"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[Backlighting]

A review from the N.Y. Post:

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/rand_old_time_for_ayn_adherents_yK8YmADIKXJ6ARzqRpPotN

& from the WSJ:

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/04/15/will-conservatives-make-atlas-shrugged-a-hit/

Edited April 17, 2011 by Las Vegas

[Backlighting]

From American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/atlas_shrugged_part_i.html

[rhartford]

A Tea Party group in Charlotte, NC sent an email with an offer of a group rate they negotiated with a local theater.

Forty of us will meet together and attend the 2:40 showing on Saturday. A good way to build enthusiam and buzz.

An update: 100 Tea Partiers attended, along with 250 others in the 400 seat venue for the 2:40 show.

The next showing at 5:10 had to be expanded to two screens in the 22 screen multiplex. A good sign.

[CNA]

I was sent a link to a review yesterday that sparked interest for me and piqued my curiosity of course. When reading the review in particular the part below, I wanted to see the movie again and what changes had been made in turn making it more marketable, successful, and appealing to their target audience:

But, David told me that the people who created the film had been working on it constantly since we’d seen the first version a month ago.

They redid all the color, made changes in every aspect, and Aglialoro rewrote the closing monologue.

The entire review can be found here: Iris Bell: Upon seeing Atlas Shrugged a second time

Of course, I wanted to see it again and I did but this time a much better impression this time around.

I noticed there are quite a few changes, changes that span the entire movie. There wasn't a substantial emotional draw that you see with some movies but the emotional draw is there definitely. I wasn't crying obviously at the end or the need for tissue but tears this time around came to my eyes at the end and there is some type of psychological "visibility" and identification with Dagny -- knowing her struggle, what she's going through, and the viewer being able to understand it, putting these two together!! The other characters in the movie, there's not much of this visibility and still lacks but Dagny is the main character and their focussed attention was well chosen and bringing Dagny into the realm of visibility.

The closing monologue rewrite is substantial and giving it more "meat" and "substance" closing it out wonderfully. It helped tie in and integrating just enough of some of the events of the movie and WHY (not a full explanation but more than enough), especially the ending and seeing Dagny frantically going through the house and then her seeing Wyatt's fields ablaze while Galt is speaking, leaving the viewer drawn in with some intellectual understanding and curiosity and food for thought at the same time, making them yearn to see the next installment. Wonderful!!! I am now wanting to see part 2 and looking forward to its release!!!!!

I would like to write more and in-depth but always not having a lot of time for forums and such. But scenes were added. Scenes were deleted. Dialogue was changed. It flows so much better from scene to scene and I wasn't left with the photographer's shots of seeing the what, what, what and that is it and nothing to lead into the next scene. It bogs down in some areas and drags but the changes definitely are for the better and the editing they did overrides these flaws.

Some of the issues weren't fixed entirely but they were lessened tremendously and improved. Since the money speech is not in Part 1, Galt's speech at the end and seeing the closing monologue of his, instead of thinking what the hell and that's a bit creepy and weird factor that I got from my viewing in February in Los Angeles was changed to thoughts of Yes, Yes, Yes upon seeing it this time around. He did a good job with the rewrite. These changes that were made to the movie have taken the movie out of the ranks of mediocrity!!! It won't be a life changer. That may come in Part 2 or Part 3, depending on how they handle it. But they did a good job with the revamp and it definitely shows!!!! Job well done!!! Hopefully it will get tremendous amounts of coverage because the impact this movie can have, especially now and much needed, is substantial and a political shift in this country. I will definitely recommend the movie now.

Angie

[Kat]

I'm so glad that you like it now. After I saw it, I still kind of wondered why you gave it the thumbs down. because certainly it wasn't all that bad...Now we know that you saw a much different version.

I guess one of the advantages of having this movie made independently is that the producers actually listened and made changes. Sure, we all probably wish it had some star power behind it and a few more of the rough edges were filed down, but it just didn't turn out that way. I'm glad Freedomworks and other tea party groups are supportive of it. I actually only expected lukewarm support from the tea party considering Rand's atheism... but that wasn't terribly evident in part 1.

The fans demanded it and the number of theaters showing it was expanded. It is playing in my town, one of the most liberal areas of the country... Leningrad on the Lake. I hope the movie enjoys great success and part 2 comes out on schedule - April 15, 2012.

