I thought the movie was as bad as the book, with corny dialog and a dullsville plot. It would take some serious genius to turn that book into a good movie in my opinion. But then, I’ve never been able to get through Ayn Rand’s fiction (though I like her nonfiction).
Someone made an interesting point on another thread and I was thinking about it as I watched the movie yesterday — where’s the smoking? There was one cigarette in the whole thing, smoked awkwardly and amateurishly by the professor guy at the roadside greasy spoon. I found this disappointing. Given that Ayn Rand filled the original novel with characters who smoked and smoked often, I wanted to see lots of smoking, lots of elegant smoking, but there was practically none. Instead what there was was a lot of drinking. It’s almost like they consciously opted to downplay the smoking and instead used drinking to fill the void. I imagine they needed one or the other to represent slightly risky consumption for the sake of pure pleasure, or something like that.
I went to see the movie today with my brother. The fact that there were no big stars was a big plus. I cringed when I heard the rumor that A. Jolie was being considered for Dagny. My brother and I discussed the movie over adult beverages later, and agreed that it should have been at least 30 minutes longer, to flesh out the characters and philosophical underpinnings.
As for the cigarette that Hugh Akston was smoking, it is an essential part of the movie. It has the enigmatic dollar sign that is a big clue for Dagny to pursue. So yes, more smoking should have been shown.
The character of Ellis Wyatt was spot-on. Perfect casting move, as was Lillian’s character.
You could see that budget constraints took it’s toll. The Toyota she drove should have disguised somehow.
We liked the movie with all of it’s shortcomings.
I have to confess that I have a vested interest in seeing this movie do well, as Ayn Rand’s heir, Dr. Leonard Peikoff is a former teacher of mine in the 80’s.
I recommend it highly.