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

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, 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

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 of their comfort zones. Bravo. Well done!

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 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.

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. This movie is the living embodiment of the mediocrity that she spent her life rallying against.

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 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

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. As the Arab Uprising shows, people hunger for freedom. See it - learn it - live it. Our forefathathers did, and so can YOU!

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 is good. I have to give it 8 stars because of the long overstretched dialogues.

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 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

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 are also biased.

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. 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

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.

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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.

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. 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

I think it speaks volumes that the negative reviews, both from Critics and Users, start something like I hate Rand but I wanted to look at the movie objectively. They then go on to talk about how the movie, in their view, is about failed ideas and out of date thinking. People have forgotten that a movie does not have to have 10 thousand explosions and cast of animated rodents in it to be worth seeing. I think it is nice that finally there is a movie out that is not a remake of a 1970's TV show starring the latest American Idol winner, but then again I am not part of making America the winner in the race to the bottom that seems to be what we deem as a standard today.… Expand

I went into this movie expecting an HBO special quality production. Or maybe a really good showtime one...

I instead was given somewhere in between a HBO special and Quality major Hollywood production!

If you have ever read Atlas Shrugged and wonder if anyone could pull off doing a faithful adaption of the film look no further! While shorter then I would like (1h-42m) and at times the acting and scenes seem a bit rushed the film succeeds at hitting key points in the book and tossing accurate, if somewhat altered, quotes from the book into the mix which helps to push the themes and plot in this chapter.

The strong rumble of a train often proceeds or ends a scene and the music which follows compliments the texture of each perfectly, often giving you a sense of achievement and purpose in a world which has seemingly gone to hell. The CGI which is used for most of the long train scene and for a few shots of factories was done by "Stargate Studios" who also does the CGI for the TV series..."Stargate". I always liked the show and I think they REALLY kicked it up and notch and did a great job for what was probably a small budget. GREAT JOB guys! The acting, for its price, is glorious! Taylor shilling plays a strong and determined railroad executive who seems to have a passion for what she loves in life while still pursuing other things that she values. They definitely center the plot on her and in every scene her beauty shines bright as she stands up for her passions and interest against purposefully ugly men and women determined to make her their victim.

Grant Bowler who plays Hank Reardan must have practiced being his character for most of his life. You get the sense that he loves his work life but cannot comprehend why he receives no joy or happiness, not even a slight grin, from his family and home who seems to value. He pulls off confident, physically and mentally powerful property owner like a champ! Fansisco D'Anaconia played by Jsu Garcia doesn't bring the presence I would prefer for the character but does a job which is respectable. I really hope he can get the all important lines off in the next installment, otherwise his character was somewhat minimalism in this chapter. I think we will see MUCH more in P2, I look forward to his "Money speech"! (which people keep thinking was during Lillian wedding anniversary, its not, its during J. Taggarts wedding party!).

Ellis Wyatt: While I always pictured him as younger Graham Beckel pulls this character off GREAT! Most people I spoke with have been drawn to his acting as some of the best besides maybe Rebecca Wisocky who played Lillian R. He makes you believe that Wyatt is a grumpy Oil tycoon who loves life and only desires to be let alone and to his own devices all while getting a "fatherly" feel from him. Definitely keep close attention on his scenes as they are well performed!

I could go on about the cast, Rebecca Wisocky was amazing, she played the perfect cold hearted **** one could hope for, she should get some kind of award! Edi Gathegi who played Eddie willers did a great job and I look forward to maybe seeing him discuss some things with a "shadowy character" in future chapters! I can't say I didn't like any actors in this movie; They all did a wonderful job and look forward with horrible anticipation to seeing them all again on April 15, 2012!
-----


Now, please...This is not the book which is a certified classic but if you enjoyed that, AT ALL, you will very likely enjoy this. Ayn Rands philosophy is not for everyone (it is for me, I am and have been for 10 years an Objectivist), but the themes and Ideas (which Atlas Shrugged was entirely about) are timeless and will always be relevant. Sure transportation methods become obsolete and energy sources change but promoting to men and women that they ought to live life, act according to their own faculty of reason, not sacrifice for others but reward those whom you value and to not attempt to substitute your whim for what reality provides cannot change. It is in mans nature to seek happiness if he is rational, to desire a productive life if he is consistent and to live amongst each other WITHOUT force if he wants to realize all of this. I highly recommend the book over the movie but don't pass this up, it is a great adaption which is absolutely worth seeing and which will satisfy anyone who can even remotely relate to what I previously wrote.

