Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike

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.

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.

This movie series is based upon the book by Ayn Rand. It is a political movie with a sci-fi, world of the future flair. What is the world like when the "rich pay their fair share" is taken to extremes? What if the most talented people begin to disappear? And who is John Gault? One problem with this movie is that you need to have seen Part 1 first. It is currently available streaming on Netflix. The second problem is that none of the actors/actresses in Part 1 are in Part 2, even though their characters are. This discontinuity is disturbing, especially since the actors in Part 1 were better. The third problem (minor I agree) is that the Foley (sound) artist seems to think that a jet sounds like a WWII propeller plane when it goes by. The fourth and biggest problem is that there is a Part 3 to the story, but no announcement that Part 3 is in production. If this movie does poorly, there may not be a Part 3 and you'd be left hanging unless you buy and read the book. It doesn't look too promising since there were three people in the theater when I saw it (including me). I was pulled into the story (both Part 1 and 2), so I didn't find it a waste of time. But I'm going to have to get the book to find out the ending. My recommendation is that unless you're a die-hard movie goer like me, pass on this movie.

Just saw the film, and was disappointed that the original cast wasn't involved. The 2 lead characters, Dabney and Henry, don't have the same appeal or chemistry as the leads in part 1. The film seemed very uneven, and didn't flow well enough to engage the audience, but the thematic material was so relevant to what is going on in America today, that I'm sure every audience member was angered at what was a very clear representation of the destruction of America, as we've known it, which is in progress today, because of the 99%ers. This film is ultra relevant, and should be seen by as many people as possible, just like "2016, Obama's America". People have got to start acknowledging that socialism is destructive, de-motivating and only a cover up for an "elite" group who will have total control of everything and everyone. See the film, for the message. In that context, it's very powerful.

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....