blanche-2 Atlas Shrugged Part III is the last film in this presentation of Ayn Rand's book. The filming of this huge novel was done somewhat cheaply, I think, didn't make much money, particularly this end part, starred unfamiliar people with known and good character actors in the supporting roles.I read and loved The Fountainhead, not knowing anything about Ayn Rand's controversial philosophy at the time. I related to it as a creative artist and was impressed that, as long ago as it was written, much of what Rand wrote had come to pass.Later on, I found out that Gary Cooper didn't understand the last speech he had to give in the film, and I realized why the film wasn't all that good. Rand claimed her characters were not symbolic, but I'm afraid in films, that's how they come off.In Atlas Shrugged Part Three: Who Is John Galt?, Dagny Taggert's plane crashes in Galt's Gulch, where she finds all the great minds have gone to brainstorm and create a new world. They have removed themselves from the government, whom they feel has abused them, and, in effect, gone on strike. Atlas shrugged.Dagny wants to stay, but she can't leave the business she runs. When she returns to the real world, she realizes it's doomed. She and Galt return to Galt's Gulch. The end is a radio speech by John Galt, saying that the world will be redesigned soon.I'm no fan of Rand's theory of Objectivism -- it is very extreme, though some of the points are good ones. Objectivism is one way of looking at things, as is Communism and other ideologies. Many of these sound great on paper. The problem is, they don't stay there. People get in the way and it never turns out as idealistically as it did before they became involved.I'm afraid Rand sounds good on paper too and not so great when people try to act out what she wrote. It is difficult, if not impossible, to become involved with these people. One reason is that the actors in the roles changed with every film. If you're not going to read the book, I do suggest seeing the films to appreciate just how far-thinking Rand was, and how many of the things predicted in this book, written so many years ago, have happened. That's not to say her philosophy is the answer, but there are kernels there worth discussing. And some intelligent discussion wouldn't be a bad idea nowadays.

dragokin When i thought that Part II was worse than Part I, Part III went one step further. With another change in the cast, it's been difficult again to follow what's been going on.With the ideas of Ayn Rand diluted in sub-par writing and below average acting, Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? became a perfect background for an afternoon nap. No pun intended.Once again, i'm not sure why the producers insisted on making three movies instead of opting for a TV show. Nowadays this seems to be a gateway to a broader audience. Besides, the book Atlas Shrugged had enough contents and ideas for eight to ten one-hour episodes.

the_prince_of_frogs This is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen as to the performance of the actors and actresses. I have been a fan of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged for over fifty years. This movie is ONLY for fans of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. As movies go, it is my opinion it is a total failure.There was not one scene or one performance by an actor or actress that was worth watching. I think Ayn Rand would totally disown this total failure of any form of entertainment. I found it painful to watch all parts of this movie. It would have been better if this movie had never been made. Unfortunately, far too many will form totally wrong opinions of the novel ATLAS SHRUGGED and Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism.Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) and Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) are great. Maybe not as great as they could have been if well know stars could have been in the movies.The Passion of Ayn Rand (1999) (TV Movie) is a terrific movie.

melissacorrell The third installment in this series is somehow worse than the first two. Lazy exposition (voiceovers galore!) and lame acting make an already-bad story that much worse. Ideologically, I'm biased - I disagree with pretty much everything Ayn Rand had to say - but I'm not talking about ideology here. On an objective level, this is just a bad movie. It's boring. It's confusing. It makes no effort at continuity with the first two installments. The best part of this movie was Galt's monologue on the airwaves, and even that was executed in the most obvious, hackneyed way. I imagine that this movie was made not by film people, but by Objectivism people. That's cool; everyone needs to get their message out somehow. Just saying, they could have made a YouTube video - cheaper and more to the point. Oh, and I LOVE that this was funded by a Kickstarter. I'm sure Ayn Rand would have been so happy to know that donations from fans went into bringing her story to the big screen. The book was better - you care about the characters much, much more.