a philosophical enemy to the human spirit do you? This movie is great - go see it - and support movies that refuse to bow to political correctness. Expand
8 of 15 users found this helpful87
All this user's reviews
10
friendorfoeApr 15, 2011
What a breath of fresh air. The acting is well done and the writing is smart considering that Hollywood was biased against letting anything Ms Rand did get out to the public. I would take any critical review with a grain of salt. They areWhat a breath of fresh air. The acting is well done and the writing is smart considering that Hollywood was biased against letting anything Ms Rand did get out to the public. I would take any critical review with a grain of salt. They are also biased. Expand
6 of 12 users found this helpful66
All this user's reviews
8
TahrqaApr 15, 2011
Is it the book, no, but then again if you were expecting even Part 1 of the book to be told in a 102 minute movie you need to check your premises because one of them is wrong. For the most part the acting, editing and cinematography is veryIs it the book, no, but then again if you were expecting even Part 1 of the book to be told in a 102 minute movie you need to check your premises because one of them is wrong. For the most part the acting, editing and cinematography is very well done, though there are a few scenes that suffer from budget constraints and maybe a lack of polish in a few performances the over all movie is worth the few rough spots. The message of the book is there and story is well told even if abridged. Expand
5 of 10 users found this helpful55
All this user's reviews
10
DC5Apr 23, 2011
Great film considering the low budget, extreme limited time to produce it. Ayn Rand's message comes through and the film leaves you wanting for more. I enjoyed it more the second time. It's worth seeing twice.
5 of 10 users found this helpful55
All this user's reviews
7
GabbyApr 18, 2011
Good for fans and dissenters alike! Put your politics and opinions of Rand aside because you won't need them here. This film, above all else, entertains. Overall, it's a great achievement and an above-average film. Yes, it has issuesGood for fans and dissenters alike! Put your politics and opinions of Rand aside because you won't need them here. This film, above all else, entertains. Overall, it's a great achievement and an above-average film. Yes, it has issues with timing and the delivery of lines from the book that come across as stilted and unnatural. But no more than when Nicholas cage starts speaking in 1776 vernacular in the "National Treasure" films. The main leads are well played and the film is true to the story, though horribly lacking in detail and background. But the pace is wonderful once it picks up steam and it is as captivating visually as it is in its storyline. The beginning and ending were both abrupt and it felt like the jolt one feels from a rollercoaster. But the ride itself was not so much exhilarating as it was suspenseful. If they ever make a "part 2" ( and I hope to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that they do), I hope they work out the kinks and the sense of urgency felt in the production of this installment. If you want a wild ride, explosions, naked aliens or slo-mo CGI effects, then spend your money elsewhere. But if you want compelling dialogue, interesting characters and a film that will remain in your head long after you leave the cineplex, then you'd do fine buying a ticket to see "Atlas Shrugged" And an added bonus will be that those who attend this film are polite, mature and tend to respect those around them. Something you'll never enjoy if you see the likes of "Rio" or "Scream 4". Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
10
JoebobfellowApr 18, 2011
Hostility rampant in most of the reviews I've read about this. I personally loved it! Nope, never read the book, though many of my friends have. After seeing the movie this weekend, I feel the need to actually go out this week and buy aHostility rampant in most of the reviews I've read about this. I personally loved it! Nope, never read the book, though many of my friends have. After seeing the movie this weekend, I feel the need to actually go out this week and buy a copy. The acting was superb, the photography likewise. CGI...well, this was made on a budget, and it looked a little hokey. Hopefully will get better in the next one. I agree that the language was somewhat stifling, but when taken in context, it was ok. I thoroughly enjoyed Fountainhead....and BOY was it true to the dialogue of the book. In this case, they took some liberties I'm sure, but according to the interviews with Ayn Rand that I've seen, kept her philosophy intact. ie..the guy who works hard, sometimes comes out on top. The entitlement mentality will ever work to stifle individual creativity. Looking forward to parts 2 and 3! Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
10
spitoonApr 20, 2011
I wouldn't expect the professional critics to like this movie as it shows how a society becomes totally crippled by the intrusion of government into people's lives. Who cares if the actors aren't "Hollywood stars" (whatever that means) butI wouldn't expect the professional critics to like this movie as it shows how a society becomes totally crippled by the intrusion of government into people's lives. Who cares if the actors aren't "Hollywood stars" (whatever that means) but are just people depicting the theme of Atlas Shrugged which basically is that you should earn what you get and not get something for nothing. Rand's "objective materialism" simply means being responsible for your actions, carrying your own weight and not looking to any government or other source to take care of you. When I first read this book in 1963, I was shocked as how much it reflected governmental intrusion into our lives in those halcyon days. I re-read the book in 2006 and found it to be even more to point than in earlier years. Today, 2011, it is, unfortunately, a prophecy that is coming true.

I think John Galt had the right idea.......leave the fools to try to take care of themselves and say to hell with it.

