Favorite Movies not Written by Ayn Rand

[Michelle]

Perhaps I should expand on the accusation of the film having a leftist streak. While it is generally a liberty-minded movie, and almost every libertarian I know loves it, there's just little details that rub me the wrong way. For instance, Christians are evil and turn England into a theocracy, but the Koran is moving poetry? Oh, those poor muslims. How about the association of conservatives with nazis? Note also the subtle inclusion of 9/11 conspiracy theory with the introduction of that subplot of the government killing its own citizens to gain power. Don't be fooled by the British setting. The film version was partly a commentary on the Bush Administration

Nevertheless, the film, at its heart, has a powerful pro-liberty message. Far superior to the anarchism advocated for in the GN.

[Selene]

Michelle:

Catch 22, the movie was crap, but I enjoyed the book, his next one "Something Happened" was awful and one of the few books that I did not finish that I started.

In terms of V, I am kind of inured to the knee jerk anti christian/ante conservative mantra's that I just savage them right out of the box in an argument.

Rather than lefty, more anti authoritarian.

And being an original Randian Anarchist Libertarian, I embrace V.

Add to that that my favorite characters in Atlas are Ragnar, Eddie Willers, Ellis Wyat and Francisco, with Hugh Akston and Rearden in close proximity.

So attacking the state and giving them no quarter is music to my ears.

Adam

Edited June 29, 2009 by Selene

[Michelle]

Michelle:

Catch 22, the movie was crap, but I enjoyed the book, his next one "Something Happened" was awful and one of the few books that I did not finish that I started.

In terms of V, I am kind of inured to the knee jerk anti christian/ante conservative mantra's that I just savage them right out of the box in an argument.

Rather than lefty, more anti authoritarian.

And being an original Randian Anarchist Libertarian, I embrace V.

Add to that that my favorite characters in Atlas are Ragnar, Eddie Willers, Ellis Wyat and Francisco, with Hugh Akston and Rearden in close proximity.

So attacking the state and giving them no quarter is music to my ears.

Adam

Nothing wrong with the state as long as it doesn't run wild, as it has been recently. We're transitioning from an administration of blood-thirsty warmongers to an administration of Tooheys. Oh joy.

[Selene]

Michelle:

Catch 22, the movie was crap, but I enjoyed the book, his next one "Something Happened" was awful and one of the few books that I did not finish that I started.

In terms of V, I am kind of inured to the knee jerk anti christian/ante conservative mantra's that I just savage them right out of the box in an argument.

Rather than lefty, more anti authoritarian.

And being an original Randian Anarchist Libertarian, I embrace V.

Add to that that my favorite characters in Atlas are Ragnar, Eddie Willers, Ellis Wyat and Francisco, with Hugh Akston and Rearden in close proximity.

So attacking the state and giving them no quarter is music to my ears.

Adam

Nothing wrong with the state as long as it doesn't run wild, as it has been recently. We're transitioning from an administration of blood-thirsty warmongers to an administration of Tooheys. Oh joy.

There is always a something wrong with the state for an anarchist...lol, but anarchy is a Utopian dream.

Attila mates with the Witch Doctor by Michelle...a voyage into passionless primitive pain!

:faceless:

Post Script: Sleepers great film

Edited June 29, 2009 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

Oh. V For Vendetta. Terrific movie. I actually prefer it over the GN. I've never been much of a Moore fan. The Wachowski Bros turn it into a slick and enjoyable action flick.

"GN"?? He'p me, he'p me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michelle]

Michelle:

Catch 22, the movie was crap, but I enjoyed the book, his next one "Something Happened" was awful and one of the few books that I did not finish that I started.

In terms of V, I am kind of inured to the knee jerk anti christian/ante conservative mantra's that I just savage them right out of the box in an argument.

Rather than lefty, more anti authoritarian.

And being an original Randian Anarchist Libertarian, I embrace V.

Add to that that my favorite characters in Atlas are Ragnar, Eddie Willers, Ellis Wyat and Francisco, with Hugh Akston and Rearden in close proximity.

So attacking the state and giving them no quarter is music to my ears.

Adam

Nothing wrong with the state as long as it doesn't run wild, as it has been recently. We're transitioning from an administration of blood-thirsty warmongers to an administration of Tooheys. Oh joy.

There is always a something wrong with the state for an anarchist...lol, but anarchy is a Utopian dream.

Attila mates with the Witch Doctor by Michelle...a voyage into passionless primitive pain!

:faceless:

Post Script: Sleepers great film

Not really. I mean, Somalia is stateless (although they do have Xeer in place).

