Opiniones de usuarios

The movie isn't awful, but it isn't that good.

To anyone who has read the book, the movie lacks in several ways. The movie jumps in right at the point where the Taggert Transcontinental crashes after derailing. There's no background on the peoples' lives. You don't understand the relationships between Dagney, James (her brother), Francisco (her friend and first love) and Eddie (her friend and employee). You don't understand how much Dagney loves the railroad and how she took any job at the railroad when she was younger. It doesn't show how much the employees respect her versus James. You don't understand how intelligent and creative Francisco is and how he respects his ancestor who sacrificed everything for his love and his future generations so you're not confused (like you should be) why he's acting like he is.

I didn't get the "feel" of how desperate the general public deals with everyday life. Yes, there were a lot of street people, but the viewer doesn't understand why or that not everyone is lazy and/or greedy. You don't "feel" the disintegration of everyone's life and the country. You see superficial greedy, politicians but you miss the fear in most everybody's eyes. Also, it doesn't show how hard Dagney works to save the railroad by building the "John Galt Line." It doesn't show her frustrations or the long hours she puts in and how weary she becomes, but doesn't give up. Also, her office in the basement of the Taggert Building is sparse and cramped in the book which adds to her strength, but in the movie it looks just like her regular office.

The one scene that I think is important to the story is when Dagney is working very late one night and she sees a shadowy figure walk up to the door of her office and she thinks it might be Hank Reardon. The figure paces back and forth and then walks away. I think it's important to the story because later you find out it was John Galt and how he knew that it wasn't the right time to talk to her. The movie ends just like the book (part 1) with Dagney screaming "no!" at Wyatt's Torch. The movie is only 97 minutes long so they could have added more depth to the movie without tiring out the audience.

I don't think the movie will recoup the expenses of making the movie. If not, it doesn't seem they will truly continue with part 2 or 3.

I almost gave this movie a higher rating because of the tough budget and critical bias against movies that have something positive to say about capitalism. But to be consistent with my other ratings, I considered all things equal and just based it on what I saw on the screen.

I expected to dislike this film and only went because of my friends. Wow was I surprised at how entertaining it was. It is very difficult to keep ones interest with no car chases, gun shooting, sword sparing or hot naked bodies - etc. etc, etc.. However, this film kept me entertained throughout by great writing (and a timeless story). The cinematography was also pretty decent. The acting, perhaps the weakest link, still had enough stand outs to overcome the obvious flaws. The lead, played by actress Taylor Schilling, was played very well. Perhaps no Meryl Streep but a far cry superior than other Oscar winners such as Julie Roberts. A hard character to play because she must be both strong, vulnerable and likable. Shilling accomplished all the above and more.

I don't need to talk about the story and the changes form the original novel. The message and the entertainment value all remained in tact.

I have to admit that it's been years since I read the book (required high school reading) and while I struggled to get through it, I did appreciate the concepts of a dystopian United States, the philosophy of Objectivism and the idea that civilization and society simply cannot continue to exist where there is no creativity.

Almost none of this is covered in this first part of the trilogy. Don't get me wrong, the film covers a lot of ground, in fact it's front-loaded with heavy doses of exposition. The problem is the film is shot like a PBS made-for-TV movie (mainly a series of talking heads) and the stiff dialog is lifelessly delivered by TV actors that lack big screen presence.

Now, don't mistake me for one of those people who feel the subject matter of the book is too didactic for mass appeal, I just think this low-budget and amateur version lacks the fire and fury that Rand's novel deserves.

I'm not saying not to see it, just avoid the mistake I made. Go in with no expectations.

Hell, it might even make you want to pick up the book and give it a read.

How do you take a 1000+ page novel and reduce it to the key events and discussions? Well, like this movie does it.

Let me state up front that I am an Objectivist, so you can factor in some bias you might suppose I have. On the other hand, Objectivists are famous for trying to remove emotional bias from their words and deeds.

I rate the story itself a 9, and the acting, production values, etc., a 5 resulting in my 7 score.

One of the things I liked about how the story was handled was the minimalist approach. Important ideas should not need a lot of fanfare, they need to be experienced for what they are. It kind of reminded me of Dances With Wolves. There is not tons of exposition, you have to glean to principles from simple events.