Can't wait for Parts II and III.
Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
10
akelz7Apr 20, 2011
Every rating above 2 that this got was undeserved and due entirely to one's political beliefs. If you like Ayn Rand's egocentric ideals, you'll love this movie, if you like acting, effects, good dialogue, etc. avoid this.
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
9
lkcalwoodApr 21, 2011
I traveled over 200 miles to see this movie, and had anticipated a low budget film, more in the line of a documentary, but was pleasantly surprised. The movie followed the book pretty well, although it thankfully did so without the excessiveI traveled over 200 miles to see this movie, and had anticipated a low budget film, more in the line of a documentary, but was pleasantly surprised. The movie followed the book pretty well, although it thankfully did so without the excessive detail written by Ayn Rand. As usual, I disagree with the "professional reviewers". I guess that's why I liked the movie, and am looking forward to the next installment. There will probably be few Hollywood awards for the fine cast, but this movie and its parts 2 and 3 will be a part of tens of thousands of conservative movie libraries. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
annabellApr 24, 2011
From all the negative critic reviews, I thought this film would be a waste of time, but it was actually pretty darn good. People applauded at the end. Hope there is enough box office so part 2 can be made. Granted, some of the acting was aFrom all the negative critic reviews, I thought this film would be a waste of time, but it was actually pretty darn good. People applauded at the end. Hope there is enough box office so part 2 can be made. Granted, some of the acting was a bit stiff, but the story developed pretty well. Amazing that Ayn Rand's 54 year old novel would be so relevant today. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
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
10
Orson2Apr 15, 2011
Check out the hostile, uncomprehending "reviews." Ayn Rand's summa - the novel Atlas Shrugged - faced a viciously hostile media, only to sell more afterwards. Anyone want top bet against history repeating itself - AGAIN? Of course it will. AsCheck out the hostile, uncomprehending "reviews." Ayn Rand's summa - the novel Atlas Shrugged - faced a viciously hostile media, only to sell more afterwards. Anyone want top bet against history repeating itself - AGAIN? Of course it will. As the Arab Uprising shows, people hunger for freedom. See it - learn it - live it. Our forefathathers did, and so can YOU! Expand
7 of 15 users found this helpful78
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
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
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
10
JehkulApr 15, 2011
So there are a few considerations to be taken into account with this movie and the negative reviews. First is that the amateurish cgi is directly linked to the paltry budget and hurried schedule. While rushing a film is not forgivable, notSo there are a few considerations to be taken into account with this movie and the negative reviews. First is that the amateurish cgi is directly linked to the paltry budget and hurried schedule. While rushing a film is not forgivable, not having a tremendous budget is. Second, Mardson should have been a smarmier, indeed uglier actor to further enhance his integral role as insidious villain. And third, and perhaps the most obvious, is that professional reviewers are not only afraid of liking this film for fear of inter-office, or internet, dejection, but they are themselves part of the problem the movie seeks to draw light upon. Proprietors of a valueless commodity, opinion journalism, have an easy position with which to hate doers and claim the moral imperative. This movie forces people to ask themselves... What do I actually contribute? Movie reviewers would naturally slink away from such an honest self-appraisal.

Not a ten, but I will rate it a ten to offset the institutional slant.
Expand
9 of 20 users found this helpful911
All this user's reviews
9
lkusaApr 16, 2011
While I would definitely give the film a 10+ for its brilliant anti-collectivist philosophy, the film still has a few too many flaws to give it an overall ten. That being said, the GOOD: Brilliant casting, good adaptation, fast paced, goodWhile I would definitely give the film a 10+ for its brilliant anti-collectivist philosophy, the film still has a few too many flaws to give it an overall ten. That being said, the GOOD: Brilliant casting, good adaptation, fast paced, good update from a mid-20th century novel to a modern era film. Great villains (meaning: the bureaucrats, leftist politicians and their self-loathing enablers). Strong distinction between the makers and the takers. Atlas-1 does a commendable job of showing the despicable motivations of the leeches, liars, loafers and looters, and the thieves and thugs they embrace. Each villain is more hateful than the next. Ms. Wisocky is great as Lillian Rearden, and the two Rearden Metal bracelet scenes (the gift and the swap) were perfectly done. Sharp dialogue. Taylor Schilling as Dagny. Now, for the BAD: an inadequate budget given the material that needed to be portrayed. Nonetheless, the movie was highly enjoyable until the last five minutes. That segment needs work desperately, and a rewrite and reshoot. Other than that, I think even Ayn Rand would approve. The Schumers, Obamas, Kennedys, Reids, Pelosis and their statist ilk have been thoroughly exposed. The villains in Atlas hate the good for being good. As for the so-called 'professional' reviewers, Roger Ebert and Peter Travers are obviously clueless about the ethics of individualism and are fans of statist big government. They seem to be as morally and emotionally bankrupt as Gail Wynand was in The Fountainhead. Expand
4 of 9 users found this helpful45
All this user's reviews