La rebelión de Atlas: Parte I

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 It was questionable at its time but is incredibly outdated today.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.

Though I'm not, nor have I ever been, a proponent of Ayn Rand's philosophy, I have to admit the woman wrote great books -- and books that accurately predicted the state of the world in years to come. The Fountainhead predicted the rise of mediocrity and the corruption of art, and Atlas Shrugged, seen with today's eyes, seems so accurate it's scary for a novel published in 1957.

The film of The Fountainhead, despite starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, is not good. For years people have tried to get Atlas Shrugged on the screen, and now here it is, using a small budget, and divided into three parts. This is Part I.

The story concerns Dagny Taggart, a railroad executive fighting to keep the family railroad alive. Railroads are the only form of transportation due to the lack of oil. The world is in a fast state of decay; government agencies are corrupt, and thanks to her brother's inefficient running of the family company before she took over, her best workers are gone. People feel helpless. And now, the strongest industrialists are disappearing, their businesses being taken over by those with political interests, and a question is repeatedly asked - "Who is John Galt?" No one seems to know.

Surprisingly, while I recognized a few people in the cast, the majority of the stars were unknown to me (which I would have told you is impossible). Nevertheless, they do a good job. The beautiful Taylor Schilling is an effective Dagny, and like the main female character in The Fountainhead, she seems a cold woman without emotion. At the end of Part I, we finally see some. Grant Bowler is excellent as Henry Reardon, as is Graham Beckel as Wyatt. Rebecca Wisocky has all the right stuff for the evil Lillian, and we'll be seeing more of her later. Michael Lerner was certainly familiar, and he's Mouch. It's an effective cast in difficult roles, because each character represents a philosophy. Giving them flesh and blood is tough.

I look forward to parts 2 and 3.

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.

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.

I had some time to kill and no wet paint to watch, so I decided to see what all the #libertarian fuss is about. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and don't get me started on the utter vapidness of the story.

This movie should have to give ME five stars for sitting through it. This movie is a cinematic hate crime. This movie is like having your brain eaten slowly by monkeys with rusty spoons.

...and WTF? "Part 1?" There's more?