I think the acting by the principal actors was "good enough" for an indie production. I also think that is is good that the principal actors were physically attractive, after all, these are Rand's archetypal heroes.

Very funny to see Armin Shimmerman. As many of you know he played "Quark" the Ferengi on Star Trek DS9, who make a religion out of profit. Here he plays one of the looters, a nice tongue in cheek approach.

If you are afraid of the juggernaut that is the federal govt coming for everything you have, everything you are, I recommend you support these small voices of protest, because we might at least delay the complete takeover of our lives.

I strongly recommend the novel Atlas Shrugged, as well.

It's been many years since I read Ayn Rand's iconic novel, but it all came back to me as I watched this movie unfold. Indeed, the characters have more depth and complexity in the movie version.

Most impressive is the production quality. I'm told this is a low budget movie, but it doesn't look that way. It is a visual treat.

The story line is true to the book but updated and set in a modern context that makes it feel fresh and exciting.

Every single performance is first rate, but the leads are truly standouts.

I can't wait for Parts II and III.

I haven't read the novel, so I cannot say how closely the film tracks Ayn Rand's original concept. However, I found the film to stand on its own quite well. Taylor Schilling, as Dagny, steals the show, although the supporting cast is excellent. I loved the "look" of the film despite some compromises required by the relatively small budget ($20 million). The general theme of the film involves government bought by corporation lobbyists, and corporations, in turn, controlled by government officials who seem to have decided that socialism trumps capitalism. It's a disturbing alliance to some, and I won't elaborate on this point as it might give too much away. I look forward to Atlas Scrugged, Part II, although I am skeptical if this interesting film will generate enough box office receipts to warrant a sequel.

Having long-ago read both Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue Of Selfishness, I knew exactly what I was getting in to when I made the improbable decision to check out this film. If you haven't already figured it out - I'm not a follower of Ayn Rand's... peculiarities.

But that's not what this is about. This is about the translation of a work of fiction from novel to celluloid.

The Successes: I have to admit that it qualifies as a motion picture, by definition. Kudos.

The Failures: The acting is terrible - excepting a handful of familiar faces, the cast must have been plucked from Kirk Cameron's Left Behind series, and even Michael O'Keefe hasn't done anything of note since Caddyshack. The dialogue is comical - I'm assuming it wasn't drunkenly improvised as there's a screenplay writer credit. The cinematography is sub-blargh - most of the film is set indoors and the entire look is just strange, as if some days there weren't enough people to hold the various lights and reflectors. The directing is nonexistent - I say that only because the film is directionless. The production quality is borked - the interiors were clearly done on the cheap, and (as one famous movie reviewer has pointed out) come the hell on, Wisconsin looks nothing like New Mexico. Even the costumes are junky - they're the kinds of outfits that Marshalls eventually sells to dollar stores. To top it off, the film isn't even entertaining-bad like an Ed Wood film - it's simply an exasperating, self-important POS.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I is an anti-masterpiece; if one of its empty film canisters were to come in contact with one of Citizen Kane's, the universe would explode.

Two stars, since it's twice as crappy as every other one-star film.

I was prepared to cringe at this Atlas Shrugged, universally panned by the critics for its low budget and no-name cast. Instead, I was pretty impressed. The story was faithful to the book, and the message and narrative clear, with the producers wisely sidestepping most of Rand's stilted polemics.

Yes, the budget did confine most shooting to interiors, but there was enough "big sky" material, railroad operations, and steel mill shots to give the film some scope. And the SFX and CG used in the supertrain shots, which probably absorbed half the budget, were worth every penny.

The cast, and especially Taylor Shilling, who played Dagny, and Grant Bowler (Rearden) did a great job.

Overall, I liked AS, and look forward to the sequels. I just hope the producers can raise the financing to make them.

Dagney Taggart (Schilling) is having a hard time keeping her train company going during the hard times hitting the United States. Rearden Steel owner Henry (Bowler) is no longer allowed to own more than one company. The Science Institute says the new steel Henry developed is not safe and they won't let union workers ride the new rails Dagney is putting in place.

As a teenager back in the day, I saw the paperback, Atlas Shrugged, and saw that it was 10,000 pages long, um…okay, 1000-plus pages long. I said I would never have time to read something like that. And, I was right. I said, "wait for the movie." Well, here it is now, some 40-plus years later. Why did I wait? Because I saw The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand and was hooked.