Kat

[Jerry Biggers]

I was sent a link to a review yesterday that sparked interest for me and piqued my curiosity of course. When reading the review in particular the part below, I wanted to see the movie again and what changes had been made in turn making it more marketable, successful, and appealing to their target audience:

But, David told me that the people who created the film had been working on it constantly since we’d seen the first version a month ago.

They redid all the color, made changes in every aspect, and Aglialoro rewrote the closing monologue.

The entire review can be found here: Iris Bell: Upon seeing Atlas Shrugged a second time

Of course, I wanted to see it again and I did but this time a much better impression this time around.

I noticed there are quite a few changes, changes that span the entire movie. There wasn't a substantial emotional draw that you see with some movies but the emotional draw is there definitely. I wasn't crying obviously at the end or the need for tissue but tears this time around came to my eyes at the end and there is some type of psychological "visibility" and identification with Dagny -- knowing her struggle, what she's going through, and the viewer being able to understand it, putting these two together!! The other characters in the movie, there's not much of this visibility and still lacks but Dagny is the main character and their focussed attention was well chosen and bringing Dagny into the realm of visibility.

The closing monologue rewrite is substantial and giving it more "meat" and "substance" closing it out wonderfully. It helped tie in and integrating just enough of some of the events of the movie and WHY (not a full explanation but more than enough), especially the ending and seeing Dagny frantically going through the house and then her seeing Wyatt's fields ablaze while Galt is speaking, leaving the viewer drawn in with some intellectual understanding and curiosity and food for thought at the same time, making them yearn to see the next installment. Wonderful!!! I am now wanting to see part 2 and looking forward to its release!!!!!

I would like to write more and in-depth but always not having a lot of time for forums and such. But scenes were added. Scenes were deleted. Dialogue was changed. It flows so much better from scene to scene and I wasn't left with the photographer's shots of seeing the what, what, what and that is it and nothing to lead into the next scene. It bogs down in some areas and drags but the changes definitely are for the better and the editing they did overrides these flaws.

Some of the issues weren't fixed entirely but they were lessened tremendously and improved. Since the money speech is not in Part 1, Galt's speech at the end and seeing the closing monologue of his, instead of thinking what the hell and that's a bit creepy and weird factor that I got from my viewing in February in Los Angeles was changed to thoughts of Yes, Yes, Yes upon seeing it this time around. He did a good job with the rewrite. These changes that were made to the movie have taken the movie out of the ranks of mediocrity!!! It won't be a life changer. That may come in Part 2 or Part 3, depending on how they handle it. But they did a good job with the revamp and it definitely shows!!!! Job well done!!! Hopefully it will get tremendous amounts of coverage because the impact this movie can have, especially now and much needed, is substantial and a political shift in this country. I will definitely recommend the movie now.

Angie

"rewrote the closing monologue...." Huh? What "closing monologue?"

Galt (which, in the version I saw, fit in with P.J. O'Rourke's quip that the character was "played by a raincoat" ) barely appears at all, and then only in shadows, issues a few words to his chosen targets, and then quickly disappears. I saw A.S. about a month or so ago in Washington, and I don't remember any "monologue" at the end of the movie. (Has senility already set in? Was I in a fugue state?? Exactly how many different versions of this movie are now in print?? ).

The movie I recall seeing has the ending scene of Dagny screaming, "Nooo! as she watches Wyatt's oil fields on fire. I haven't had the chance to see the movie since it opened, but now I also want to see the "original" (or at least the one shown in D.C., when I last saw it) to see what I missed.

[PDS]

A very favorable review of the film can be found at Hot Air.

Money quote: "The best word to describe Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is … surprising. It’s surprisingly well-paced, surprisingly intelligent, surprisingly well-acted, and surprisingly entertaining. Perhaps most surprising of all, it has me thinking about re-reading the novel again. I would highly recommend it to friends and their families."

[CNA]

I'm so glad that you like it now. After I saw it, I still kind of wondered why you gave it the thumbs down. because certainly it wasn't all that bad...Now we know that you saw a much different version.

I guess one of the advantages of having this movie made independently is that the producers actually listened and made changes. Sure, we all probably wish it had some star power behind it and a few more of the rough edges were filed down, but it just didn't turn out that way. I'm glad Freedomworks and other tea party groups are supportive of it. I actually only expected lukewarm support from the tea party considering Rand's atheism... but that wasn't terribly evident in part 1.

