Posted on 04/14/2011 3:54:19 PM PDT by Borges
Edited on 04/15/2011 12:42:07 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
I have never been able to understand why so many "conservatives" love this book. It is anti-god and anti-faith. It's premise of radical capitalism has little in common with fundamental conservative principles such as were espoused by the likes of Edmund Burke and Adam Smith.
I see here philosophy of radical capitalism (Objectivism) as the flip side of the same coin as Communism. They both result in Godless materialism.
And, the book would have been much better if someone who could actually write would have edited it down to about 650 pages.
1990? Wow, you’ve got me beat. The last time I went to a movie was a few years ago to see Orphan w/ my bff.
“A Sense of Life”....can I buy it on dvd?
Probably, Netflix sent the one we watched.
Hello....I just NOW realized you mentioned they have a dvd of it!!! Screw it, I want to give my money to the theaters that are brave enough to show it AND I will also purchase the dvd!
Actually, “The Fountainhead” was a very good movie and very faithful to the book. Plus, Patricia Neal filled that dress out extremely well. Worth watching just for that, says the still sexist after all these years Driftless.
HEY...! The Watchmen are Graphic Novels.
Well, sort of... I've read Atlas Shrugged" 5 times (so far) and "The Fountainhead" once. (shortly after the first reading of AS) We'll wait until we can rent the three DVD's in succession at some far future date. Heck, I envy people who haven't read AS because they still get to.
I don’t do movies to send messages, my budget doesn’t allow for it. Furthermore, I don’t live in the city, I live in the backwoods rural America where we cling bitterly to our guns & religion.
No thanks, pay per view will be just fine for me.
We’re kind of out in the boonies. We eschewed TV a few years back and choose our DVD viewing pleasures very selfishly. :{)
MUST be good, then! Hey, last time I read something from SPLC slamming one of Travis' books, it made me go read it again!
Hmmm....Ebert....E-bear....sounds, ah, French. No wonder he doesn’t like the movie. If he did, I’d probably stay home.
Did anything about this review cause you to question that belief?
What makes you think he’s wrong? It’s getting pretty bad reviews.
That's one big head!
>> More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs. <<
IOW, “More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of wine-lovers.”
That’s his idea of wit? cleverness? insight? My God, Ebert has turned into a full-born idiot. (I almost called him a “drooling idiot,” but then I remembered why that wouldn’t be nice ;^D)
Then we're not taking his husband's word on it either.
Besides, shouldn't he have said "oenophiles"?
"Oenophiliacs" sounds like people with a disease that causes them to bleed wine.
He's Roger Ebert. What are the odds THIS is the one he gets right? (Having said that, most of my posts have been in fun)
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.