Atlas Shrugged: Part I

Name: Atlas Shrugged: Part I
Genre: Sci-Fi, Drama, Mystery
Released: April 15, 2011
Duration: 97 min
Rating: 28
Cast: Grant Bowler, Taylor Schilling

2011

METASCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 19 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 115 Ratings

See All

5.4

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.4	Your Score
5.4	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 115 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Atlas Shrugged Part I

Now Playing: Atlas Shrugged Part I

Movie Details & Credits

Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment | Release Date: April 15, 2011 | PG-13

Starring: Grant Bowler, Taylor Schilling

Summary: Published in 1957, Ayn Rand's 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]

Director: Paul Johansson

Genre(s): Sci-Fi, Drama, Mystery

Rating: PG-13

Runtime: 97 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Kyle Smith

Apr 15, 2011

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. Read full review

Carrie Rickey

Apr 15, 2011

Speechy and preachy and just a teeny-weeny bit naughty. Read full review

Brian Miller

Apr 21, 2011

The book proves proudly indigestible on film. Read full review

Mark Jenkins

Apr 16, 2011

Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is nearly as stilted, didactic and simplistic as Rand's free-market fable. Read full review

Scott Tobias

Apr 16, 2011

The film is curiously sterile and lifeless, hardly the stuff of revolution. It feels more like an ideologically reversed "Tucker: The Man And His Dream," written and performed by robots. Read full review

Boxoffice Magazine Vadim Rizov

Apr 19, 2011

Lifeless as entertainment and incoherent as ideology. Read full review

Peter Travers

Apr 15, 2011

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. Read full review

SEE ALL 19 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

spitoon

Apr 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) but are just people depicting the theme of AtlasI 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 5 users found this helpful23

akelz7

Apr 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.

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

Tuned_In

Apr 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 many philosophical ideas to address; but instead justThis 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

13 of 24 users found this helpful1311

A7sus4

Apr 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 surrounding the "new engine." Further, though well done, theOverall 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 15 users found this helpful78

fredbreakfast

Apr 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. If this movie were an adaptation of any otherJehkul, 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

scarh791

Apr 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 with political leanings aligned with the film are noAll 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

6 of 12 users found this helpful66

Grim13

May 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...

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

SEE ALL 64 REVIEWS