The fans demanded it and the number of theaters showing it was expanded. It is playing in my town, one of the most liberal areas of the country... Leningrad on the Lake. I hope the movie enjoys great success and part 2 comes out on schedule - April 15, 2012.

Kat

The differences between the two versions aren't completely different. The two versions are the same for the most part but the minor changes made to it throughout were noticeable obviously for myself and for Iris Bell as well. It's not choppy and it flows so much easier now. I noticed a few scenes where the dialogue had changed, not a lot, but enough. I also saw a few scenes that I don't remember seeing in the first version and remember thinking to myself, "That's new." These changes made throughout enhanced it A LOT. But the biggest change was the ending monologue and tying some of the events together as to the what and why. There's not a full explanation of course but it's so much "meatier." At the preview screening and seeing this part, there was very little said by Galt but enough to give me, Wow, that was creepy and a bit weird.

I'm wanting to see it again!!! And looking forward to Part 2!! Much different response from the first time.

Angie

[CNA]

I was sent a link to a review yesterday that sparked interest for me and piqued my curiosity of course. When reading the review in particular the part below, I wanted to see the movie again and what changes had been made in turn making it more marketable, successful, and appealing to their target audience:

But, David told me that the people who created the film had been working on it constantly since we’d seen the first version a month ago.

They redid all the color, made changes in every aspect, and Aglialoro rewrote the closing monologue.

The entire review can be found here: Iris Bell: Upon seeing Atlas Shrugged a second time

Of course, I wanted to see it again and I did but this time a much better impression this time around.

I noticed there are quite a few changes, changes that span the entire movie. There wasn't a substantial emotional draw that you see with some movies but the emotional draw is there definitely. I wasn't crying obviously at the end or the need for tissue but tears this time around came to my eyes at the end and there is some type of psychological "visibility" and identification with Dagny -- knowing her struggle, what she's going through, and the viewer being able to understand it, putting these two together!! The other characters in the movie, there's not much of this visibility and still lacks but Dagny is the main character and their focussed attention was well chosen and bringing Dagny into the realm of visibility.

The closing monologue rewrite is substantial and giving it more "meat" and "substance" closing it out wonderfully. It helped tie in and integrating just enough of some of the events of the movie and WHY (not a full explanation but more than enough), especially the ending and seeing Dagny frantically going through the house and then her seeing Wyatt's fields ablaze while Galt is speaking, leaving the viewer drawn in with some intellectual understanding and curiosity and food for thought at the same time, making them yearn to see the next installment. Wonderful!!! I am now wanting to see part 2 and looking forward to its release!!!!!

I would like to write more and in-depth but always not having a lot of time for forums and such. But scenes were added. Scenes were deleted. Dialogue was changed. It flows so much better from scene to scene and I wasn't left with the photographer's shots of seeing the what, what, what and that is it and nothing to lead into the next scene. It bogs down in some areas and drags but the changes definitely are for the better and the editing they did overrides these flaws.

Some of the issues weren't fixed entirely but they were lessened tremendously and improved. Since the money speech is not in Part 1, Galt's speech at the end and seeing the closing monologue of his, instead of thinking what the hell and that's a bit creepy and weird factor that I got from my viewing in February in Los Angeles was changed to thoughts of Yes, Yes, Yes upon seeing it this time around. He did a good job with the rewrite. These changes that were made to the movie have taken the movie out of the ranks of mediocrity!!! It won't be a life changer. That may come in Part 2 or Part 3, depending on how they handle it. But they did a good job with the revamp and it definitely shows!!!! Job well done!!! Hopefully it will get tremendous amounts of coverage because the impact this movie can have, especially now and much needed, is substantial and a political shift in this country. I will definitely recommend the movie now.

Angie

"rewrote the closing monologue...." Huh? What "closing monologue?"

Galt (which, in the version I saw, fit in with P.J. O'Rourke's quip that the character was "played by a raincoat" ) barely appears at all, and then only in shadows, issues a few words to his chosen targets, and then quickly disappears. I saw A.S. about a month or so ago in Washington, and I don't remember any "monologue" at the end of the movie. (Has senility already set in? Was I in a fugue state?? Exactly how many different versions of this movie are now in print?? ).

