Atlas Shrugged Part II Reviews

[9thdoctor]

Here's mine, and we may as well have just one thread for reviews, like last time.

I went to a 2:30 showing. There were 4 people there, including me, but there was hardly anyone in the theater period, so that doesn't mean much. I find that I'm in agreement with Brian Doherty's basically positive review:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/11/atlas-shrugged-part-ii-election-edition

Overall it's better than Part 1. The problem of clunky rhythm, particularly with transitions, remains in evidence, but I think it's less bothersome than in Part 1. I know I had less occasion to cringe, and more lumpy throat moments this time around, a better ratio. I remember in particular thinking there was some clunking early on, but then it hit a good stride and everything was really working, and then came the money speech. Now I thought Morales performed it very well, but the transition into it didn't click, I think too much from the book is cut there. I wish more of the speech itself had made it in too.

The new cast is better overall, I say Francisco, Rearden, Mouch, and James are upgrades, Eddie and Lillian are equal, and Dagny, well, someone was bound to end up in the minus column. Schilling was too young and lacked some for gravitas, Mathis is maybe too old, or maybe the right age, but simply isn't as nice to look at, and doesn't project that missing gravitas either. So much screen time goes to her reaction shots, and she simply doesn't light up the screen, not enough. Quentin Daniels and Cheryl Brooks were both fine, Mr. Thompson was perfect. Jeff Allen hit a good note, though he's more gainfully employed than in the book. I thought they made a good adaptation move there. I know there were a lot of cameos in it but I don't think I caught so many of them. Biff from Back to the Future was in there (he really ought to play Cuffy Meigs, come part 3). Teller got a line or two (such an ordinary voice! I figured he would sound like Kermit), and a long reaction shot. I didn't see Michael Shermer or Grover Norquist, though I know they're supposed to be in there.

The Wet Nurse gets a name, first and last. In the book we only find out at the very end that his name is Tony. In the movie, for reasons I cannot fathom, they renamed him Leonard. Leonard Smalls.

I thought they did a good job with the climactic train wreck sequence, good buildup, nothing off to blunt its impact.

I felt the music was better this time around. But I'll trade Richard Halley's appearance for a more filled out wedding scene any day. His music sounded to me rather like a what if Prokofiev mated with Gershwin exercise. It was fine, but then again James Taggart seemed to be enjoying it (it's his date night with Cheryl); shouldn't he be listening to the parody version?

To wrap up, if you're reading this to try and decide whether to go see it: Go, and consider that the Doctor's orders.

[Backlighting]

I went to a 2 PM showing here in Vegas. Attendance was somewhere around a hundred, which represented about a quarter full theater.

Overall, I liked this significantly more than Pt. 1. It had suspense, decent acting and flowed rather well. I too would have liked the money speech to be longer. The actors playing Rearden & Francisco were, imo, much better than the Pt. 1 performers. The opposite for Dagny.

At Rotten Tomatoes site (at the time of this post) the audience rated it 78% with 1900 participants so far.

The "professional" critics, aka liberals, all 7 of them, rated it a 0. No surprise there.

The more I think about this project the more I realize how difficult it is/was to get it on the screen- the book is just too encompassing, the message too profound.

I'm looking forward to Pt. 3 and perhaps a remake of The Fountainhead.

[Reidy]

The big improvement over the first installment is that this one understands that movies are a visual and not a verbal medium.

As with the first one I wonder if it would make any sense at all to a viewer who hasn't read the book.

[syrakusos]

The theater was packed and many of the audience knew each other. Laurel and I attended the first Friday night showing at a theater in Austin. Four cinemas are offering it; and we intended to go to an earlier screening on the south side. As it finally worked out, we went to a later showing on the north side. On the way in, I saw two people I knew from a group reading Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism. In fact, many of them were there, as well as several students from the University of Texas Objectivist Society. After the movie, about 20 of us went out to dinner.

We each and all had some reservations, but generally, the movie received positive reviews; and generally it was judged better than Part I.

