Metascore

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 19 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 93 Ratings

  • Summary: Published in 1957, the Ayn Rand novel takes place in a dystopian version of the U.S. in which society has collapsed as the government gains increasing control over industry. The decline occurs while the most productive citizens, led by John Galt, begin vanishing. (Rocky Mountain Pictures)

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 19
  2. Negative: 11 out of 19
  1. Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    Apr 15, 2011
    63
    Though a bit stiff in the joints and acted by an undistinguished cast amid TV-movie trappings, this low-budget adaptation of Ayn Rand's novel nevertheless contains a fire and a fury that makes it more compelling than the average mass-produced studio item.
  2. Reviewed by: Steve Persall
    Apr 16, 2011
    50
    As a cinematic effort, Atlas Shrugged: Part I is competent; in service to Ayn Rand's epic novel, it's less so.
  3. Reviewed by: Mark Jenkins
    Apr 16, 2011
    38
    Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is nearly as stilted, didactic and simplistic as Rand's free-market fable.
  4. Reviewed by: Roger Moore
    Apr 20, 2011
    38
    It's not a bad looking movie, with Deco design touches that remind me of the earlier Rand film adaptation, "The Fountainhead." But the acting's flat and the script is absurdly cluttered with characters whose purpose may only truly become clear if they ever are allowed to make the other two films they have planned.

See all 19 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 66
  2. Negative: 23 out of 66
  1. 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! Expand
  2. 8
    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
  3. 5
    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. Collapse
  4. 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

See all 66 User Reviews