[Michelle]

Oh. V For Vendetta. Terrific movie. I actually prefer it over the GN. I've never been much of a Moore fan. The Wachowski Bros turn it into a slick and enjoyable action flick.

"GN"?? He'p me, he'p me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Graphic Novel

[Xray]

Citizen Kane. What a godawful boring film. It took me two tries to make it all the way through. Just slightly less painful than The Godfather and LOTR trilogies.

I will admit the effectiveness of the scenes where Charles Foster Kane (I believe that was his name, been many years since I last saw it) wanders like a ghost through his huge mansion, though. Wealth divorced from values is worthless.

You found Citizen Kane BORING???? :shocked: What exactly bored you?

I remember North by Northwest boring me. It is regarded as one of Hitchcock's best films, though. I should rewatch it.

That one bored you too? That fast-paced, incredibly suspensefusl film with its brilliant actors?

The film also has a lot of wit. I love Cary Grant's ironic comments.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

AND

What exactly subjectively bored you?

AND

What exactly objectively bored you?

You vill answer!

Ve haf vays of making you talk, ____________ [fill in your group of choice gypsy, Catholic, Jew etc.]

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Like Dr Zhivago and like Lawrence of Arabia, North by Northwest and Citizen Kane are excellent movies. They are not boring, they are simply quite long. The solution is to watch them with a nice break in the middle, perhaps over two nights, and not to watch them too often. The solution is not to call them boring.

[Michelle]

Like Dr Zhivago and like Lawrence of Arabia, North by Northwest and Citizen Kane are excellent movies. They are not boring, they are simply quite long. The solution is to watch them with a nice break in the middle, perhaps over two nights, and not to watch them too often. The solution is not to call them boring.

Citizen Kane isn't long. It's a minute shy of being two hours long. Fairly standard movie length these days. North by Northwest is just a little bit over two hours. I'll reserve my judgment until I see NxNW again, as I saw it when I was fairly young, but I've seen Citizen Kane two times, one years ago and one a few months ago, and both times it bored me to tears. It may only be two hours long, but it feels like a four hour movie. That's how boring it is. Well-made and influential it may be, but I won't be sad if I never see it again.

My attention span is fine. I've had no problem with films like The Seven Samurai and Schindler's List. Now, if you've seen Seven Samurai, you know it is roughly 3.5 hours long.

And films, like short stories, should be absorbed, ideally, in one sitting. If this is not possible, then two extended sittings with a short amount of time in-between each is also good.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Michelle R

[Chris Grieb]

Like Dr Zhivago and like Lawrence of Arabia, North by Northwest and Citizen Kane are excellent movies. They are not boring, they are simply quite long. The solution is to watch them with a nice break in the middle, perhaps over two nights, and not to watch them too often. The solution is not to call them boring.

Citizen Kane isn't long. It's a minute shy of being two hours long. Fairly standard movie length these days. North by Northwest is just a little bit over two hours. I'll reserve my judgment until I see NxNW again, as I saw it when I was fairly young, but I've seen Citizen Kane two times, one years ago and one a few months ago, and both times it bored me to tears. It may only be two hours long, but it feels like a four hour movie. That's how boring it is. Well-made and influential it may be, but I won't be sad if I never see it again.

My attention span is fine. I've had no problem with films like The Seven Samurai and Schindler's List. Now, if you've seen Seven Samurai, you know it is roughly 3.5 hours long.

And films, like short stories, should be absorbed, ideally, in one sitting. If this is not possible, then two extended sittings with a short amount of time in-between each is also good.

Michelle; I consider Citizen Kane over rated. Your point about Seven Samurai and Schinndler's List is very true.

[Michelle]

Like Dr Zhivago and like Lawrence of Arabia, North by Northwest and Citizen Kane are excellent movies. They are not boring, they are simply quite long. The solution is to watch them with a nice break in the middle, perhaps over two nights, and not to watch them too often. The solution is not to call them boring.

Citizen Kane isn't long. It's a minute shy of being two hours long. Fairly standard movie length these days. North by Northwest is just a little bit over two hours. I'll reserve my judgment until I see NxNW again, as I saw it when I was fairly young, but I've seen Citizen Kane two times, one years ago and one a few months ago, and both times it bored me to tears. It may only be two hours long, but it feels like a four hour movie. That's how boring it is. Well-made and influential it may be, but I won't be sad if I never see it again.

My attention span is fine. I've had no problem with films like The Seven Samurai and Schindler's List. Now, if you've seen Seven Samurai, you know it is roughly 3.5 hours long.