I will not go into all of the quibbles now. The production of Atlas Shrugged Part 1 brought more resources to Part 2: Either-Or, and that was obvious in the feel. The film opens with Dagny chasing Quentin Daniels. The jet he is in disappears in a collapsing flash of spacewarp. She flies to it ... and toward the face of a cliff...

... Nine months earlier ...

And the story picks up. The only bicker common to our group was that Francisco's Money Speech could have been better. In Lord of the Rings:The Return of the King, at the Black Gate, Aragorn gives his "Not this Day!" speech. This was not that good. Yet, perhaps ironically, overall, the production does give broad and deep evidence of the moral power of money. This production had more money, so, it was a better production.

[syrakusos]

As with the first one I wonder if it would make any sense at all to a viewer who hasn't read the book.

Oddly enough, one of our dinner party has not read Atlas, but accepted the invitation to join us. He seemed to grasp all the concepts, at least well enough to participate in the chatter. My estimation based on that is that any intelligent person will understand, as how could they not?

By comparison, I saw every movie version of Pride and Prejudice before I read the book. Star Trek (2009) was more popular with new viewers than with fans. Atlas is a fan movie, but do not discount the new viewers.

[GALTGULCH8]

I haven't seen part II yet, but here is my question. Will someone naive to the writing of Ayn Rand, having seen the latest movie, be motivated or inspired to read the book?

If so, what makes you think so?

If not, what prompts you to come to that conclusion?

Is it conceivable that the movie will deter anyone from reading Atlas Shrugged for any reason?

[9thdoctor]

Will someone naive to the writing of Ayn Rand, having seen the latest movie, be motivated or inspired to read the book?

That's something only a n00b can answer. I heard through friends that Part I got people interested to read the book, and I think Part II is notably better, so you do the math.

FWIW, my 'morning after' feelings are even more positive than when I was writing the review above. I think I might have been wrong about the money speech, in that the transition in the book is also pretty jarring, so maybe it is how it ought to be. Also I should mention, since I critiqued her above, that Mathis wasn't bad at all, fact is neither actress has been entirely satisfying in the role. For that matter, no one in The Fountainhead was satisfying, unless you want to count Roger Enright and Pasquale Orsini. Then again, Alida Valli was an ideal Kira, so it can be done.

[Guyau]

About Samantha Mathis. She and the filmmakers created a constant and definite character. No, that character is not fully Dagny of the book, but she is much so, and like Dagny of the book, she is someone I could care about.

I got my best pain patches on my back, my therapeutic corset on, and Walter and I actually went to a theater to see this film. It plays right here in Lynchburg. There were about 20 people in the audience at that 6:00 pm showing. The one person we spoke to had not read the book. We all applauded at the end.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

William, yes. At each of the films, the one person we spoke with had not read the book and was aiming to do so, reinforced by the films. As I recall, after the first film, Atlas sales surged markedly.

Through the many years, since first reading the book in 1967, I hoped a film would be made of it. My secondary, though important, reason was that it might create a new big wave of readers of Atlas. (As it worked out, there was a steady promotion of Rand’s literature year after year through the student essay contests of the Ayn Rand Institute.) My primary reason, however, was that I wanted to experience the book in film. And on that I was actually always ambivalent. I knew that a film could not possibly be the particular visuals and audios set in me from reading the book, and I wondered, if a film were made, might my own visuals and audios become weakened? They do not. I was poised to just let the films be their own, and all is well.

[GALTGULCH8]

My almost two year old grandson is visiting with us this weekend, so I am not likely to see the movie until Monday. Filled with anticipation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kat and I just saw it.

They did the damn thing right!

I am very, very happy we saw it. I could comment on everything from the large number of shots that started on high and descended, to the scenes that had fades to black to close them off properly, to the lighting, to the special effects, to everything. Truly professional in all respects.