I am so glad they decided on Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. I remember reading the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell back in the day. The only way to describe Durrell's writing is to say it's like poetry, no it is poetry. You will never read anything as beautiful in your entire life. Anyway, they made a movie out of the Quartet and called it Justine. This movie encompassed all 4-books and it was a complete mess. So Parts 1,2 and 3 make sense.

Part 1 was very good with basically unknown actors. The pacing was good, the dialogues are spot on and the cinematography was convincing. It may be too early to talk about the chemistry between Dagney and Henry as they are just now somewhat tentative in their relationship. Parts 2 and 3 may answer that question.

But, make no mistake about the theme: this is conflict between socialism and capitalism and in many ways mirror what is happening in our country today. You decide.

There are hooks that are intriguing in here. The question is asked often, and without notice, "Who is John Galt?" And, we come to learn that many top businessmen disappear and no one knows why. My question: is John Galt an assassin? And, Atlas Shrugged? Why? Stay tuned.

Violence: Not really. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Not really. Only words heard were the BS words

The book itself is complex with an immense story line and many inner monologues that make it hard to present in a movie. However this thing that apparently passes for a movie makes it seem like a day to day thing.

I understand that it was on a budget bla bla bla but it sucked... period.

It was too fast paced, did not exploit each scene when 2 seconds later the answer to the problem or a bigger problem took place. Either I have to big of an imagination for every scene or these guys are trying to earn an buck while they can.

Did not enjoy it...

"Atlas Shrugged--Part I" is a fine film adaptation of Ayn Rand's 1957 magnum opus. Though not a great film, it is certainly a "must-see" movie, at once entertaining and intellectually provocative.

Strong points:

* The best thing here is Rand's compelling plot itself. The film is remarkably faithful to it. It's also faithful to Rand's philosophy. Whether you like Rand's ideas or not, the filmmakers are to be credited with doing no violence to the controversial author's worldview.

* Grant Bowler and Taylor Schilling are well cast in their pivotal lead roles as Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart. Graham Beckel was strong and likable as oil magnate Ellis Wyatt. And Rebecca Wisocky was a standout, deliciously nasty as the manipulative Lillian Rearden; she also made difficult lines of dialogue, which otherwise might have sounded stilted, seem completely unaffected and natural.

* The novel's political themes of individualism vs. statism, of entrepreneurs vs. crony capitalists and government bureaucrats, are rendered potently and explicitly. Rand's ethics of rational selfishness is presented more by implication, but the actions of her heroes are clearly motivated by that ethics.

* The film, like its two lead actors, is easy on the eyes. The wardrobes and sets are good, and the special effects are impressive -- especially convincing during run of the John Galt Line and the climactic Wyatt oil field fire.

* As sheer entertainment, the film was fast-paced and engrossing throughout.

Weak points:

* Too much plot condensation using narration and explication. This film should have run 2 1/2 hours to do more justice to the nuances of plot and characterizations, and to rely more on "showing" rather than "telling."

* Overly quick pacing. Probably a byproduct of the excessive condensation. Little time was taken in key scenes to show the subtleties of character motivations and reactions.

* Occasional miscasting or inappropriate acting. Michael O'Keefe's interpretation of the Hugh Akston character was off, both in look and manner of expression. Jsu Garcia's Francisco came off more as a real playboy pretending to be an aristocrat; instead, he should have played it as a true aristocrat faking that he was a playboy. (There's a difference.)

* Lack of subtlety. The film was at its nuanced best during the scenes where we see the attraction building between Hank and Dagny. Grant Bowler's understated reactions to several emotional blows also were spot on. The movie would have benefited from more of this kind of thing, which the lickety-split pace prevented.

Overall, "Atlas Shrugged--Part I" is a better film than the 1949 production of "The Fountainhead," and certainly a far better film than major reviewers and critics are reporting. Alas, they seem incapable of separating the film's merits as good storytelling from the controversial story itself -- a tale that fundamentally challenges today's reigning intellectual Narrative.

This is an entertaining, thought-provoking adaptation of Ayn Rand's masterpiece. I hope that Parts II and III will benefit from fewer constraints in their budgets and production schedules, and that each film will run at least 45 minutes longer. That would allow for a deeper and richer exploration of the iconic characters and fascinating subplots of Rand's complex and challenging tale.

