Atlas Shrugged: Part I

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.

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 couldn't get through the trailer or the fact that the names Dagny Taggart and John Galt aren't reserved for the Ken and Barbie Teabaggert Set.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

or in other words, this gives me the Lulz

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.

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.