Atlas Shrugged movie review?

[Guest mosinon]

It's a pretty good book but I recommend you don't read until you see the movie Erik. The reason is that I want to the reaction of someone who hasn't read the book.

I'll go see it, it probably isn't that great, but I suspect it won't match my imagination enough for it to be enjoyable. That is why I wasn't a big Lord of the Rings guy. I watched it and the interpretation was completely different than mine. The narnia movies are even worse on a personal basis. The worst offender was Fear and Loathing. It was imaginative but it wasn't the way way I read the book. One that worked was catch 22. But it is a personal thing, what works for me won't, necessarily, work for anyone else.

Besides I find Rand to be little more than an approachable version of nietzsche.But I am not all that nuanced.

[Trekbike]

but I suspect it won't match my imagination enough for it to be enjoyable.

This is a fair statement of what I experienced. Went to see it last night. This movie is only part I of the novel. Of the scenes shown, it followed the novel pretty close. For someone that hadn't read the book they might have trouble piecing all the plot together and certainly wouldn't understand the characters to the level the novel lays out. When we were walking out of the theater, someone behind my wife said to the person they were with, "I didn't understand all the political part". She told them to read the novel. I didn't enjoy Part I of the novel as much as Part II and III so I'm thinking the movies will be the same.

In summary, I'm glad I saw the movie and will watch the next two. If for no other reason to the support the producer (no pun intended) for trying to get the novel's message out to the people that will never take the time to read the novel. And make some money along the way.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Trekbike

[gregintenn]

Was Dagney hot?

I just answered my own question.....YES SHE IS!!!

Edited April 17, 2011 by gregintenn

[Mike.357]

she was hotter in the trailer than I pictured her from the book

[Guest 6.8 AR]

My wife, who was the resident book worm, always

said to read the book first. You will always get more

out of a book than you can from the big screen. First

thing that can go wrong is the director can get the

translation of some or most of what the book is saying.

That was obvious with Tom Clancy and his books took

so long to make the screen. I'm sure there are hundreds

of examples of this. It's not the case with this movie,

though, because of the desire of those wanting to make

the movie wanted to remain intellectually honest with

Ayn Rand's writing.

I'm certain some of you will expect there to be glitz and

sex and action figures. I advise you to grow up and learn

something about content. Some might even learn a little

about sex if the pay attention to Dagny and Hank in both

book and movie. Only talking about cause and effect,

don't worry. The way Rand sets up the interaction between Hank and Dagny makes

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mav]

Got a question for all you Randites. Earlier this week I noticed the movie was going to open on Friday. Just out of curiousity, I conducted a little poll at work. I went around and asked everyone if they would know what I was talking about if I asked them the question, "Who is John Galt?" What percentage do you think knew what I was refering to?

Since only one decided to venture a guess, I will end it here. Not one person out of 50 or so where I work knew what I was talking about. The age ranges are from 60 - 32. It doesn't really surprise me. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that less than 5% of the population would know what I was referring to. However, I would bet the majority could tell me the last 5 winners on American Idol or some similiar TV show.

[Lumber_Jack]

Since only one decided to venture a guess, I will end it here. Not one person out of 50 or so where I work knew what I was talking about. The age ranges are from 60 - 32. It doesn't really surprise me. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that less than 5% of the population would know what I was referring to. However, I would bet the majority could tell me the last 5 winners on American Idol or some similiar TV show.

Guilty! I don't know anything about this topic of which y'all have been speaking. Well, on to google for some answers

Edited April 17, 2011 by Lumber_Jack

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I have been wearing a black T-shirt that has "Who is John Galt?" occasionally, for the last 4-5 years, mav. I

usually don't get a response, but I have heard "I know" from what I used to think as highly unlikely readers.

One was a clerk at the Circle K close to where I work. Another was from one of the drivers, a black lady who reads while waiting for her next run, carrying us to our trains. Quite a lot more than that, but they all got the same thing from the book. They had the view about what's wrong with our country that I got from the book and they wanted to know more, since they heard about it from evidently similar sources.

One place is from radio and television talk shows like Beck and Stossel, and Judge Napolitano. It always surprised me that they even knew, but it tells me there are a lot more people in this country hungry for information and they end up seeking it out from their own sources. It was a pleasant surprise. That's why I will "defend" Beck and the like.

To Erik88's question about reading this book first rather than seeing the movie first. It won't matter. The story was adhered to very well because the producers and directors wanted to maintain integrity to Ayn Rand's words. If they doctored the book into Hollywood-ese and glammed it with too many cute female anatomies and plenty of Hollywood action figures, it would destroy the meaning of the book. They actually used their talent to portray the book for what it is: a classic. Ayn Rand had what's called substance and they only updated the timeline to allow the viewer to get her perspective of future events. The movie I think started out in 2016, which makes it still a future event for us to ponder.

It just doesn't matter which you do first. But I'll bet it does make you want to pick up the book and read it.

As to Roger Ebert's review, my wife said the same I did about it: A joke. OS was definitely right about it being FWIW. Ebert got it all wrong. I imagine his reviews are for whoever pays him and what they want written. I've never given him any attention, but I am not a big moviegoer, either. Hollywood is a dead place, nowadays. All they seem to do is remake someone else's successful movie. To me it's telling that they didn't want to do this one, also. I think most of that had to do with those hyenas' politics, anyway.