There are other reviewers which have chosen to discount this movie because it was made on a relatively small budget, has no major Hollywood stars, or because it takes place just slightly in the future, instead of the distant past.

However, as a big fan of the book and given the current US and global political climate and turmoil, I would rather see this movie made now, under the conditions described above, than have to wait another 50+ years to see it hit the silver screen.

The filmmakers plausibly weaved the original Ayn Rand novel into the present without sacrificing much in the process. Combine that with solid acting and the overall feel of the movie, and they have delivered an enjoyable movie that I will see more than once in the theater, which is rare for me.

Not once did I feel that I was watching a movie that was "thrown" together as some have suggested, or that sacrificed quality or story. Instead this had nearly all of the look, feel and polish that you would expect to see in a big-budget Hollywood movie, with the sole exception of the A-list actors.

My fear though is that many people will skip this movie either because they have not read the novel or because they just don't hear about it. My wife is a perfect example as she does not plan to see it with me because the premise of the novel (which she has not read) did not interest her when I described it.

My biggest criticism is that this movie is too short (90 minutes long) and ended fairly abruptly. Given the amount of material involved, and that it is being split into 3 movies, the first movie could have/should have been at least two hours long.

I had read several exceedingly harsh professional reviews prior to seeing this movie which probably prepared me for the movie a bit. I had no high hopes for a movie from a One Tree Hill director on a shoestring budget, but in some ways was pleasantly surprised, while in other ways deeply disappointed, thus overall it was about what I expected.

I will start with the negative before looking at the positive I found in this film.

I had three major issues with this film, and one or two minor ones. Firstly, there were a great number of shots in which heads were inexcusably cut off. This is okay in certain situations, but this was applied just about every chance they had. One shot in particular had Henry Rearden's (the leading man) head entirely missing from the frame.

This was further exacerbated by my second issue: the editors, for some unexplainable reason, had a desire to add the worst vignette effect I have ever seen. It is normal to darken the corners of an entire movie -- just watch any major motion picture and you'll notice it. This, however, darkened every edge which was very distracting...especially when something important was made barely visible due to this heinous post-production which had nothing to do with the relatively low budget.

Finally, I found every performance acceptable and pretty much entirely believable save the main character, Dagny Taggart. The character seemed far too stiff with such an incredible lack of depth up until the last half hour of the film.

A minor issue I had seemed to be everyone else's major issue which they seemed to let drive their negative review of the film (regardless of its artistic merit) -- the politics. I personally hold to libertarianism so I agree with the politics, but the way it was presented was just too "in your face" to keep it from being raw propaganda. Yes, how governments should be run should be different from how corporations should be run and both should be different from how individuals live their lives, and yes, individual freedom is the most important thing in all of this, but jeez...glorifying what was supposed to be such a selfish attitude was begging for negative reviews.

I couldn't believe how awful it was put when Dagny's line was spoken, "What's up with all of this altruism lately?" (this may not be an exact quote as I'm going off memory). *People* should be altruistic, but not forced to be so, and I think that message wasn't pushed forth clearly enough in this adaption.

Also, it was a little frustrating to watch how forced the romance appeared to be. I'm not sure if it seemed the same in the novel as I've never personally read Atlas Shrugged, but even if it was, I think it would have been prudent to deviate from the book in this instance. I personally couldn't take the romance seriously until the morning after.

Finally, here is what I enjoyed about Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

I was surprised by how much of the cast I recognized. There was "Big Love" from House M.D. playing Eddie. And over there playing his normal bossy self was Buddy the Elf's dad's selfish and cruel boss. It took some googling to figure out that I had seen over half of the cast in various films, but it was a nice surprise.

I think the large amount of railroad shots they had worked very nicely, and was caught off guard a bit by how many there were, once again, considering the budget. There were actually a variety of shots that I was impressed with.

The pacing was pretty decent (although I felt like I had just watched two stories in spite of it actually only being a third of one), and it actually made me interested in seeing the sequels. The cast was mostly enjoyable to watch, although far from the best I've seen. It was a solid film, regardless of the director's affinity for beheading the talent, and I would actually recommend it to anyone with a decent attention span.

Overall, I think this was a decent film, but if you're expecting anything more than a relatively low budget political drama, you'll be sorely disappointed.

