P J O'Rourke reviews Atlas movie

[Jerry Biggers]

P.J. O'Rourke, who should need no introduction here, has a review of Atlas Shrugged- Part One, in The Wall Street Journal (or at least their web version).

(WARNING: In order to avoid involuntary loss of bladder control, take the appropriate precautions before reading the review. You've been warned!)

This is a generally favorable, albeit hilarious, review. :lol: :lol: Enjoy it, because as the Reason Online blog has already mentioned, the savaging of the movie by critics has commenced. Some are predictably nasty (e.g., Variety and The Hollywood Reporter).

Now here is O'Rourke (and remember my warning!): http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/04/06/atlas-shrugged-and-so-did-i/

[studiodekadent]

I didn't think The Hollywood Reporter's review was that nasty. It could have been much worse at least. I'd have made a few changes... for one call Greenspan an Ex-Randian and also soften some of the language re: "it is also seen as an abject endorsement of wanton selfishness..." and say "some argue that it is an abject endorsement of wanton selfishness..." (because our use of "selfish" is not the same as the common use of the term, plus we hardly argue for the right of the rich to 'rule' the many).

Otherwise, yeah, haters gonna hate. Always.

[anthony]

P.J. O'Rourke, who should need no introduction here, has a

Jerry,

Good old PJ - yes, I devoured everything he wrote.

I have always thought there was some small 'o' objectivism in humour (or, is that the other way round...?)

Whatever - how many writers can bring you the truth with a laugh, without being snide and nasty?

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

P.J. O'Rourke, who should need no introduction here, has a review of Atlas Shrugged- Part One, in The Wall Street Journal (or at least their web version).

(WARNING: In order to avoid involuntary loss of bladder control, take the appropriate precautions before reading the review. You've been warned!)

This is a generally favorable, albeit hilarious, review. :lol: :lol: Enjoy it, because as the Reason Online blog has already mentioned, the savaging of the movie by critics has commenced. Some are predictably nasty (e.g., Variety and The Hollywood Reporter).

Now here is O'Rourke (and remember my warning!): http://blogs.wsj.com...d-and-so-did-i/

Absolutely a pisser.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jerry Biggers]

Here's the link to the Reason online article that mentions O'Rourke and some other reviews. Also, reprises (in a sidebar) all the past cover article pictures of Rand that Reason magazine has featured over the last 40 years.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/11/some-notable-atlas-shrugged-mo

BTW, Roger Ebert (yawn) gives it one star out of four (which nicely sums up his review), but basically, after the now obligatory snide one-sentence misrepresentation of her philosophy, criticizes the movie as having poor production values, and as one that will not be understood by those not familiar with Rand's novel. He does not reveal whether he has read the book.

[Jerry Biggers]

I didn't think The Hollywood Reporter's review was that nasty. It could have been much worse at least. I'd have made a few changes... for one call Greenspan an Ex-Randian and also soften some of the language re: "it is also seen as an abject endorsement of wanton selfishness..." and say "some argue that it is an abject endorsement of wanton selfishness..." (because our use of "selfish" is not the same as the common use of the term, plus we hardly argue for the right of the rich to 'rule' the many).

Otherwise, yeah, haters gonna hate. Always.

Judging from the links that Google lists for "Atlas Shrugged Part one movie review,"

the MSM and their blogging buddies, are already out in full force doing their best (well, worst) to trash the movie and dissuade potential viewers.

Paraphrasing Claude Rains' character in Casablanca, "I'm shocked...shocked, that this sort of movie-making is going on here!"

[basimpson22]

I found this piece in one of J.B.'s links.

Newspaper editorial from the Daily News Record: A staple of modern libertarian thinking in some ways codified into the law, Objectivism is radically anti-Christian, denies the natural and moral law and assumes that man exists solely as an individual whose highest goal is satisfying his cupidity and concupiscence. It suggests that mankind is a collection of aimless atoms that bounce off of each other occasionally, but otherwise bear no selfless reciprocal duties or imperatives. Indeed, Rand thought selfishness was a virtue.

Such an ideology denies reality. For one thing, history teaches us that mankind everywhere has always lived under some political authority. As well, men and women are not just individuals, but members of families, communities and towns who work and live together. The natural and moral law, as well as revelation, commands them to be good members of society and to love one another as they love themselves. The law commands this not because a neighbor demands it, but because God expects it as a matter of charity and justice, although he leaves men free to disobey him. Rand vigorously and viciously rejected these simple Christian injunctions.

Objectivism, then, is objectively evil, the merits of Rand’s arguments about collectivism regardless. [..]

I put this propagandist article up to see it be ripped apart by my fellow OL'ers.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Aristocrates

[anthony]

As well, men and women are not just individuals, but members of families, communities and towns who work and live together. The natural and moral law, as well as revelation, commands them to be good members of society and to love one another as they love themselves. The law commands this not because a neighbor demands it, but because God expects it as a matter of charity and justice, although he leaves men free to disobey him. Rand vigorously and viciously rejected these simple Christian injunctions.

Objectivism, then, is objectively evil, the merits of Rand’s arguments about collectivism regardless. [..]

I put this propagandist article up to see it be ripped apart by my fellow OL'ers.

Aristo,

It pretty much rips itself apart. Arguments from authority, and the old one that to be egoistic prohibits valuing family, or anyone else. As for working and living together with "communities and towns", the Trader Principle,

common self-interest, and goodwill, answers that.

Forget explaining it to this guy with his "selfless reciprocal duties and imperatives", if he won't understand the meaning of hierarchical values.

Tony

[Jerry Biggers]

Some Christian (with a capital C) conservatives have attacked the movie as they did the book, as "evil."

BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND,....

Here is syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas (who once was the spokesman for Jerry Falwell's group, The Moral Majority ) extolling the virtues of the film in his newspaper column which is also on the conservative media-watch group, "Newsbusters." And this from a vocal Christian conservative.

Read: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/cal-thomas/2011/04/15/go-see-atlas-shrugged-movie

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

Thanks for the link.

They indicate that everything they say is important by not using contractions.

O'Rourke at his finest.

Robert Campbell

[syrakusos]

Sorry. I like P.J. O'Rourke. (What's the Saudi National Anthem? "Onward Christian Soldiers.") But this did not move me. I thought that his non-funny second half was very correct.