But the one thing that stood out to me the most was how this production wedded the believability of the characters to a larger-than-life charisma. The entire cast did a fantastically great job in this regard. There was believable, authentic emotion on the screen, not just cold distant figures advancing the plot and being mouthpieces for Rand's ideas, with an occasional outburst thrown in for good measure.

And speaking of the ideas, I can't think of seeing a better job anywhere of distilling her ideas and integrating them to the lives of the characters--not even with The Fountainhead that she wrote the screenplay for.

I'm impressed.

And so very grateful.

Michael

[Backlighting]

Michael "And speaking of the ideas, I can't think of seeing a better job anywhere of distilling her ideas and integrating them to the lives of the characters--not even with The Fountainhead that she wrote the screenplay for"

I agree. Now if only a big budget, quality remake of The Fountainhead is done, at least in my lifetime, would I be completely satisfied.

P.S. Audience rating at Rotten Tomatoes now at 84%. Encouraging.

[Jerry Biggers]

Saw it today (Saturday afternoon) at a multiplex theater in Anne Arundel county, (outside Baltimore) Maryland. There were about 25 people in the theater for the 1:30 PM showing. Being a multiplex, it was competing with 15 other movies for audience.

TWO CAMEO ROLES: Raymond Teller (the usually non-talkative) of the magician/comedy team, Penn & Teller. He has a small speaking role talking to Dagny (about 15 minutes in). I am also relatively certain that the guy with the white bushy beard that you see in the audience at Rearden's trial (actually more of a hearing to a panel of government bureacrats) is James Randi (of The Amazing Randi magician and later professional skeptic and investigator of the paranormal). Randi is shown several times with the camera shot being from the panel of bureaucrats, focusing on Rearden standing at a podium. Directly behind him is an "audience" of about 50 people. Randi stands-out. I did not look closely at the others, so there may be many more cameos.

Briefly, I liked this movie more than I was prepared to. It is better than Part I, but I did not see anything particularly wrong with the original actors. That said, the new actors are quite good. (maybe with the exception of Wesley Mouch. In that role, the actor used in Part I played the role much more convincingly than his replacement - who, IMO, overacts and looks like the sterotypical "mad scientist)."

I agree that Halley playing his concerto sounded vaguely like someone blending Prokoviev's piano concerto with Gershwin's Concerto in F. BUT,...I think it likely that Rand was thinking more of a Rachmaninoff-type concerto, and were she still alive and in the movie audience, would have started shouting at the screen over their choice for Halley's Concerto. But, again, so what?

A couple of other points: neither of the Brandens appear in the ending credits, as they did in part One. All of the names (at least 10) in the credits for special effects are chinese, which makes me wonder whether mainland China had a role in production. Strangely, however, the special effects company is listed with a Budapest, Hungary, address.

Finally, watch all of the credits because at the very end, somewhat unexpectedly, the last screen is a quote from Ayn Rand relevant to the plot theme.. Most people had left the theater by the time that rolled up, and they missed it.

[Jerry Biggers]

I should of added:

Based on the audience size in the theater (which was less thant half of those used for the audience at Rearden's trial), I am concerned that this movie will not do well. If that is the typical audience even in "prime times," it will be quickly pulled by the theaters. (At least ,that is what happens around here. Low audience? Goodbye).

Earlier in this thread, someone asked if the movie would appeal to those who have never read the novel. Would they understand what was going on? I have no clue. I first read Atlas Shrugged in the early nineteen-sixties. Nevertheless, I will offer my unsolicited opinion. My answer is No, the "uninitiated" are unlikely to get it (this is assuming that many that would fit in the category would even be attending a showing). The one scene in which "The Message" appears is Francisco D'Anconia's "speech" on "Money" at Jim Rearden's wedding. I do not think that worked. Why? Too truncated. It was a nice try but I doubt that "newbies" would get it.