And films, like short stories, should be absorbed, ideally, in one sitting. If this is not possible, then two extended sittings with a short amount of time in-between each is also good.

Michelle; I consider Citizen Kane over rated. Your point about Seven Samurai and Schinndler's List is very true.

Hi.

Well, Citizen Kane isn't exactly overrated. It was incredibly important in some of the techniques it innovated. I just don't care about the story being told. My approach to it is similar to how most people approach Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

[kiaer.ts]

Like Dr Zhivago and like Lawrence of Arabia, North by Northwest and Citizen Kane are excellent movies. They are not boring, they are simply quite long. The solution is to watch them with a nice break in the middle, perhaps over two nights, and not to watch them too often. The solution is not to call them boring.

Citizen Kane isn't long. It's a minute shy of being two hours long. Fairly standard movie length these days. North by Northwest is just a little bit over two hours. I'll reserve my judgment until I see NxNW again, as I saw it when I was fairly young, but I've seen Citizen Kane two times, one years ago and one a few months ago, and both times it bored me to tears. It may only be two hours long, but it feels like a four hour movie. That's how boring it is. Well-made and influential it may be, but I won't be sad if I never see it again.

My attention span is fine. I've had no problem with films like The Seven Samurai and Schindler's List. Now, if you've seen Seven Samurai, you know it is roughly 3.5 hours long.

And films, like short stories, should be absorbed, ideally, in one sitting. If this is not possible, then two extended sittings with a short amount of time in-between each is also good.

Michelle; I consider Citizen Kane over rated. Your point about Seven Samurai and Schinndler's List is very true.

Hi.

Well, Citizen Kane isn't exactly overrated. It was incredibly important in some of the techniques it innovated. I just don't care about the story being told. My approach to it is similar to how most people approach Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

Look, you want boring? Try Solaris.

Here is the end of the first episode of Tales of the City. Moffat has just discovered he has six months to live. He and Dukakis have never met, and run into each other by coincidence.

[kiaer.ts]

I may have plugged all of these movies at one time or another on the O-web, but I never hesitate to repeat myself.

1. Queen Christina

2. Ninotchka

(tie) Shanghai Express, Trouble in Paradise, Mata Hari (for the last few minutes)

(tie) Monte Carlo (for the Blue Horizon sequence), The Aviator, Some Like it Hot, A Night at the Opera, almost any other Garbo.

Of movies that were written AR I much prefer Love Letters to The Fountainhead.

The Shawshank Redemption often shows well in polls like this one, but I've never seen it.

Did someone say Shanghai Express?

[Barbara Branden]

Ted: "Here is the end of the first episode of Tales of the City. Moffat has just discovered he has six months to live. He and Dukakis have never met, and run into each other by coincidence."

Is it all that good? If it is, I want to get it.

Barbara

[ginny]

Barbara, I saw the original series when it was on about 10 years ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Highly recommended.

Ginny

[kiaer.ts]

Ted: "Here is the end of the first episode of Tales of the City. Moffat has just discovered he has six months to live. He and Dukakis have never met, and run into each other by coincidence."

Is it all that good? If it is, I want to get it.

Barbara

I have watched it about four times since its debut. It is the story of an open minded but conservatively bred young woman (Laura Linney) who moves into a bording house run by the Bohemian Anna Madrigal in San Francisco in 1976. The first episode features quite a bit of sex and drugs, which is a slight turn off, but this is to set the era. We meet the inhabitants of the boarding house and learn their intertwined stories. There are multiple plots like a very well crafted soap opera. The unexpected resolution of the various plots is the great virtue of the story. Watching what happens in episodes one and two you would never expect the outcomes in episodes five and six, although everything is quite logical, not one deus ex machina. The good guys and the bad guys all get what is coming to them in spades.

PS There are three series, Tales, More Tales and Further Tales. I enjoyed More Tales as well, the same complex plotting and sense of life, but they did recast two of the main roles, which was annoying, since you did become connected to the characters frrom the original series.

[Barbara Branden]

Thanks, Ted.

Barbara

[kiaer.ts]

Thanks, Ted.

Barbara

My Pleasure. I am currently watching the fifth of the six parts, and am as entertained as ever. The work is not "high literature" but it is damn good art. There is a neat eference to Atlantis in it as well, not Rand's meaning, but it adds a very nice touch. I would suggest netflix for this one, and put it near the top of your list. I'll have to review it for Radicals for Happiness.

[Michelle]

The first episode of that show was decent. I'll have to save up for the boxed set.