The movie I recall seeing has the ending scene of Dagny screaming, "Nooo! as she watches Wyatt's oil fields on fire. I haven't had the chance to see the movie since it opened, but now I also want to see the "original" (or at least the one shown in D.C., when I last saw it) to see what I missed.

I too would like to see the one I saw in February. There is closing monologue in the first one by Galt when Dagny is running through the house and then out to the fields but it wasn't substantial at all the first time I saw it. Being a photographer and remembering some of the comps in the shots of Dagny screaming, this has also been changed a bit and what I can remember from the first time to this time. The closing monologue by Galt at the end in the first one gave me a creep factor and thinking, eek, that was weird. But this one is soooo much better. Two partial sentences from his speaking in that closing monologue stands out in my mind and that is......who choose to be heroes...and then...I can take you to Atlantis at the closing of it. Thinking to myself after hearing it which is "meatier" and gives a bit of an explanation, not a lot, but enough, I thought, Yes, Yes, Yes....so much better and tied in events.

Angie

[Backlighting]

A very favorable review from PJTV. There's a short video first:

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=5267

Edited April 17, 2011 by Las Vegas

[Backlighting]

The reviews continue to roll in. Go to-

http://randex.org/index.php

[Backlighting]

From Barrons:

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970204261904576242861234092844.html

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's an oddity (I hope it's an oddity):

A White Nationalist Review of “Atlas Shrugged, Part I”

On the same site:

The Atlas Shrugged Film: A Christian Review

Ellen

[basimpson22]

I applaud the white nationalist review. He hit the nail on the head. Plainly, the movie "sucked".

[Ellen Stuttle]

I applaud the white nationalist review. He hit the nail on the head. Plainly, the movie "sucked".

What nail do you mean?

Here's a section from the review:

link

A White Nationalist Review of “Atlas Shrugged, Part I”

by Trevor Lynch

Posted on 19 April, 2011 by Dr Sean Gabb

The Fountainhead can be read profitably alongside The Culture of Critique, for it effectively dramatizes the techniques of Jewish subversion of American society. Rand’s villain Ellsworth Toohey sums up his game as playing the stock market of the spirit—and selling short, meaning profiting from the decline of our values, which pretty much sums up the rise of American Jewry to the top of our society on a tide of smut, decadence, degeneracy, lobbying, swindling, pop culture, and casino capitalism.

Rand, of course, never saw it that way, and Rand’s own movement Objectivism is just as much a Jewish intellectual movement as the Frankfurt School. Although they use very different arguments, they function to produce the same result: a radical individualism that renders cohesive ethnic groups like Jews invisible to the majority, which maximizes their collective security and upward mobility, since cohesive collectives have a systematic advantage in competing with isolated individuals. (Rand called the mostly-Jewish inner circle of her movement “the collective.” It is supposed to be a joke, but the joke may be deeper than most people imagine.)

Atlas Shrugged, moreover, lends itself to a racial interpretation. Atlas Shrugged is about how a creative and productive minority is exploited by an inferior majority because of the acceptance of a false moral code (altruism) that beatifies the weak and pegs the worth of the strong to how well they serve their inferiors. When one asks “What is the race of Atlas?” it all falls into place. The Atlas that upholds the modern world is the White race, which is being enslaved and destroyed by the acceptance of a false moral code (racial altruism) that teaches that non-Whites fail to meet White standards only because of White wickedness, and that Whites can only expiate this racial guilt by giving their wealth and power and societies to non-Whites.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Excerpts from another review posted on the Libertarian Alliance site:

Review of The Atlas Shrugged Film

by James Kirkpatrick

Posted on 18 April, 2011 by Dr Sean Gabb

[....]

The book was written in 1957 and reflects its time. All of the heroes are titans of industry that are actually industries. [....]

As even a third of Atlas Shrugged is too much to film, the movie focuses on three main subplots. First, there are the technical struggles by Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden to save their businesses and the country. [....]

The second subplot is the gradual escalation of socialism within Washington DC. One of the greatest joys of Rand’s books is her stunningly vitriolic portrait of parlor room socialists and trendy intellectuals. Michael Lerner (the actor, not the socialist rabbi) is the only actor that will you will recognize in the movie and he captures the grubby mannerisms, bloated appearance, and squinty eyed scheming that you would associate with lobbyists and bureaucrats. However, the movie fails to capture the general feel of the cocktail parties and closed door meetings that Rand managed to convey, that mysterious progressive mind meld of uniform viewpoints on politics, aesthetics, and culture that Joe Sobran termed “The Hive.”