I don't want to make this a philosophical discussion on Ayn Rand. I rather talk about movie logic, and story construction. I've never read the book, and I'm not going to. It's the movie I'm reviewing and it has many problems.

The general level of production is much better than a syfy TV movie, but it's much lower than most big screen theater releases. For a $4.3M production (if IMDb is accurate), it's actually pretty impressive. I have no problems with the production or Taylor Schilling's acting. She does a good job as the driven woman executive. The problems lie elsewhere.

I don't know how hard they try to follow the book, but I think they would be better off to abandon the storypoints and keep the philosophy. It's written in the 50's by a woman who doesn't know much about business or steel. It was questionable at its time but is incredibly outdated today. I don't know why the filmmakers believe steel would sound futuristic by people today. They are talking about steel...Right? We're watching IronMan and Transformers and steel is the new material?

This is an apocalyptic world on film. There is nothing new there. Every other movie is the end of the world. But the filmmakers really need to set it up better instead of some generic oil crisis. They're trying so hard to gin everything up to recreate the Atlas Shrugged storyline that it has no relevance to today's world. Instead trying to adapt the feel of the book, I think they try to recreate the book for today. Maybe it made sense when it was written, but it makes no sense today. It makes 'Red Dawn' look realistic.

I have many other problems with the movie logic here. Let's just say I rather not get bogged down. It's not a bad production if they could make the story more logical.

I am not in the film industry so maybe I didn't catch some editing issues since I thought the move was great. Ayn wrote Shrugged in such a cinematic way, it was great to see the sweeping landscapes, witty banter, and some steamy scenes come to life on the big screen. It was really great to see some beautiful scenes of the rail and steel industry.

The actors were excellent, especially the main characters. Bowler and Schilling nailed it.

Now, I'm a huge fan of the book, so I'm a bit biased towards the story, but I thought the movie was entertaining, paced well and held true to key aspects of dialogue and scenes. I think people will enjoy it even if they haven't read the book, and hope it inspires people to read the book.

From the sounds of it, Part 2 and 3 are a go and will be released Tax Day 2012 and 2013.

The first question I have is some what of a boost the conspiracy between the left & right. When I went to see the movie I did not check the ticket until after I had already left the theater and to my surprise I had unknowingly gone to see Scream 4...

I then called a few friends who had also seen the movie and almost half of them said that their stub was for another movie just like mine. All different theaters and I do not know if I have ever seen this happen before. Check you stubs if you still have them, if they are wrong call your theater and get it changed, let your money speak for you! Also go on Facebook and find the many pages and groups and post there.

As for the film, this was almost impossible to do, make everyone happy and include everything. The money speech was missing, the pace was fast but not well developed. I loved it as a 7 time reader of the book but if I was completely uninfluenced by the book I think I would have been intrigued enough to read it but not impressed with the movie on its own...

Got free tickets to see this. Even with very low expectations I came away sorely disappointed.

I'm not a fan of the book, but it's at least popular enough to warrant a legitimate adaptation. Instead, this is a clearly rushed (the producer started production just days before he lost the rights to the book) hack job with no-name actors delivering soap opera performances in a story they've muddled despite only covering roughly a third of the ground of the novel. Updating it to modern times, but keeping the industry as railroads and steel feels weirdly anachronistic and is explained via a rather absurd backstory. The stakes are low, the suspense about Galt is practically nonexistent despite the frequent interjections intended to remind the audience "Hey, there's something mysterious and important going on!" and the constant, blatant preaching of the dialogue which seemed egregious on the page seems doubly so when read aloud in the context of a "drama." No one talks like that ever and it comes across as really stilted, unnatural, and force feeding an audience the anti-humanist message.

The production values are equivalent to what you get in a SyFy original movie like Sharkotpus with terrible set design, CGI that looks like it was done in MS Paint, and lazy, static camera-work. The director's previous work was on One Tree Hill and the screenwriter's background is working on straight-to-DVD horror movies about mutant monsters with names like "Evilution" and "Cemetery Gates." That should tell you everything you need to know about the level of quality on display here.

For people who didn't like, were mixed, or are unfamiliar with the book I think it'll be a colossal failure. For most fans of the book, it will be a terrible bastardization. Only the hardest core ideologues of the story's objectivist message desperate to see it popularized in the mainstream can I imagine championing this. Whatever else it may be, this is by no means a quality or even competent movie.