kumarihpx
When other reviewers write that many people rate this movie low because they disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy and values, they fail to realize that her characters - this movie's characters - are unsympathetic and almost across the board unlikable.The Screenplay and its character development, with the necessary creation of drama on which the story hinges, is the foundation of any film. This production failed from the start. I won't even go into the extreme mess they made of the politics behind the corporate machinations depicted here, except to say that this story was like Wall Street's answer to its fraudulent actions that caused the long-term collapse of our country's economy and the immediate collapse of the whole world's. Who can sympathize with those whose only goal is undying greed?In the end, who can or will identify or empathize with the characters here who show active disregard and even distaste for other human beings, like the ones buying the movie ticket?
Brent Gillham
It has been so long since I read the book. I am sure there are legitimate complaints of how the story line does not follow the book-just as is the case in 99% of all movies. Whether or not the movie followed the book exactly does not make it good or bad for most entertainment purposes.I am not surprised that the movie is unpopular with people who dislike the Libertarian philosophy. It's almost funny to see them (including some critics) write that it is among the worst movies they ever saw. Actually, if most of these people were capable of putting aside their political and philosophical prejudices, they probably would rate the movie mediocre at worst and many would rate it better. Like John Stossel once remarked about someone calling his quite enlightening show the worst show on television..."The worst? Really???" This was not a book or movie made for entertainment purposes except to entertain the mind. It is a work of philosophy set to get one thinking of the virtues of selfishness and how natural it is for humans to form symbiotic relationships to celebrate that virtue.Still, I enjoyed the artwork, architecture, fashion and even the acting. Better in part two than one, in fact. I have seen poor acting before and there was, quite simply, NONE in this movie. Add to that the fact that the movie had not one dumb or corny moment in it-quite a feat for a movie these days. Unless you are one of those people who thinks everything you disagree with is dumb or corny.
RaiderDuck
Acting: Uniformly mediocre, with Jason Beghe's steely Hank Rearden being the only (mildly) bright spot. Teller's blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo is neat, and Robert Picardo, Paul McCrane and Michael Gross all play bureaucrat versions of their famous TV characters. Nobody else registers in the slightest. The cast is completely different from Part I, which is almost unprecedented in a sequel filmed so soon after the original (the similarly cruddy Sting II is the only other example I could think of). The only saving grace was that Part I's cast was so mediocre in itself, I couldn't remember any of the performances, so it didn't seem jarring.Production design and special effects: Some of the most obvious CGI you'll ever see. Also, the occasionally interesting "Bioshock"- influenced architecture of the first film is gone, probably because they halved the budget for this one.Dialogue: As with other Ayn Rand films I've seen (Atlas Shrugged Part I and The Fountainhead), completely inane. I will say that Beghe delivers the standard Rand sound bites with a straight face better than anyone before (even Gary Cooper), because he so earnestly sells what he's saying.Plotting: Once again, Rand's inability to deal with the real world shows itself. Everyone is either a misunderstood saint or an eeeeeeeeevil bureaucratic caricature. The US government in this movie calmly delivers edicts that even Kim il-Sung and Karl Marx would find ridiculous, and anyone thinking of the public good for even an instant is derided as a misguided fool or worse. Meanwhile, Francisco d'Ancona blows up his mines, and we're supposed to admire him for this. Or something. And the revealed origin of the phrase "Who is John Galt?" makes its constant repetition even less plausible. It says a lot when Sean Hannity (!) is arguably this film's moral center.To summarize: Who is John Galt? A complete sociopath, from the looks of it.
abbyleamarr
Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book. I read it about once every 3 years. It is a beautiful study on culture, government, society, business, and economy. It's almost elegant how Ayn Rand describes the characters so clearly that you feel like you know them. These actors (if you could call them that)fall very short of the protagonists you picture while reading the book. Henry Rearden comes across as a crooked cop rather than a genius metallurgist. EVERY SINGLE ACTOR is different from Part I. Despite the fact that there are more recognizable actors in this movie, the acting is still record breakingly bad. I seriously performed more convincingly in my HS rendition of "Little Women" when I was 15. This is not a book that should ever have been made into a movie. It's too big for film. Atlas Shrugged, the book, is number two on the Library of Congress' list of most influential books, second only to THE BIBLE. Seriously, THE BIBLE. It's a book that should only be in the imagination of the reader. Otherwise...it's sadly downgraded to a low budget, no name, nothing special film. Ayn Rand would be so ashamed of what has become of her greatest work. Please read the book to fully understand this masterpiece!
AD
