Atlas Shrugged: Part III

They may have taken a few liberties with the original story and plot. Dagny is supposed to be strong submissive and intellectual. In part three we have Dagny toting a gun. Why not just give her an ax?

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.

A car company changes its pay structure to one based on the workers' needs. John Galt (Kristoffer Polaha) refuses to go along and vows to stop the motor of the world. He convinces other industry leaders to go on strike and disappear to his hideaway. He has also invented a revolutionary engine to power the world. Dagny Taggart (Laura Regan) goes in search for the mysterious John Galt. Her plane is brought down by an electrical shield and Galt carries her out of the wreckage. She decides to return to the world to fight for her railroad business against the dictatorial Head of State Thompson and her incompetent brother James Taggart (Greg Germann). Meanwhile the world is collapsing without the captains of industrial and under attack from the pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld.

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.

This movie is terrible. I've read the book and this is not a representation of it. This movie is a let down on every front. The story line is scabbed together. The cinematography is terrible. Acting is less than second rate. Cohesion sucks. There is less climax in this movie than there is in a retirement home. What's with the music in the movie? Every transition scene has this grandiose symphony playing, making it seem like there is a plot point or twist coming up.

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.

Following on from Part II of the series, Dagny Taggart has at last has met John Galt. He and all the missing entrepreneurs, academics etc are living in a secret location. Dagny now has to make a choice: remain with the intellectuals or head back into the world where the government is oppressing its own people and stifling innovation and entrepreneurship.

After the first two films in the series I wasn't expecting much from this but wanted to see how the story ends. The film lived up to my expectations.

As before, the story is quite clumsy, character engagement is close to non-existent and the performances aren't the greatest but the themes are interesting, relatable and supportable. Continuity from the previous film is also a bit suspect

On that note, once again, the entire cast has been changed, diminishing any character familiarity or engagement. Why do that - a three film-series with common characters but entirely different casts for each film? Would it have been more expensive to sign actors to three-film deals? Makes for some weird character (non-) continuity, e.g. Dagny Taggart was played by 27-year-old Taylor Schilling in Part I, 42-year-old Samantha Mathis in Part II and now 37-year-old Laura Regan in Part III. So how old is her character?

In some ways the cast change is a positive as the actors are better than those in Part II but that wasn't difficult to achieve.

There are some broader positives though. Part III does tie up reasonably well, though with some degree of deliberate open-endedness. The anti-government, pro-capitalism themes of the first two films are now even stronger here and are well illustrated.

As was also the case with the first two films, the themes and broad storyline are very good, just a pity the execution is so mediocre.

When i thought that Part II was worse than Part I, Part III went one step further. With another change in the cast, it's been difficult again to follow what's been going on.

With the ideas of Ayn Rand diluted in sub-par writing and below average acting, Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? became a perfect background for an afternoon nap. No pun intended.

Once again, i'm not sure why the producers insisted on making three movies instead of opting for a TV show. Nowadays this seems to be a gateway to a broader audience. Besides, the book Atlas Shrugged had enough contents and ideas for eight to ten one-hour episodes.