Posted on 04/15/2011 1:31:44 PM PDT by RobFromGa
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Quick Review- 5 stars!
Very faithful to Rand's ideas. I didn't feel like they skipped any major items... the back story with Francisco was hinted at and would have been too hard to develop completely.
Casting was superb. Hank (Hooray!) and Lillian (Boo!)Rearden and Ellis Wyatt (!!!) were done perfectly as was Wesley Mouch and the other moochers and looters. Dagny was good but it took about ten minutes for me to completely buy her in the role.
Pace was perfect... it kept moving at a fast speed, and I didn't want it to end.
Cinematography very good- hard to believe only cost about $5 million! The Rearden Metal bridge was great, as was the Colorado landscape shots...
Audience Reaction: Duluth, GA 12:25pm showing was about 80% full (there was noon showing in a larger theater already going) & audience reacted with enthusiasm throughout and Applause at end.
Can't wait for Part 2! I will be going back to see Part One more than once...
Minor nitpick- shouldn't have had the date 2016 on the movie, it is timeless.
They handled making trains the primary long distance transportation for the movie. $30+ per gallon for gas? Yikes. I'll give a hug to the gas station owner the next time I shell out less than $4.
I really hope it does well enough to get parts 2 and 3 made. I'll definitely buy the DVD when it comes out. I don't know if I'll see it in the theater again.
I did have a couple of problems with suspected continuity errors (no rewind at the theater to double check :-( ) and one error of train routing. (minor spoilers ahead, page down to skip it if you don't want to see them)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. The early shot of the the Rio Norte line had the same scenery (it looked like autumn) as the July (?) run of the John Galt Line. OK, they didn't have the budget to film it twice. If that was CGI, then budget isn't an excuse.
2. Even after Dagny left Taggart Transcontinental she still appears to have the same office. She moved, therefore shouldn't have the same office. (Also she didn't want to take Eddie with her - she wanted him to stay as VP of Operations at Taggert to be her placeholder while she kept running it too).
3. To quote the book "One red streak twisted its way from Cheyenne, Wyoming, down to El Paso, Texas—the Rio Norte Line of Taggart Transcontinental". The movie's map had the Rio Norte running from the east (Nebraska? Kansas? Missouri?) into Colorado.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But them I'm the guy friends hate to watch movies with because I'll snarl "You .... cant't .... carbon.... date.... gold" during a movie (both Timecop and Stargate made that same mistake within a few weeks of each other) and keep hitting rewind when I see a mistake on a DVD.
Saw it last night (4/15) outside of Philly. Theater was sold out and the movie finished to thunderous applause in the theater.
I really enjoyed this movie, as did my wife (who has not read the novel, btw).
We came with low expectations given the reviews, but left quite satisfied. My wife is particularly excited for Part 2.
The dialog is a bit weak at time, but I find most movies have weak dialog anymore - good writing is hard to find. The acting was ok in spots (John Galt, James Taggart, Dagney Taggart during the first third), and great in others (Lillian Reardon and Ellis Wyatt especially).
I definitely would recommend this to folks beyond the objectivist message. It is an good story and a good movie.
The Wisconson scenes weren’t shot in WI either, looked more like WY, or somewhere similar.
Some of Rand’s writing about Hank and Dagny’s love affair was creepy... I know she was, perhaps, trying to create a metaphor about ownership and service and money... but it just came out as creepy and rough.
A lot of the politics Rand wrote about have come to pass — thankfully, society is a bit more forgiving about personal lives than in the book.
Regarding future movies.... of all the scenes in the book I’m looking forward to, the one where Hank Rearden goes before a pseudo congress to answer for his crimes is the one I want to see the most.
I always have high hopes that a witness will stand up and blow congressional questioners out of the water with a great speech... I was hoping Barry Bonds or Mark Mcqwire or Roger Clemens would stand up and say, “WHO THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE THINK YOU ARE!!” but it was not to be.
Jodie Foster as Dagny Taggart:
Liam Neeson as Hank Reardon:
Antonio Banderas as Francisco D'Anconia:
Jurgen Prochnow as Ragnar Danneskjöld:
Daniel Day Lewis as Ellis Wyatt:
The guy who was the administrator on the comedy show "Scrubs" (I don't even know his name!) as James Taggart:
Awww, only 15 people, that’s a shame!! Thanks for the review, can’t say I disagree. About the drinking, I was thinking it was kind of showing the decadence and debauchery a little, like something out of a Fitzgerald novel in the 1920’s... Well, some just party and drink while others keep working?
Three out of four railroad spikes, I love it.
“push through the first 100 pages”
In fact, the maiden run of the John Gault Line is a fine piece of writing, full of excitement and longing and wonder.
RE: Paul Larkin. He is a foe who is posing as a friend. A good portion of the dialogue from that scene is taken word for word from the book. Larkin's scene provides a lot of useful information regarding "who you can trust in Washington," and he also delivers the lines that explain the meaning of the Galt phrase. ("Why ask useless questions? Why is the sky blue? Who is John Galt?") Larkin is a two-faced villain. I thought it was a nice bit of editing that they cut from the dinner at the Rearden household directly to the "boys club" setting consisting of Mouch, Boyle, James Taggart aaaand Paul Larkin. The hardest he fights for his "friend" Rearden is to request that he "not be hurt too much" in their next plan. Of course, a few scenes later, we see Rearden being forced to sign over ownership of his ore mines to Paul Larkin.
LOL. So I was I ! Same row, but about 5 seats away from the restive tyke.
By then, it will be on the History Channel as a documentary.
BTTT
I loved the movie. It’s minor quirkiness added to the overall affect and impact. It will reach a lot of new people and sell a lot of books too. Coming out now seems like providence to me. All the things my heart would add would really just make it ponderous, and the way it was done is instead sleek and appealing. Ironic that Hollywood refusing to do this for so long exactly mirrors the villains in the movie. The movie is fun & true to the heart of the book. Very well done, and I will see it again.
OK if we want to nit pick.
In the book, the motor runs off static electricty in the atmosphere. In the movie, I believe they said it creates static electricity from atmospheric pressure.
I don’t know how the movie is ever going to get the motor to work if they don’t understand the technology any better than that.
I love your casting of the movie. I agree, they would all have been great.
So, I think Angie Harmon would have been a better fit for the role.
It is kind of a fun exercise. There were two characters (I have not seen the movie yet) that I disagree with: One is James Taggart, he is too young and slick looking, and the other is Ellis Wyatt. That guy they casted doesn’t look anything like the book’s description, but...I can live with that...:)
It is kind of a fun exercise. There were two characters (I have not seen the movie yet) that I disagree with: One is James Taggart, he is too young and slick looking, and the other is Ellis Wyatt. That guy they casted doesn’t look anything like the book’s description, but...I can live with that...:)
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.