Thanks should go out for this being an independent movie. I think they got it right.

Edited April 17, 2011 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

My sister-in-law sent me a link from Drudgereport once that was from the New York Times website about a guy who, having read the book a couple years out of high school and in the comments he said he wished his school had it on the mandatory reading list for summer break, like some of his friends had to do at their schools.

It has been considered a classic for years and some Fortune 500 companies even suggest it as reading for their management hires. The book is not very popular with the current crop of professors in colleges and universities due to their socialistic leanings and it's leanings towards capitalism. Even Republicans have problems with the book because of her rejection of religion and replacing it with the human mind above all.

When you read the book, your BS detector will be turned up and you will take a lot more of what you assumed to be true, stand it on it's end and send it to the ashbin of propaganda, because you will have

a much better understanding of philosophy.

[mav]

Did y'all see this video made by FreedomWorks (http://www.freedomworks.org/) on Atlas Shrugged? It is their version of the Atlas Shrugged trailer. Pretty good.

One of the things that I find interesting about books like Atlas Shrugged and 1984 is that they seem more relevant today than when they were initially written.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think it's because they actually do become more relevant as time goes on. People become

awed over how close she got it so long ago. When I read The Fountainhead I got the same

impression and she considered it not nearly as refined as Shrugged. and it was written in 1943,

I think.

Just pick up Brave New World and imagine what was going through Aldous Huxley's mind to

write that one. Same thing with Heinlein, too. Those guys were some serious thinkers.

[seez52]

here's a hoot for you. I live in Lebanon, there's a subdivision here and one of the street names is "John Galt Drive"

[Erik88]

here's a hoot for you. I live in Lebanon, there's a subdivision here and one of the street names is "John Galt Drive"

but who is he?

[Trekbike]

but who is he?

Read the book and find out...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It isn't in Part One so read the book.

[seez52]

Saw the movie tonight. It really did a pretty good job of following the book. It moved really fast. Doubt if those who haven't read the book will see it as more than a contrived set of circumstances to ditz the current administration. Without the background and character development Rand includes in the book, it's difficult to think a casual viewer would line up for the next episode. It might encourage them to read the book though.

I believe they did a pretty good job overall and should be able to hold their heads high. Was disappointed Fransisco didn't have an accent. In the audio book I have, the reader does an excellent job with the accent.

[I_Like_Pie]

I really hated the book after reading it in high school.

I decided to watch the movie in hopes to be "enlightened" like so many people claim to be...

Nope. It was the same stinking pile of crap that it was before. Seems I have seen enough power through charity, love, and faith (in addition to the theme of human interests, suffering, and death) to have a totally different perspective than Rand.

[Guest bkelm18]

I really hated the book after reading it in high school.

I decided to watch the movie in hopes to be "enlightened" like so many people claim to be...

Nope. It was the same stinking pile of crap that it was before. Seems I have seen enough power through charity, love, and faith (in addition to the theme of human interests, suffering, and death) to have a totally different perspective than Rand.

Uh oh... you just blasphemed... you have a different opinion than the majority...

To be honest I'm rather hesitant to read it. It's a huge book. While I don't necessarily disagree with what I know of the book, I can imagine myself getting bored with it easily and not getting very far in it.

[mav]

Uh oh... you just blasphemed... you have a different opinion than the majority...

To be honest I'm rather hesitant to read it. It's a huge book. While I don't necessarily disagree with what I know of the book, I can imagine myself getting bored with it easily and not getting very far in it.

I think the book was boring as well, at least the first part was. It has been a while since I have read it. That said, I started reading it again last week. It is not as bad as it was the first time.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nothing wrong with not liking the book. There are

lots of books I don't l like. This is one I really like.

Sincerity isn't derision. thanks for being sincere.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seez52]

I don't remember Rand having a problem with charity or love, though she was certainly not on the faith (as in religion) bandwagon.

Seems to me she advocated pure altruism, but portrayed in AS that most acts of charity had evolved into a game of defining ones self.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think if she were alive and heard your comment

about pure altruism, she would smirk and just say

you should reconsider everything she said because

altruism is the root cause of the problem. Maybe you

mean charity to be altruism. That's not part of her

definition, at all. She uses too many examples of

altruism in AS to avoid the confusion. The left

uses altruism and any guilt it can find to make

you give up your money for their cause.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seez52]

I think if she were alive and heard your comment

about pure altruism, she would smirk and just say

you should reconsider everything she said because

altruism is the root cause of the problem. Maybe you

mean charity to be altruism. That's not part of her

definition, at all. She uses too many examples of

altruism in AS to avoid the confusion. The left

uses altruism and any guilt it can find to make

you give up your money for their cause.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

agreed, I used the wrong word. A previous poster indicated the power he had seen through charity, and I don't believe she would have faulted anyone for that. But, as you point out, charity in the form the left espouses, and as presented in AS is a path of no return. There is no power in "charity" when done in this manner, and I would not characterize it as true charity.

[Guest ab28]

she was hotter in the trailer than I pictured her from the book

Yeah, I pictured her to be kinda mannish and butch when I read the book. I just saw the preview, but Rearden and Jim Taggart looked almost exactly what I visualized for those characters, oddly enough.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

She didn't have a problem with giving at all. She had a

huge problem with government forced giving, though.

You might as well call it theft. She did. Look where

it got us. It caused that entitlement mentality so many

have today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk