Hank
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.
She did indeed have dark hair...but...that is what hair coloring is for! Honestly, though, I could not fault anyone for taking issue with my choices. I would say, though, that Dagny cannot be TOO good looking. She should have an angular, somewhat hard face, I would think. The kind of face that when other women see her in her executive role, they think she is a hard, sexless woman that men wouldn’t be attracted to (the same thought process Rearden’s wife, Lillian followed)
I have a darn hard time finding an angle at which Angie Harmon doesn’t look stunning...:)
Another choice for me would have been Helen Hunt.
LOL!
I think they should have set it farther out, say 2030. They’ve kind of limited its lifespan. That said my girlfriend and I saw it in Fairfax VA yesterday. They had it in the larger theater, only 40% full. We loved it and now have to read the book. Looking forward to part 2.
Apart from her being a brunette, I'd pictured Dagny Taggart being statuesque with high cheek bones. Someone whom one would mistake as being a runway model. She'd feel comfortable sitting in an executive's chair, yet has a soft and sultry demeanor about her. Tough as nails (like the way she dealt with that union goon), but sexy as hell.
marked
John Galt? Who is John Galt?
Great reviews (and I love Amy Holmes)! Thanks for posting.
We saw it Sunday morning at 11:45. No hissing, no booing and one lady with a John Galt hat and t-shirt.
The only one of us who read the book was me. Spark notes for the kids and Dad had read parts.
We liked it. There was applause at the end. One senior man walked out crying. He told me that he and his friend were glad to be leaving this world soon. He was afraid for the country. He walked away in tears, excusing himself for being emotional.
We pointed and cheered when we saw Andrew Breitbart at the Reardon party. My daughters love him.
Saw it Saturday. Totally depressed because the last few independent and ambitious people on the planet are going to give up after seeing this movie. Loved it though...cried actually. America is scr@wed.
My husband & I just saw it this afternoon at a theater near UCLA (Westwood area). The cinema was packed.
Wow, great film. Well done! We really enjoyed it.
Many people teared up, at “the train passing over the new bridge” scene. I heard people sniffing, tears of joy at entrepreneurs’ success after taking risk and working countless hours.
It was also a violent film. It FELT violent.
True, not a shot was fired. not a fist was raised.
But the film’s mood conveyed violence — STATE (interest-group) organized force, i.e. state intervention into peaceful successful economic transactions. The tension between free enterprise operations and protectionist govt intervention / central planning to protect losing competitors, and protectionist labor unions, was displayed nicely in the movie.
It rang true to events we see today - more government protections, more “equality” of outcomes, preying upon work and the success of risk takers and dynamic business people.
We can’t wait til Part 2
-4Liberty
God help us...to many have given it all away for a few cheap favors.
I have only read through Book 1 of the novel, and that was six years ago, so that is my comparison point.
Taylor Schilling pulls off the role of Dagney Taggart. She is much younger than I imagined Taggart, but she has the right look. James Taggart is also too young, but Matthew Marsden is effective. He is a different James Taggaert, less pathetic, and more conniving. As soon as I saw Jsu Garcia, I knew it was Francisco D'Anconia. Garcia is 47, but looks 27, so I thought he looked too young. But he looks like what I expected D'Anconia to look like. He has less bravado, but he is not a major character at this point. Grant Bowler nails Hank Rearden, as does Rebecca Wisocky as Lillian Rearden. Michael Lerner is an excellent Wesley Mouch.
Much of the acting was good. Some was stilted, and I think the fact the filming was done in only four weeks shows in spots.
Overall the cinematography was good. There was some heavy use of stock footage, which was understandable due to the budget and the limited time. For example, the stock footage of hot metal being rolled was not interesting, but the reflection in the window as Rearden watched was excellent.
The special effects are pretty good. The initial parts of the John Galt line test look fake (clearly green screen), but the wide angle shots look great, and the bridge crossing is perfect. Also, the bluish, gleaming Rearden Metal rails look great juxtaposed beside the old brown rails.
The screenplay was done well. There was only one place I heard awkward language which could have been smoothed out. Using a near future timeline and an unspoken Middle East catastrophe causing skyrocketing oil prices leading to the collapse of the airlines and dependence on rail was brilliant. The use of television newscasts to introduce characters and topics was an excellent way of both making the film topical, introducing characters, and bringing complex subjects into the film. For example, Dagney watches Mouch announce the Equalization of Opportunity Act from the Capitol steps on live TV. This really helps accelerate the film.
Overall, I would give it three stars out of five. I think if they had more time and a little more money, it would have been a four. For the screenplay and adaptation, I would rate it four out of five. If they could have used a full two hours to put a little more into it, I might give the adaptation a five.
Hank
ping
I will say that there was a lot to cover in a short amount of time. When the movie ended, the audience applauded. I wasn't expecting the movie to end when it did, but upon reflection, it was the most practical place for the setup to the next part, which could be a good thing since all the political statements and philosophies will be reserved for a movie that hopefully will come out just before the 2012 Presidential election. At that time, people may not know who John Galt is, but they will certainly know who Mr. Thompson and Dr. Robert Stadler were.
I would strongly encourage everyone to see it. My wife who is not at all a fan of Atlas Shrugged watched it with me and enjoyed it.
I had tickets waiting for me at a theatre in Duluth, GA, NE of Atlanta. Unfortunately, I had forgotten the name of the venue, so I did a quick search on the Entertainment section of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution website to find out which theatres were showing Atlas Shrugged. Their website notified me that it was not showing at any theatre in Metro Atlanta. Knowing this was not true, I then did a search on their website of all movie theatres located in Duluth, GA. Needless to say, someone had deleted the theatre that was showing Atlas Shrugged from its list of Duluth theatres.
I finally found it by doing a Bing search of Duluth theatres. It was showing on three separate screens at a Regal theatre which is a big theatre chain for Metro Atlanta, yet our local leftist paper decides to delete this Regal Theatre from its list of theatres. Amazing.
:It is US !!!!!!!!
“It is us !!!!”
Nope, manipulators. Real deal exists. Look 4 it/
Hehe, well it’s said huxley wanted to call his novel “1948” but the publisher balked.
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.