Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 - Either-Or

thank you very much

Good movie!

source: Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 - Either-Or

Just saw and am impressed! Had read the book and it provided some background to the film but it certainly is not necessary to understand or enjoy it. So many relevant themes to discuss with friends afterward that we had to move out of the way for the staff to ready the room for the next showing. The movie was recast and it was interesting to see how. Considering the book clocks in at over a thousand pages and has many speeches, the movie clearly delivers the main points while maintaining a brisk pace. Particularly loved how Francisco's many page money monologue was cleverly broken up using prompts from other actors and lasted a few minutes while delivering powerful ideas. And it has a scene including Teller from Penn & Teller talking!

I haven't read the 1100 page book, Atlas Shrugged, written in 1957! I liked Part 1 very much. I loved part 2. Forget ghosts, paranormal, aliens, zombies....this is the scariest movie I've ever seen. And we're living it right now. I didn't even notice a change in the casting of characters. I didn't remember. And it doesn't matter. The story is great and extremely relevant to today. Even if you haven't seen Part I you will stay engaged with the story and be riveted to your seat. I thought it played like a high budget Hollywood movie. Decent special effects in my opinion very good acting. Scary. Hard to be left hanging until 2014 for Part III. Hope we're all still around to see it.

Well that's 1hr 52 minutes that I will never get back. The acting was simply awful. The plot seemed like it was written by a sixth grader. There wasn't even an attempt at character development. It would have been nice if the message was artfully woven into the story rather than being beaten over the head with it for almost two hours. It was clear that parts of the story were merely a set-up for poorly written speeches rather than fitting into a well written story. I'm not even sure if it qualifies as a 'B' movie. They could have saved the money and just had us sit there looking at a flashing neon sign with the same message for over an hour. It would have been just as subtle. The premise could have been interesting. I really wish they would have at least tried. The best part of the movie was the Junior Mints I purchased at the concession stand.

I just got back from seeing this with my two adult boys. Having read the book twice, I knew what to expect. While the first movie was OK, I think this was a little more accurate to the book, but the acting was very weak, especially the part of Henry Reardon. They needed some younger actors/actresses for the parts of Dagny, Hank and Eddie. James Taggert was fairly well portrayed, as was his "five and dime" wife. Reardon's wife, Lillian, pulled off the role fairly well too. Whether your believe the Rand Philosophy or not, I think most can agree that the government takes too much control of our lives. This story exaggerates it to a degree, but to hear Obama say to business owners, "You didn't build that," I can see that as a first step to Nationalization of Businesses. This movie could have been a nine star if it had good players, but poor casting drops it to a 7.

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.

I am writing this in the hopes that I can spare somebody the frustration of having wasted their precious time by watching this film. This has got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen, and I am ashamed at having sat through it. Probably because I hoped that it would get better or have SOME redeeming value. The characters are flat, unattractive, the theme, that of state versus free enterprise in a context of economic crisis, is but shallow propaganda of the knee-jerk type, with everything turned around. I have never read Ayn Rand from who's novel this film was taken, but now guess that she is the darling of the kind of paranoid individuals who religiously watch Fox News as if it were anything but a sick joke, The political arguments are a mere travesty of any sort of intelligent thought or analysis. The plot mechanisms are completely flat and unbelievable. In fact just about everything in the film is unbelievable. It's pretty outrageous that financing was found to make such a film, but I guess some right wing lunatics (and I mean that word literally, anyone buying into this film's thesis is borderline insane if not worse,) use every means possible to spew their nonsense. If you are intelligent or sane, you will probably be angry at yourself if you watch this film all the way through.

I love Ayn Rand's works, especially Atlas Shrugged. I saw part 1 of this series twice, and thought it was pretty good. This is not the Atlas Shrugged film rendition of my dreams, but it is a serious and respectful presentation of her story, ideas and attitudes. The story has been brought out of its age (the fifties) to our times. This works, but is not what I would have preferred. The principles are timeless - why not present them as she did? The main characters (Dagny, Hank, Francisco) are done very well and do seem like Rand heroes. This is critical, of course, and is the best aspect of the movie. The film is also faithful to the main story line, though much has been left out. Not everything can fit in the time allowed. If you admire Rand, or don't know her, I think you should go to this. The ideas are important, and it is a pleasure to see them in action in a great story.