[Jerry Biggers]

I know that the producers have been waiting with baited-breath to hear my advice. [Yeah, right!] If Part Two is even moderately successful, and you're not broke, go ahead with producing Part Three. But, I am worried, guys. Considering how truncated Rearden's trial speech is, what will you do with the Big Enchilada? THE Message. Galt's speech?. If you trim it down to five minutes (the actual speech in audio versions, is over two hours) -which is what the producers of an earlier attempt asked Leonard Peikoff to do, what remains will be devoid of its meaning. Obviously, you cant include the whole speech. I do not envy the screenwriters who will have to do,...something.

I can't solve this problem. I know you wanted me to. But to make you feel better, here's my suggestion for what you should tell the production team for the next RE-MAKE of Atlas Shrugged: The Movie. First, drop the attempt to update the timeline for the story to the 21st century. Sorry, but that stretches credulity. Mixing Apple laptops and iPads, cellphones, etc. with the train scenes was not believable (BTW, where did that stuff come from? So the Apple guys didn't buy Galt's Message?? So Bill Gates and Silicon Valley-types are still Obama-ites??).

Instead, take a look at The Watchmen. They (the writers) used an "alternative history" (i.e., a "what-if" scenario)approach, using "real-life characters, events from the mid-twentieth century," and building their story around that. It worked for them (sorta), at least in terms of success at the box-office.

Trying to adopt Rand's novel, with its early mid-twentieth century technology, to today's world just doesn't work. (I can imagine newbies seeing your movie and then going out to buy the book....I mean, that jet chase was really cool! So they start reading only to realize [a WTF??!! moment, if you know what I mean] that diesel engine trains, typewriters? [What's a typewriter?] are not what they expected, based on your movie.

So, move back to the 20th century, but use an "alternative history" scenario.Don't like The Watchmen? Try Harry Turtledove's alternative history novels. It worked for him - ask his publishers.

[syrakusos]

"Someone said that if you set a show in the past, it will never look dated." -- Joe Maurone.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, reviewed and discussed on RoR here.

[syrakusos]

... which makes me wonder whether mainland China had a role in production. Strangely, however, the special effects company is listed with a Budapest, Hungary, address.

Finally, watch all of the credits because at the very end, somewhat unexpectedly, the last screen is a quote from Ayn Rand relevant to the plot theme.. Most people had left the theater by the time that rolled up, and they missed it.

We always watch the credits all the way through. Never know if friends will scroll past and we like to see all the people who made this possible. Yes, clearly, much was outsourced offshore. We live in a global marketplace. But I doubt that a Chinese SOF (state-owned firm) did the work. Just as likely - as no company was mentioned - they could have been anywhere... even Budapest. (One of two offices for that firm.)

Also, in the credits were the names of the backers, including Ed Snider and Ed Crane. Some of the people we went to dinner with did not know the story of how Ed Snider came to Ayn Rand via Peter O'Malley... which says a lot about the Dodgers way of baseball, and O'Malley's yanking his contract from the City... Shrug this!

[Jerry Biggers]

"Someone said that if you set a show in the past, it will never look dated." -- Joe Maurone.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, reviewed and discussed on RoR here.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow: another excellant example of using an "alternative history" approach! However, I don't think that Sky Captain was nearly as successful, financially,. as The Watchmen was.

[Reidy]

I also noticed a screen credit to Fisker, which is just the sort of mixed-economy venture James Taggart and his drinking companions would have gotten into.

[9thdoctor]

I am also relatively certain that the guy with the white bushy beard that you see in the audience at Rearden's trial (actually more of a hearing to a panel of government bureacrats) is James Randi (of The Amazing Randi magician and later professional skeptic and investigator of the paranormal). Randi is shown several times with the camera shot being from the panel of bureaucrats, focusing on Rearden standing at a podium. Directly behind him is an "audience" of about 50 people. Randi stands-out.

I can't recall ever seeing him comment on Rand, one way or the other. He's certainly friendly with Penn Jillette and Michael Shermer, so there ought to be something somewhere.

But I doubt that a Chinese SOF (state-owned firm) did the work. Just as likely - as no company was mentioned - they could have been anywhere... even Budapest.

Maybe they're in Taiwan...