Oh, and as to good movies:

Gattaca. Awesome dystopic science-fiction about how one man bucks the system when he is told that he looses by default (being 'genetically inferior'). The pacing is great, the plot involving (both on a narrative and a philosophical level), and the characters vivid.

Serenity. While it wasn't as good as I'd hoped it would be, this is still a great adventure story and a superb ending for Joss Whedon's short-lived Firefly.

Dark City. Stylish fantasy noir with a great twist at the end. Far superior to The Matrix, which it is commonly compared to.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

The first episode of that show was decent. I'll have to save up for the boxed set.

Oh, and as to good movies:

Gattaca. Awesome dystopic science-fiction about how one man bucks the system when he is told that he looses by default (being 'genetically inferior'). The pacing is great, the plot involving (both on a narrative and a philosophical level), and the characters vivid.

Serenity. While it wasn't as good as I'd hoped it would be, this is still a great adventure story and a superb ending for Joss Whedon's short-lived Firefly.

Dark City. Stylish fantasy noir with a great twist at the end. Far superior to The Matrix, which it is commonly compared to.

If you like sci-fi as such, Dark City is a good, but not great movie. I have watched it several times. It is yet another reworking of the primacy of consciousness premise, although at least in this case there is a machine that makes one's thoughts into realities. It is, I concur, much better than the Matrix, except for the Matrix's great wire-guided fight scenes. (They should neve have made the Matrix sequels.) Kiefer Sutherland is a far cry from Jack Bauer in this movie.

But Gattaca is a great movie that happens to be science fiction. The theme, the role of human choice in defying genetic destiny, is excellently illustrated in the suspenseful muder-mystery plot. The characters are well developed and vary from the poignantly tragic to the quintessentially heroic. The movie's visual style, 1940's film noir in rich dark color set 50 years in the future is a unique integrating characteristic that compares favorably to the more washed-out visual style of O Brother, Where Art Thou. The leads, Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke, would have a whirlwind affair and marry. This film is universally beloved by Objectivists. It should have won Oscar for best picture. It wasn't nominated. The director would be a great candidate for Atlas Shrugged. This movie is unconditionally recommended.

[Selene]

Folks:

Yes, I thought of suggesting Gattaca last weekend as a great movie, which it was.

I have only watched it twice, but loved the pace and internal values decisions.

An Atlas future with a collapse of technology giving you freedom to move around versus a Gattaca/Brave New World future with the frightening efficiency of the techno state is a simple choice to me.

Superior movie though.

Adam

[Michelle]

The first episode of that show was decent. I'll have to save up for the boxed set.

Oh, and as to good movies:

Gattaca. Awesome dystopic science-fiction about how one man bucks the system when he is told that he looses by default (being 'genetically inferior'). The pacing is great, the plot involving (both on a narrative and a philosophical level), and the characters vivid.

Serenity. While it wasn't as good as I'd hoped it would be, this is still a great adventure story and a superb ending for Joss Whedon's short-lived Firefly.

Dark City. Stylish fantasy noir with a great twist at the end. Far superior to The Matrix, which it is commonly compared to.

If you like sci-fi as such, Dark City is a good, but not great movie. I have watched it several times. It is yet another reworking of the primacy of consciousness premise, although at least in this case there is a machine that makes one's thoughts into realities. It is, I concur, much better than the Matrix, except for the Matrix's great wire-guided fight scenes. (They should neve have made the Matrix sequels.) Kiefer Sutherland is a far cry from Jack Bauer in this movie.

But Gattaca is a great movie that happens to be science fiction. The theme, the role of human choice in defying genetic destiny, is excellently illustrated in the suspenseful muder-mystery plot. The characters are well developed and vary from the poignantly tragic to the quintessentially heroic. The movie's visual style, 1940's film noir in rich dark color set 50 years in the future is a unique integrating characteristic that compares favorably to the more washed-out visual style of O Brother, Where Art Thou. The leads, Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke, would have a whirlwind affair and marry. This film is universally beloved by Objectivists. It should have won Oscar for best picture. It wasn't nominated. The director would be a great candidate for Atlas Shrugged. This movie is unconditionally recommended.

I wouldn't call Dark City "sci-fi." There's just no emphasis on science in the movie. It's pure fantasy. As to the film's premises, I think you'll enjoy it less if you analyze it. It strikes me as a style over substance movie. But the style is great.

The only thing I did not like about it is the ending. It turns ridiculous when the guy gets powers and starts floating around and battling it out with the head honcho of the aliens. I felt like it spoiled the rest of the film's haunting and deliberate atmosphere.

