Posted on 09/12/2014 12:29:09 PM PDT by shove_it
“I never saw 1 or 2. Would I like it? I liked the book except the John Galt or other long deadly speeches.”
I enjoyed both 1 & 2 immensely, and was pleasantly surprised at how the movie makers kept all of the essentials of the story and major characters while paring out 99% of the BS speeches and breathless juvenile sex yearnings.
The first movie was remarkable given the shoestring budget.
Also, the scenes with the Reardon Metal bracelet involving Hank’s wife and Dagny are some of the best scenes in ANY movie ever made.
Any link to the casting?
The actress who played Dagny in #2 was horrible.
Wish they wouldn't change the cast, every time a new movie is made!!!
Thanks for the post.
Yes, she was long winded, love hearing herself talk and she was prescient. You take the bad with the good.
Pretty good—did its best to tell some of what happened in first two parts and set up drama—Dagney has to choose between Galt’s Gulch and outside world and she with help tries to rescue John at the end. The speech comes out well—the one that takes about 3 hrs in audiobook version. It’ll make you think.
At my showing a woman was passing out business cards and saying “I teach this philosophy online”
Excellent. Thank you.
It took me almost a month to get through the audiobook while I was working. The thing sounded like it was recorded in the 1950s, but I still enjoyed it and plan to listen to it again.
well it has AS 1&2
From another thread fyi ...
To: shove_it
“Adapting a long complicated book that took place in the years prior 1957 to the world of today on a cheap movie budget is quite a trick. For the audience to get it, it helps to have lived during WWII and the cold war years that followed in the 1940s-50s, experiencing life in the USA before the advent of ‘the nanny state’. Having the experience of traveling cross country by train during those years helps too, before the prevalence of air travel.’
They should have seriously studied (or hired the production team) of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. If you’ve never seen it, it’s set in a fantasy universe with a late 1930s, retro feel with something of an ambiguous date (the antagonist is a war criminal from WWI and the protagonist is a Flying Tigers veteran, but there’s no indication WWII had yet started). Somehow they pulled it off. The film had some bigger stars but still operated on a relatively tight budget for a major Hollywood film. While it didn’t do all that well at the box office, IMHO, it’s still a pretty fine film, and one of it’s stronger points is how it created a credible, palpable sense of an earlier era, although a fantasy/fiction one.
38 posted on 9/13/2014 8:24:06 AM by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
Not a good film. I know the first too were on the cheap side, but they were at least decent. This was not.
If they include Galt’s speech verbatim, you only get to pay kid’s price if they’re still 12 when the movie’s over.
No worries - it’s only a few minutes long and it’s Kryptonite to the current regime.
I agree. You can make a wonderful film on a tiny budget, but you can’t make an epic. It was like watching a Lifetime TV movie where people occasionally spout anti-socialist rhetoric. Really, a movie consisting of nothing but the long speeches from the trial scenes in the book would have been better.
Just saw it. As much as I like the book and Rand’s philosophy, parts one and two weren’t bad. This was overall a disappointment. While they did manage to get the point across, and the Galt speech was greatly truncated, the casting was bad, the acting was bad, and about twenty percent of it consisted of stock shots of Colorado scenery. Maybe twenty people in the theater, but it was Sunday night. One couple walked out just before Galt’s speech. I had hoped for so much more, but I believe they had little money to work with. Part two’s Dagny was much better. Still, I’m glad I went just because I saw the other two. The points made are excellent. It was hard to not be aware of parallels between the movie scenario and what is happening today.
My wife and I just returned FRom an afternoon screening of Atlas Shrugged III: Who is John Galt?
Let me, in the strongest of terms, commend this movie to you, whether you are an Atlas Shrugged fan or not. The actors are good; the dialogue is good; the scenery is good; and the storyline is good.
AS III will probably not win any Academy Awards, but it is well worth your time and attention. It is also well worth the price of admission and a large box of popcorn!
The movie is a perfect statement of our conservative principles! It neatly and concisely exposes the Socialist/Marxist/Fascist lie for all to see and understand! And, it presents a solution that you will appreciate.
Every American ought to go see the movie if they want to gain a better understanding of where the USA is heading socially, politically and economically under our Democan/Republicrat “leaders.”
UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING!
Please go see the movie — you will not regret it.
By the way, go see it even if you have not seen Atlas Shrugged I & II; the early scenes of the movie bring the viewer up to speed as to what has happened to this point neatly and concisely.
FReegards,
FRank
PS Please spread the word to your FRiends, neighbors, relatives, and co-workers!
AS I was draggy, AS II was almost watchable.
AS III was enough to set back the conservative movement 100 years. The director couldn’t make up his mind whether it was 1940 (vintage TVs with VHF and broken UHF knobs) or 2014 (cell phones, big screen flat screen monitors, and 2012 vintage wines in the Gulch), which made it quite distracting.
The continuity of the movie was also abysmal. The narrator reminds us of how, with no copper, the power grids are barely operational, breaking down frequently, yet they show New York fully illuminated at night, with no lack of good lighting at the W-F Hotel.
However, it was all over for me when, after Galt hacked Thompson’s great speech to the public with a greatly abbreviated (from the book) version of his own, they immediately switched to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Ron Paul blathering on and on and on in their usual manner. At this point, my friend, who thinks that Republicans have horns, starting laughing out loud at much of the rest of the movie. I, on the other hand, tried to make light of it, all the while cringing in my seat at what a farce this had devolved into.
If I didn’t know better, I would swear that Michael Moore had secretly written the script for the last hour, deliberately making the characters look like total buffoons.
On a scale of 1-10, I give this a -5. Don’t waste your time, and don’t bring your liberal friends with you, expecting them to see or understand that Thompson’s government is too close to today’s Washington for comfort.
It really should have been a mini-series for so many reasons - the biggest being to be seen - gotten the message out - to more than the choir
that’s the whole raison d’etra that Rand wrote it.
B ig opportunity missed.
It's the Readers Digest Condensed Books version. The only good thing that might come of it is that people might want to buy the book -- and the guide to the book that Billthedrill and I wrote. (Shameless plug. We need the royalties.)
In the movie, Eddie Willers gets saved at the end, but not in the book. The producers at least corrected one injustice from the book.
See Post #79.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.