I also noticed a screen credit to Fisker, which is just the sort of mixed-economy venture James Taggart and his drinking companions would have gotten into.

I did catch that, and I assumed it had to do with Dagny's two seater. It didn't play any role in the story, Dagny just has this unique looking car...

[Brant Gaede]

"Someone said that if you set a show in the past, it will never look dated." -- Joe Maurone.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, reviewed and discussed on RoR here.

It's very easy to date a movie, decade by decade, usually by the actors' clothes and hair styles, whether there's a lot of smoking, black and white or color, etc. The movies that don't look dated are the ones recently made. They'll look dated a generation or two from now.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Harmon Kaslow on Fox News 10/14/12

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1899481438001/atlas-shrugged-warns-of-big-government/?intcmp=obnetwork

[Reidy]

Did anyone else notice that the bimbo on the train with Cuffy Meigs looked like Samanta Mathis in a wig? I thought she was going to turn out to be Dagny undercover, which would have been a complete departure from the book, and I wondered what would become of her in the crash.

This just in: the LA Times reports a $1.7 million weekend gross in 1000 theaters. That means $1700 per theater, or about 200 tickets. See it while you can.

[9thdoctor]

Did anyone else notice that the bimbo on the train with Cuffy Meigs looked like Samanta Mathis in a wig?

I think you mean Kip Chalmers. Cuffy hasn't shown up yet, and he can't already be dead.

I was just kicking around the web a bit, looking for more reviews, and came across the input of the inimitable Bill Bucko, one of the scarce inhabitants of Betsy Speicher's tumbleweed farm of a forum:

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=13805entry118718

I'm BOYCOTTING the movie (and recommend that everyone who values Ayn Rand do likewise), since its makers chose to make common cause with Objectivism's two worst enemies:

I'm afraid I can't quote more without violating the OL posting guidelines!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

That's just true-believer Bill Bucko.

Kool-aid drinker mentality.

Michael

EDIT: In fact, there is a quote from Rand's Journals (discussing Dagny) that always comes to mind when I think about this dude:

Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.

Granted, he does not deny reason, but he filters it through a cult narrative. If something does not reinforce his core story of Rand as the Goddess and the Brandens as the Demons, he has no use for it and is over-the-top in his praise and condemnations. To a normal onlooker, his comments just sound goofy.

Internally, I paraphrase Rand for thinking about these low-level true-believers, and I tend to act on it as a principle (or not act, which is more accurate): "Reason is not automatic. Those who use it to justify a cult cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."

Michael

[PDS]

I saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it immensely.

Contrary to some others, I really liked the new Dagny. She carried Part 2 quite nicely, and was not distractingly cold or attractive. I liked the new Hank and Fransisco as well, and they were close enough to the others in Part 1 to not be offputting. The backdrop scenes were also quite realistic and largely congruent with the feel of Atlas Shrugged.

This Part felt much better stylised--more of a job done by pros. Less alcohol drinking too, which in Part 1 I found to be out place.

My only serious "knock" on either of these films is the odd use of the figure of John Galt. Perhaps the P.J. O'Rourke bon mot that he is "played by a raincoat" is something I can't get out of my mind, but the whole participation/non-participation of John Galt in the movies just doesn't feel right. I wonder if it might not have worked better to "break up" Galt's speech in Part 3 by giving the audience a bite sized pieces of the various parts of the speech in his encounters with Daniels.Wyatt and the others in Parts 1 and 2. In such a scenario, he could still be a shadowy figure, but at least the philosophy would then cohesively (and chronologically?) be spooled out, so to speak. This would also give better context for such episodes as Fransisco's money speech (which I considered the highlight of Part 2). Weaving these things together could have really been something, even if not true to the book.

In any event, it does make one feel better about the world that this film has been made.

[since I was 100% wrong in predicting success for Part 1, I am going to "curb my enthusiasm" on that front. As I get older, my radar seems to fail me more often and in the most surprising of ways, it seems...]