When your done look for an Objectivist club in your area. I run one with my brother and have now made lifelong friends who only make my life happier, I am a better person for this. The philosophy she developed doesn't stop in her fiction, she worked for years with many friends clearly stating what it was in easily read philosophic books which are great reading, its fun and will only help you appreciate life more, trust me, real Objectivists do not lie.… Expand

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, 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

When the dust settles and IF the politics can be pushed to the side, then I think intelligent film reviewers will be able to discuss this film in terms of cinematic effort. I also think that in time - this movie will be closely studied by the film community in terms of how guerrilla film making CAN work. There is no denying that many theaters were SOLD OUT to the premier on Friday night. Now - there were many options available (Hop, Scream 4, etc etc)...but - a film about Capitalism pulled viewers and their $$ in - to see what was essentially a long board-room meeting. Liberals take note: you also have the ability to take Mein Kampf, or the Communist Manifesto - or hell - even "The Audacity of Hope" and turn it into a movie that will make a quick profit. Atlas Shrugged Part 1 was a perfect example of how editing, efficient CGI and low-key (yet fierce) talent can turn what should have been a DOA effort into something that registers in the realm of greatness. Like all great business ventures, Atlas Shrugged Part 1 was efficient, stream lined and developed in terms of maximum viewers (thus profit). Let some time pass...let the intelligentsia move onto more important enemies (Transformers 3??) - those of us in the know - know that this will be one of the most important films made regardless of what side of the fence you are on.… Expand

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 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

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 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

This movie is better than the reviews would leave you to believe. The problem is it upsets both people who love the book or hate the book and you are seeing that play out in both sides of the reviews. The acting and visuals were both better than expected and the only thing i wanted more of was engaging conversation, most of which in the film was terse and cut and paste.

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.

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 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.

"Who's the idiot responsible for this fiasco? You can't blame the Tea Party, an organization of 9 million that the film's producers are exploiting to get butts into seats. There's an object lesson in objectivism for you." ...Peter Travers-Rolling Stone.
Thank you Peter...I can now add you to the list of critics that I will use to determine whether or not I go see a movie...That was NOT a compliment to you...I am surprised you didn't blame George W. for YOUR unhappiness with the film...For me-Good book?...Yes...Good idea?...Yes...Good acting?...On average, yes...Looking forward to Part II?...Yes...
And Peter...Keep your liberal movie critiques coming so I can determine ahead of time which movies to spend my Tea Party/Capitalistic world view dollars on...… Expand

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 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.… Collapse

A difficult undertaking to produce a film with as many ardent supporters as detractors. I thought it was brilliant. So well did it follow the intent of the book if not the exact chronology. This story belongs to everyone; it's not the bible of the Tea Party nor does it need to be the anathema of the the "left". It is right down the middle. Hank Reardon said it best "these people rely on me". There are those that are strong and the others. The important message is as my mother taught me "if you're going to be a garbage man, be the best damn garbage man you can".… Expand

Finally, at 7:35 Friday evening, I situated myself in a crowded Charlotte theater with popcorn and a coke, prepared to beâ

I went into this movie intending to be a critic. I knew the message and the theme ahead of time, so I was more concerned with the production quality - casting, editing, etc. I only started the movie that way, and by about mid-way I found I had abandoned that critique and had become immersed in what was going on onscreen. That's a hard thing to do with we, and most directors and producers making such clearly "message" movies never do it. Major credit to the makers of the film for a job well done. Trust me, ignore the critics on this one, go see for yourself.… Expand

For any reviewer to give this movie a negative rating, they must be blinded by their "steal from others to give to others and claim it's giving" mindset. 85% of the 'pros' who watched it for free hated it (take from others) 85% of those who spent their own hard earned money liked it (responsible for their own actions) I look forward to seeing it again when I don't have to drive 80 miles to see this movie. I look forward to buying the DVD and I look forward to buying my own tickets for Parts Two AND Three.… Expand

People have been critical of the acting in this movie. The acting in this movie is no worse than anything else currently on the market. Black Swan had more cardboard characters and unlike Black Swan, at least these actors are saying something that is believable (and relevant). The main problem people have with this movie is that they have been listening to one side of a story for so long that they have forgotten there is another. Atlas Shrugged portrays frank truths of our economic system, and shows how it has failed us. Many of the predictions made by Ayn Rand have come true, and it bothers people of a certain persuasion. It is refreshing to see a movie that interprets the book in such a refreshing way. For those that can stow their critical and biased opinions, it is a powerful movie with a persuasive message.… Expand

It was a competent compaction of a very long first part. The acting was a little wooden in parts but Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart's characters held it all together well. The people playing his simpering family were a hoot and straight out of the book too. One doesn't have to be a Randian to appreciate the relevance of an out-of-control government destroying prosperity. The reviewers who caterwaul about "unlimited deregulation" are the ones who need to go back to school.… Expand

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 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

This is a really good movie. Don't believe the state run mass media who call Michael Moore movies "masterpieces". Atlas Shrugged is a really good movie.

