[r-q-tek86]

Well, I just got back from the movie and I have to say that I am disappointed.

The most glaring problem I saw was Taylor Schilling. She was not right for the character of Dagny. She seemed too soft. Dagny is a very strong woman who is capable of almost anything she attempts. She’s smart and confident. Taylor did not have the look in her eye to convey the intelligence and confidence. Angelina Jolie has the look needed, but her involvement would have hurt the film in other ways. Angie Harmon would have worked well without some of the Jolie baggage.

Jsu Garcia’s portrayal of Francisco was not much better. Ray Curtis or someone of a similar look would have been better. Garcia was acting the part of Francisco instead of becoming Francisco.

Grant Bowler, on the other hand, was great in the role of Hank Reardon. He looked the part and delivered a performance worthy of Hank.

We commented many times during the FReeper book clubthat the villains were more fully developed and better written than the heroes. The movie did not do the villains justice. In the book, I was struck by the sincerity of the villains’ belief in the progressive BS that they spouted. Their scheming still had a basis in their broken philosophy and they never spoke of it openly… except for Fred Kinnan, head of the Amalgamated Labor of America, and a few others. In the movie, Boyle, Taggert and Mouch are very open about their schemes and don’t do the word dances that you see I the book. Scudder and Eubank are mentioned, but never appear.

The script tried to cover too much and never delved deep enough into any one scene really set the plot into motion. Having read the book several times, I knew what was happening, but I fear that a newcomer will be lost and confused. The romance between Hank and Dagny didn’t get the chance to build as it did in the book and seemed much to casual on screen.

The lines delivered by the actors seemed natural, unlike those in the movie version of The Fountainhead from 1949. The dialogue was so un-natural in that adaptation that it made me cringe. It was literally as-written from the book instead of reworked to fit the screen. This adaptation of Atlas did a much better job.

In sumation, I would give the movie two stars out of five.

[RobFromGa]

I thought The romance between Hank and Dagny was one of the things that I think was easier to see on the screen as compared with Rand’s prose.

The acting of the Hank and Dagny roles made you really feel the attraction between the two of them.

The difference between the “love” scene with Lillian and the one with Dagny captured what Rand tried to put into words.

I also thought that the pure JOY of the scene at Wyatt’s home when the producers Hank, Dagny and Ellis celebrated after the successful run was in stark contrast to the stilted fake fun of the anniversary ball scene.

[AZLiberty]

The script tried to cover too much and never delved deep enough into any one scene really set the plot into motion. Having read the book several times, I knew what was happening, but I fear that a newcomer will be lost and confused. The romance between Hank and Dagny didn’t get the chance to build as it did in the book and seemed much to casual on screen.

I saw the 11:15 am Tempe "premiere".

Not having read the book in years, I may have a different vantage point. I thought the Dagny/Hank romance developed in a very believable and logical way. It was not a Fountainhead-style love-at-first-sight-fantasy-rape-scene. Their love was an inevitable consequence of their shared values. The parts involving the Rearden Metal bracelet were delicious.

[Graneros]

“In sumation[sic], I would give the movie two stars out of five.”

Ouch, 2stars out of 5 doesn’t bode well. I thank you though for an honest review. I will of course see the movie anyway. I want this to be a great movie but frankly I am skeptical. I can see this would be a hard movie to pull off in this day and age. I wish they would have put it in it’s original setting instead of attempting to modernize it.

[Graneros]

“In sumation[sic], I would give the movie two stars out of five.”

Ouch, 2stars out of 5 doesn’t bode well. I thank you though for an honest review. I will of course see the movie anyway. I want this to be a great movie but frankly I am skeptical. I can see this would be a hard movie to pull off in this day and age. I wish they would have put it in it’s original setting instead of attempting to modernize it.

[re_nortex]

How was Midas Mulligan depicted?

[Publius]

Dr. Robert Stadler with a Middle European accent threw me a bit.

[Misterioso]

Love Angie Harmon!

[new cruelty]

Having read the book several times, I knew what was happening, but I fear that a newcomer will be lost and confused.

I just got back from seeing the movie. The movie ended at 11:30PM then several folks stayed behind after the credits to share their thoughts. In short, everyone liked it. I had the same concern you did, but others who had not read the book thought it was a good movie. I like the sound track. Would have liked more scenes with Eddie Willers, particularly the chats he has with Galt. The scene depicting Wyatt's torch was well done. All in all, I'd give it two and three eighths stars out of four and three sixteenths.

[ballplayer]

Betty Davis would have Been good