Instead, the movie downplays the philosophical and cultural motivations of the socialists and presents them simply as materialistic schemers, which undermines Rand’s larger point about the roots of accomplishment and productivity on one hand and altruism and failure on the other.

The final subplot is the affair between Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart. [....] the movie distorts, and really destroys, the motivation behind Rearden and Dagny’s affair. [....]

The character of Francisco d’Anconia is similarly rendered pointless. [....]

If Rand’s novels have been accused of having characters that simply serve as empty vessels for ideas, the movie has stripped away even the ideas from the main characters, giving us no reason to care about these people.

The movie also strips away what was truly original and subversive in Rand’s vision. Rather than a savage critique of egalitarianism and the proud worship of hierarchy, beauty, and excellence, not just in politics but in humanity, it gives us vague policy prescriptions and laugh lines for the libertarian crowd. [....] Rather than presenting a certain “sense of life,” as Rand suggested, it basically tells us to donate to the CATO Institute and read Reason.

This is what the backers of the film intend and it will succeed on this front, despite the low production values. [....] Once released, safe and snug and protected from any of the subversive implications of Rand’s thought and with issues of sociobiology, culture, and identity easily abstracted away to nonexistence, the movie will do quite well and live on as a cult classic regardless of its limited theatrical release.

The problem is that the real world policy prescriptions of those promoting the movie don’t fit with Rand’s vision. [....]

Even the promotional literature distributed by the makers of the movie doesn’t really reflect reality. It says, “What would happen if our producers disappear—Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin, and other industrialists fall off the radar… their creative genius no longer powering America?” Of course, there are two problems here. One is titans of industry at the time Rand wrote her book were actual titans of industry that conquered nature and created new things. Today, fortunes are made on the Internet, which essentially lets us consume more efficiently or “create” things that only exist online. The second problem is that the titans of industry listed here are progressives. [....]

Rand’s vision, whatever else one thinks of it, was unique. It transcended itself and contained implications that went beyond Rand’s actual policy positions and philosophy. Despite its flaws, Atlas Shrugged is one of the most forthright defenses of the aristocratic principle ever penned. It’s also a profound critique of the phony economy of banker and government manipulation and paean to an economy of production. In this film, it has been transformed into a call to let the likes of George Soros and Warren Buffett pay fewer taxes, despite their own wishes, and to turn this holy cause into the rallying point of the conservative movement. Unfortunately, I have no doubt the film will accomplish its purpose.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The Christian review previously linked in post #438 is perceptive with its mostly (not entirely) getting Rand right and its warning to Christians of irreconcilable basic differences between Christianity and Objectivism.

Here again is the link to the Libertarian Alliance posting:

The Atlas Shrugged Film: A Christian Review

Here's a link to the original blog post on a site called "Gracelifer" hosted by a preacher named Richard Jordan:

We Saw Atlas Shrugged

One of the comments on the blog post quotes a letter from Ludwig von Mises to Ayn Rand dated January 23, 1956 -- direct link.

Here's the meat of the review:

Monday, April 18, 2011

We Saw Atlas Shrugged

[by Richard Jordan]

[....]

Which brings me to a point that needs to be made: In our current cultural clamor to reconstruct a society which once again will celebrate individual achievement and enlightened self-interest, we need to be informed about those to whom we give our ear.

Ayn Rand was the “mother” of the Objectivist movement. She (as well as this movement) was outspokenly atheistic and demonstratively anti-religion. Although she/they saw “religion” mainly in terms of Catholicism, she/they rejected out of hand the idea of faith and revelation as the basis for any epistemology (i.e, view of knowledge), code of ethics/values or view of reality. This needs to be understood clearly by those believers who seem to be enamored by her work. Her basic philosophy is anti-god-in-any-and-all-forms.

The Objectivist school bases its understanding of social and societal construct solely on human virtues, reason and intellect, while denouncing as impossibly irrelevant any idea of faith or God. To them the idea of “pride as a virtue” is paramount; the idea it may be a “sin” is scandalous.

