Dans une Amérique post-apocalyptique, la poigne de fer du gouvernement totalitaire cherche à écraser un homme mystérieux nommé John Galt, qui a le pouvoir et l'influence de tout changer.Dans une Amérique post-apocalyptique, la poigne de fer du gouvernement totalitaire cherche à écraser un homme mystérieux nommé John Galt, qui a le pouvoir et l'influence de tout changer.Dans une Amérique post-apocalyptique, la poigne de fer du gouvernement totalitaire cherche à écraser un homme mystérieux nommé John Galt, qui a le pouvoir et l'influence de tout changer.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
Avis à la une
I suffered through this junk because I had a fast forward button. Which is sad since I thought the first movie in this series was pretty well done. Then the second movie sucked. The third movie (this one) was so exponentially terrible compared to the first two that scientists are still trying to come up with a logarithmic formula to accurately represent the decaying quality from the first to third movies.
Watch the first movie and accept that it never goes anywhere. Don't watch this.
John Gault is practical and elusive. Yet in the movie John (Kristoffer Polaha) can be easily found and it seems that he is into shock therapy. They make it look like he is into S & M.
Francisco d'Anconia is supposed to be Dagny's childhood buddy; now played (Joaquim de Almeida) at 50 looks more like Dagny's uncle; can you see her on his knee?
If you think the actors were a strange fit wait until you watch the story.
The only redeeming thing is it is better than not having a film at all.
I'm not even concerned with Ayn Rand's philosophy, only with Part III's complete mishandling of it. This is a cartoon with robotic performances, non-existent production values and haphazard direction. The dialogue's stilted, none of these TV actors have any breathing room, and the story rolls out in a hurried low-standards manner. It's so cheap and so cut-rate that any message (even one delivered with a smug sledgehammer) is smothered in the execution. At a certain point, it just becomes unintentionally funny. Just not funny enough to be entertaining.
Is this at all like the book? I have no idea, but once was more than enough with this movie. What a sad end.
I read the reviews. The usual enemies of liberty chimed in but it was the thumbs down from the free market folks that got my attention. "Atlas Shrugged" was a life changing book for me so I felt compelled to see the film anyways. If nothing else I wanted to reward the brave souls who finally made this important book into a movie. I was the only one in the theater that afternoon.
"Atlas Shrugged" is a long book filled with complicated philosophical ideas. It would have required minds as ingenious to film it as the mind which wrote it. No such talent was willing to touch it given the hostile environment of Commiewood . They would have become Hollywood poison , like former communist turned patriot Elia Kazan. This movie ended up being made by well meaning amateurs and it shows.
It's amazing this Hollywood thought crime was pursued to the end. All three parts have been commercial failures. You could see the production values decline as each one in turn was produced. The actors kept changing from movie to movie. They had to reintroduce characters with on screen titles. In this last movie key events were reduced to voiced over narrations done as simple lifeless news broadcasts. Like the movie "Dune" it tries to cram everything in from the book . Unless you read the book chances are you'd be totally lost by all the names and things happening.
The ideas still managed to come through but without any sparkle. They sounded more like the high school essays some kids would write. The actor they had for John Galt was not anything like I'd imagined him to be. Knowing how good the book was , watching this movie was more like attending a funeral. I'm still in mourning for this fading light that could have been great. Perhaps it will be remembered by future generations as a dying last gasp of American reason while the former nation of the enlightenment rapidly descends into the nightmare of collectivism and its inevitable tyranny.
The story and dialog are clunky. This is basically a ninety minute sermon. Nobody in real life speaks like this. It makes the story very unwieldy. The Galt hideaway is a huge disappointment. It's a bunch of ski lodges and cabins with a farmer's market. With all the greatest minds in the world, it needs to be a magical Tomorrowland. I was glad when Dr. Floyd Ferris brings out a Star Trek scanner but that's the only thing. Sure Galt has his motor but they don't let it be amazing. It's a horribly flat and boring first half hour. There is an interesting section where Dagny returns home to battle his idiot brother. However, even that section is messed up by simplistic ideas like Minnesota. Apparently Minnesota is the only wheat growing state. It only adds to the ridiculousness. It makes any theory advanced by this movie sound stupid. Then there is the final battle. I didn't know torture requires a complicated machine. It seems like a car battery and a jumper cable would have done the same job. It's also one of the worst guarded torture site ever imagined. It's an ignominious end to a poorly executed story.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe container ship seen seemingly sinking in the opening monologue is the MV Rena, which ran aground on the Astrolabe Reef off the coast of New Zealand's North Island in 2011, due to a course change. The ship subsequently tilted to starboard and split in two, by which time most of the containers aft of the split (two thirds of the ship) had been removed or lost at sea. The aft two thirds of the ship, after being emptied, sheared off of the front section due to tides and bad weather, then sank beneath the surface. The front section's containers were removed, and then the rest of the ship was cut into sections to be removed by salvage.
- GaffesThere's a map of the US in the Taggart Railroad center. In the State of Missouri the cities of Springfield and Jefferson City are reversed in geography.
- Citations
[first lines]
Narrator: This is a story that begins on a warm spring night, at a meeting of the 20th Century Motors employees. It was a night I'll never forget.
Narrator: When the owner of the company died, his children took over and brought in a new plan to run the factory. The plan was that everybody would work as hard as they could, but share in their salaries and the profit based on need. That is, those who claimed they needed the money most, were the ones who got paid the most.
James Taggart: [at podium] This is a crucial moment in the history of this company. Now remember, each of us now belongs to the other, by the moral law we all voted for and we all accept.
John Galt: I don't. I don't accept it.
Narrator: His words caused confusion, but he stood there like a man who knew he was right.
John Galt: And I'm going to put a stop to this once and for all.
James Taggart: How?
John Galt: I'll stop the motor of the world...
[walks out]
- ConnexionsFollows Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt??Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt?
- Lieux de tournage
- Los Angeles, Californie, États-Unis(Park Plaza Hotel)
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 5 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 846 704 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 461 179 $US
- 14 sept. 2014
- Montant brut mondial
- 846 704 $US
- Durée1 heure 39 minutes
- Couleur