I thought the first Matrix film was a decent action movie with an interesting premise, and enjoyed it for what it is worth (not much). The first film internalized the ridiculousness of its own mythology and made for a fun film. The sequels, however, are awful. The Wachowski Bros. apparently thought their silly movie premise was worth expanding upon. I did not care for the overly stylized fight scenes, either. It tends to get ridiculous near the end.

V For Vendetta is in every way a better film than any of The Matrix movies.

Gattaca took me by surprise. It deserves to be more well-known and popular than it is.

[kiaer.ts]

The first episode of that show was decent. I'll have to save up for the boxed set.

Oh, and as to good movies:

Gattaca. Awesome dystopic science-fiction about how one man bucks the system when he is told that he looses by default (being 'genetically inferior'). The pacing is great, the plot involving (both on a narrative and a philosophical level), and the characters vivid.

Serenity. While it wasn't as good as I'd hoped it would be, this is still a great adventure story and a superb ending for Joss Whedon's short-lived Firefly.

Dark City. Stylish fantasy noir with a great twist at the end. Far superior to The Matrix, which it is commonly compared to.

If you like sci-fi as such, Dark City is a good, but not great movie. I have watched it several times. It is yet another reworking of the primacy of consciousness premise, although at least in this case there is a machine that makes one's thoughts into realities. It is, I concur, much better than the Matrix, except for the Matrix's great wire-guided fight scenes. (They should neve have made the Matrix sequels.) Kiefer Sutherland is a far cry from Jack Bauer in this movie.

But Gattaca is a great movie that happens to be science fiction. The theme, the role of human choice in defying genetic destiny, is excellently illustrated in the suspenseful muder-mystery plot. The characters are well developed and vary from the poignantly tragic to the quintessentially heroic. The movie's visual style, 1940's film noir in rich dark color set 50 years in the future is a unique integrating characteristic that compares favorably to the more washed-out visual style of O Brother, Where Art Thou. The leads, Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke, would have a whirlwind affair and marry. This film is universally beloved by Objectivists. It should have won Oscar for best picture. It wasn't nominated. The director would be a great candidate for Atlas Shrugged. This movie is unconditionally recommended.

I wouldn't call Dark City "sci-fi." There's just no emphasis on science in the movie. It's pure fantasy. As to the film's premises, I think you'll enjoy it less if you analyze it. It strikes me as a style over substance movie. But the style is great.

The only thing I did not like about it is the ending. It turns ridiculous when the guy gets powers and starts floating around and battling it out with the head honcho of the aliens. I felt like it spoiled the rest of the film's haunting and deliberate atmosphere.

I thought the first Matrix film was a decent action movie with an interesting premise, and enjoyed it for what it is worth (not much). The first film internalized the ridiculousness of its own mythology and made for a fun film. The sequels, however, are awful. The Wachowski Bros. apparently thought their silly movie premise was worth expanding upon. I did not care for the overly stylized fight scenes, either. It tends to get ridiculous near the end.

V For Vendetta is in every way a better film than any of The Matrix movies.

Gattaca took me by surprise. It deserves to be more well-known and popular than it is.

I love this quote function, don't you?

The Wachowski Bros. didn't think the Matrix story was worth expanding upon. They thought the lucrative franchise was worth expanding upon. The Matrix was my second worst movie-viewing experience ever. (The worst was when I threw up in the theater watching Pay it Forward - how poeticly just!) Toward the end of watching the Matrix on its release day in a packed theater with seats fit for hobbits my boyfriend fell asleep and started snoring loudly. I insisted we leave, and come back the next night to see the finale toward which the movie was apparently building. So, we sat through the same tediously pretentious plot the next night, without benefit of the novelty of the fight scenes, which were all that made the movie enjoyable. Red pill versus blue pill? I'll take the feather instead. So, after two hours we got to the climax during which we had walked out of the movie the night before. Then the movie just ended. The credits rolled. We had seen all but the last 60 seconds the night before. There was no resolution. We had sat through the movie twice, for nothing.

Finally, as for Vendetta, yes, it is a great movie under the same circumstances as Dark City. If you take it as a fantasy, refuse to analyse it (who were those lesbians?), can tolerate the brain-damaged hero's alliterative neuropathology, and are able to entirely blank out its offensive pretentious envy-Leftist anti-Americanism (Hurrah, the Yanks have the plague! Serves them right for saving the Brits' bacon in World Wars One, Two and Three!) then, yes, it is quite good. Shame it was written by a whiny undergraduate gay studies major with no knowledge of history and an anti-daddy chip on his shoulder.