For Rand and her followers, both then and now, the watchwords are not faith, God, service; but rather: reason, nature, happiness, man. The absolute, which must guide everything, is the principle of reason; every other idea must meet this test. It is in this approach–in this fundamental rejection of faith–that their philosophy lies. For them, faith is simply “belief in the absence of evidence.”

And it is the propagation of this philosophy that lies at the heart of this novel. When Rand first discussed the publishing of her work with Random House, she reports that she told them, “This work is an extreme, uncompromising defense of capitalism and free enterprise and presents a new philosophy…a new morality….A direct affront to Judeo-Christian values.”

Thus the book works from a premise of abandonment of God, the belief that we have a right to exist for ourselves, opposition to the concept of “sinful” man, the pursuit of happiness as a worthy and ultimate goal coupled with the need for a lack of compassion, charity and humility.

So, my friends, in your search for those to help buttress your economic/political/social model or an idealized Americana, be aware that the Rand model will broach no allowance for a deity, divine revelation or a sinful/in need of redemption man, nor the idea of self-sacrifice as a virtue. No. This is a totally sufficient man, with no need of a belief in an unknown and unknowable “other” and no goal beyond a worthy pride.

It is their view that because this world is of vital importance, the definitive motive of man’s action should be the pursuit of happiness. Because the individual, not a supernatural power, is the creator of wealth, a person should have the right to private property, the right to keep and use or trade his own product. And because man is basically good, they insist, there is no need to leash him; there is nothing to fear in setting free a rational animal.

Thus is the ideal of the author of Atlas Shrugged. It is an ideal doomed to fail. See Romans 1:19-25.

[Ellen Stuttle]

This just appeared today on Mises.org:

Atlas Shrugged: Sanitized and On the Fly

Mises Daily: Monday, April 25, 2011 by Doug French

[....]

The movie is being described as good to great by a number of libertarians, but there's a reason it's grabbing only 7 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, as opposed to, say, 96 percent for The Social Network.

However, some of the negative reviews are not all that negative. This is no left-wing movie-critic conspiracy.

There is no reason to provide a broad review of the film. P.J. O'Rourke has done it best to my view. As he says, "the uninitiated will feel they've wandered without a guide into the midst of the elaborate and interminable rituals of some obscure exotic tribe."

For those familiar with Rand's book, the movie looks like it was done on the fly and sanitized for the 21st century. [....]

[Reidy]

Several reviewers, not just O'Rourke, said the movie would be hard to follow for viewers who hadn't read the book. Presumably none of us can judge this directly, but does anyone out there have indirect evidence one way or the other, e.g. from friends whose first experience with the story was on the screen?

[PDS]

My 10 year old daughter loved it...

[Backlighting]

I've been following the reviews on randex.org

I'd say 8 out of 10 are mostly negative. These are mainly newspaper columnists and bloggers.

Disappointing.

[basimpson22]

I've been following the reviews on randex.org

I'd say 8 out of 10 are mostly negative. These are mainly newspaper columnists and bloggers.

Disappointing.

Disappointing? I say, justifiable.

[9thdoctor]

On Slate.com they're doing victory laps over the lower per-theater revenue figures for the second weekend.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/25/audiences-shrugged.aspx

I wonder if Easter is normally a good weekend for movie theaters.

[9thdoctor]

Steven Colbert did a segment on the movie Wednesday. Zap ahead to about 11 1/2 minutes in. It's not a friendly piece, but it's some attention at least.

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-may-4-2011-amy-farrell?xrs=share_copy

[william.scherk]

Steven Colbert did a segment on the movie Wednesday. Zap ahead to about 11 1/2 minutes in. It's not a friendly piece, but it's some attention at least.

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-may-4-2011-amy-farrell?xrs=share_copy

I have been keeping track of the box-office via Boxofficemojo.com -- it's a pretty good tool for watching trends and making comparisons. ASII has been on screens for 21 days, and has moved in between a rank of 14 and a rank of 22. It is currently holding constant around the twenty rank, and seems to be relatively consistent in its earnings after the initial drop-off, skirting up and down around a daily total of 50 thousand bucks, having earned an estimated gross of $4,143,344 to date.

It could simply carry on at this rate, shedding a few theatres, but still chugging along. If we look at box office mojo in a month, in two months, in three, we might find that it is one of those rare films that keeps on bringing home the bacon for the producers over the long haul.

Edited May 7, 2011 by william.scherk