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 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

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.

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) 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

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

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 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

Considering the very quick start from writing the script to production, the funds, and so forth, I think this is as good as it will get for a part 1. I think part 2 and part 3 will be much improved as they learn from their mistakes, but a definite A for effort. They did the best with what they had.

I went to see the movie with next to no knowledge of Rand or the subject matter of the story. I found the movie engaging - not riveting, but engaging - and thought it was beautifully shot. There were several minor things that showed the historical era in which it was written - the ease in which some one could get to a very wealthy industrialist, for example. That said, by the end I was intrigued enough to want to read the book and am now looking forward to future cinema installments.… Expand

I amazes me how many people George Soros pays to pan movies that exposes the fascism of the left. just know every 0 rating on this site was by some liar pinko that hasn't seen the film and is paid by fascist billionaires to spread their stupid Ideology

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 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

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 a bit stiff, but the story developed pretty well. Amazing that Ayn Rand's 54 year old novel would be so relevant today.

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 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

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...

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 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

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 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

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.

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, 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

As I'm close enough to Rand's sense of life and theory of art, I enjoyed it on those terms. Those are characters and a story I'd wish to see. Rearden. Francisco. Lillian. Very well done. Rearden is understated and in better humor than the book Rearden. I think I like the movie Francisco better. Lillian was an improvement over the book too - warmer and with more charm. Rearden and Dagny were hit and miss. Their across the table business dealing was stilted, but they connected well on some smaller, off hand interactions that gave me a feeling of connection between them.

On the downside, I thought the plot got butchered starting from the sex scene with Rearden and Dagny, and continuing to the end of the movie. It's like they ran out of cash and couldn't pay for all the scenes required. But if you haven't read the book, you probably don't notice the butchery, and if you did read the book, you'll take the good and gloss over the bad.

Also on the downside, Hugh Akston was all wrong in character, and both he and Stadler were just too young. For such a small part of the book the movie made a decent self contained whole. The negative reviews on the acting or production values were unfounded. I do think it falls well short of the book, but most adaptations do, and it is a lot to live up to. If you like the themes, you won't get them anywhere else, and you'll find decent acting and a coherent if hurried plot to embody them. A decent movie giving you something you won't get elsewhere. Moderate thumbs up.… Expand

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?

Many claim this movie is a political statement of sorts. I looked up who Ayn Rand was, never having read any of her books, and I'd rather be locked up with a cannibal than ever spend any time learning her perverted discourses. However, this movie should not be looked upon as a sociopolitical statement, it should be judged as a movie based on a book. I have no idea if it is true to the book but as a movie, it fails terribly. It views like a soap-opera, there is no action and the characters seem devoid of emotion as they go about their acting routine seemingly wanting to get it over with as quick as possible. I turned it off a third of the way in, being completely bored by any lack of story and character progression. Who am I to identify with in this movie? Why do I have to sit here watching boring, inconsequential conversations? Why are all the conversations reminiscent of The Bold The Beautiful? Who talks like that? The one thing I did quite like was the Art Deco decor and mood and I give it a point for that. The rest of the movie was utterly boring.… Expand

enjoyable to those who are a fan of ayn rand and her books.
i am one of those people.
decent to good acting.
the movie kept the spirit of the book, despite the various changes in the setting and plot details.
i am eager to see part two.

Fully understanding why the movie media treated this movie with disdain (Ms. Rand's Objectivism is hitting home with Conservatives and has always been embraced by a now growing Libertarian group of folks), I thought this movie quality was better than advertised and the message is (especially if part 2 ever gets made) is eminently important (now more than ever and the fact that some liberal outlets refused to review is quite ironic and telling)).… Expand

The film despite all of its short comings is entertaining and stays fairly true to the book so far. Watch the movie and judge it yourself. Donâ