Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike

I just came back from watching part 2 and up front, I will say that I was disappointed that the original cast was unable to return for part 2. That being said though, once the movie started I didn't really care about that anymore.

I thought Dagny being portrayed by an older actress was actually more in-line with the way I viewed her when reading the book, and the same goes for the other actors, like Eddie Willers, etc. I'm unsure how I feel about DB Sweeney portraying Galt himself since I never considered him a very strong actor, but that's a moot point in part 2 anyway.

As others have noted, the special effects in this aren't exactly top quality, but they're passable. It reminded me of the type you'd see on a SyFy original movie or something along those lines... not bad, but not great.

Overall, it was a good movie. Let's face it, if you liked the book, you'll like the movie. If you hated the book (or never read it, but hate the very idea of it), you'll hate this movie too. But that hatred would have nothing to do with the movie itself, but about your views of Rand's philosophy.

I'd give the movie a technical rating of 5-6 because it wasn't too bad, and some of the cinematography was actually pretty well done. Content I give it a 9 because I appreciate where Rand is coming from, so let's call it an 8 out of 10 overall.

I only give six stars because for some reason I have long loved "Atlas Shrugged" the novel and for years have longed for a movie version of it. But the bottom line is that this is a pretty poor excuse for a movie and really doesn't do the novel justice.

I guess somehow they came up with a bigger budget for this one and have re-cast all the major roles with.... well .... somewhat higher level actors. Maybe you could say they moved from D-list actors to C-list actors? Unfortunately in some ways the "unknown" actors in the first movie were much better than the familiar faces you will recognize in Part 2. To call them D-list actors is perhaps unfair...when really they are just unknowns.

The most glaring casting problem here is Samantha Mathis, and I cannot adequately express how much this pains me to say because I have long loved her and think she is a talented actress. But all you can say about her role here is, "What in the WORLD happened to Samantha Mathis?!" First of all physically she is all wrong for the part; too old, too bloated, too tired-looking. Once upon a time she might have been able to pull it off, but that time was past a decade ago. If you've read the novel you know what I mean. Dagney Taggart is a force of nature and Samantha Mathis spends the entire movie looking confused and exhausted. You know who would have been an awesome Dagney back in the day? Someone like a young Lauren Bacall---the body type, the facial features, the intensity....that's Dagney as described in the novel. Samantha simply doesn't have it, and it makes every scene she is in excruciating to watch.

The other thing is this movie is extremely talky, and honestly if you haven't read the book I am not sure you would be able to follow what was going on. The movie is 2 hours long and at times it drags. Blah blah blah, talk talk talk. Works in the novel, but not in a movie. Show don't tell.

I like the other casting choices although the jury will be out on D.B. Sweeney as Galt. They don't show his face in Part 2, but honestly I have seen some of his recent appearances in movies and TV, and he looks about as tired and done-in as Samantha Mathis (maybe this is what they are going for, a matched set?)

I will go see Part 3 if it gets made. I did notice a lot more people at the showing I went to than when I saw Part 1 (literally watched the first movie with one other person in the entire theater). So maybe this one will actually make money? I would like to see them re-cast Dagney although I know that's not likely to happen. Still if they could do it once....

I'm surprised by the reviews I've read stating that Part II was better done than Part I. I saw Part II with four friends, all have read the book and had seen Part I.

We all felt the drop off in acting quality was extreme. Unfortunately, this is magnified by an inferior director as well. The plot is for the most part accurate to the book, though the time-line was slightly altered and curiously skipped certain important details while forcing others less significant details into the screen play.

The new Rearden and D'Anconia are painful. The new Dagny isn't as painful but the actress in Part I I felt was far superior.

Its unfortunate that this trilogy is going to fail to transform into film yet again.

Part II of the film version of Ayn Rand's famous book "Atlas Shrugged" has a bigger budget and a better known cast, consisting of Samantha Mathis, Jason Beghe, D.B. Sweeney, Esai Morales, John Rubinstein, Ray Wise, Diedrich Bader, Arye Gross, and Stephen Macht.

There are some knockout interiors, but the process shots, especially in the beginning, are horrendous.

Ayn Rand was a controversial person, and her philosophy of Objectivism is also very controversial. However, she was a visionary. In The Fountainhead, she talks about the rise of mediocrity in the arts, tabloid journalism, and the lack of artistic integrity. She believed in independent thinking, and in not compromising in your art.

In "Atlas Shrugged," Rand again proved herself prescient as the world in her story is just about the world we live in today - too much government intervention, gas prices sky-high, and a major recession. All the independent thinkers have disappeared, and the question on everybody's lips is, "Who is John Galt?" We learn here that John Galt threatened to "stop the motor of the world." He's just about succeeded as Part II progresses.

The characters in Atlas Shrugged are difficult to relate to, as were the characters in The Fountainhead. That's because they're symbols. Somehow they're easier to relate to in the books, I'm not sure why. Everyone does as good a job as they can, but this is a film about politics and ideas, with characters representing them.

I'll say this is better than Part I, it's better acted and less cheap looking. I hope there is a Part III, and I hope they keep this cast.

I can't say whether or not I recommend this. I would recommend reading the book first. I still believe in Rand the writer, even if her philosophies are tough to take.

This is a movie of ideas, not a thriller or special effects expo. If you go in looking for a retelling of one of the most influential books in history, you will not be disappointed. Obviously, the special effects, casting, directing, and acting are not exactly what you see in big budget movies. I thought it was a good screenplay adaptation of the book, which is not easy to translate. Personally, I thought the acting was better than the first movie, but still fairly weak. What's missing is the passion and joy in the main characters. At heart, Dagny Taggart is supposed to be passionate and supremely competent in her work and abilities. This actress portrayed Dagny more as a stressed out middle manager. Same for the actors portraying Hank Reardon and Fancisco d'Anconia. As I watched it, I thought to myself, "what if they'd actually been able to sign on Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt as the leads (as such originally rumored)?" That's a missed opportunity on many levels. Oh well. Still a strong movie considering the budget. Hope people will see it and digest it with their minds.