Rearden was barely in it, how could you tell if he was too old?

Thank you.

You're serious ?? That's sex scene was totally stupid.

I saw it last week and I will say that even though some of it was good, this film looked like something from the Hallmark Channel. The villains were like out of a dumb comic book. There's a ridiculous torture scene. Good music, however. Some nice spec sci-fi FX. But it's a 1 1/2 star film. Too bad. The fu*king dumbest scene is when Dagny gives orders to the train workmen to find a way of getting the trains running, then immediately dashes off to a private location to have sex with John Galt. Friggin' STUPID !! I don't care if it's "in the book". That's make Rand look like an inept writer. I wanted to throw a tomato at the movie screen. Another thing --- that "bad guys" are so lame. They just drink wine and smoke cigars and they're portrayed as some sort of evil cadre. And one more --- don't expect to see any $ sign at the end of the film.

I spoke to my friend about Atlas Shrugged before but it was not until the movie releases that he truly understood. We can now have discussions about the philosophy and relate the story to current events. He has, in turn, recommended to movies to his family. True story about the positive impact of these films.

Yes, the political stuff seemed too partisan and felt tacked on to the basic romance movie that the producers had decided it was going to be. I didn't think it was well integrated. I wish they had trusted people to be able to get the philosophy without having it dumbed down into a romance movie with occasional billboards here and there.

I would have been okay with the still shot of the bridge being destroyed, but the VO of "It was destroyed by government regulation" made no sense to me.

I was actually fine with the torture scene but I didn't like the way they handled the part about John telling them how to fix the machine.

Saw it on opening day. There were 12 people in the theatre, eight of them my group; five of my people had read the book and the other three had seen parts 1 and 2. We were all accepting of the fact that each part had a different cast, and we all agreed that all the actors in all three films did a credible job in capturing the essence of their characters. After all, how many Batmans, 007's and Dr. Who's have their audiences embraced?

We all thought part 3 was superb. The chemistry between Galt/Dagny was palpable. All the important points were included, Rand's many monologues masterfully condensed to state the essential philosophical principles in the clearest form for today's audiences in today's vernacular, reaching its peak in the Akston/Dagny dialogue to build up to Galt's speech. Bravo on reducing the book's inexorable dissertation to the few minutes of a powerful colloquial summary.

Yes, the book's fans will all have their own gripes about what had to be omitted and severely abbreviated. It could be argued, for example, that after an earlier foreshadowing comment about it, the destruction of the Mississippi bridge should have been more dramatic and active than just showing a still shot of it broken. I, for one, was willing to accept that, as well as the several other newsreel-style shots that I consider to have been brilliantly selected to illustrate the narrative in shorthand form. The editing was excellent, interweaving black and white shots and captions with the live action.

The sex scene was exquisitely done, and I had no problem with substituting a table for the book's piles of sandbags.

The decision to have John strapped crucifixion-style to a fence rather than lying on a table should get the most controversy, but I can understand the symbolism chosen by the filmmakers to connect to the culturally embedded image of the savior of the world.

A thousand other details can be argued even for why Rand structured her plot and specific scenes as she did, but that is just static when discussing a work of art. That the three films now exist and have entered the world's cultural lore is a magnificent achievement. On the battlefield of ideas, they are the visible representatives of Reason, Freedom, Individualism and, in essence, the building blocks of a civilized society and the bulwark against the notion that looting and mooching are the ideal forms of social justice.

One can only hope and encourage the eventual production of a series with a consistent cast and more detailed inclusion of all the material in the book. In the meanwhile, people can read the book or listen to its audio version. They will then gain an even greater appeciation of the skill and love that produced these three films.

In my view, these three parts by Kaslow and Aglialoro stand as historical landmarks of courage, passion, intelligence and a celebration of Rand's unique contribution to human art and intellectual evolution. As for being propaganda, damn right. The world is perishing from deadly ideas, and this is the antidote.

We have all received far more value from this work than the cost of a movie ticket and eventual purchase of the DVD and our Kickstarter pittance. Denigrating their work on petty details is unworthy, especially from individuals who are not capable of doing it better.

That the closing scene shows the Statue of Liberty where the lights do NOT go out is poignant and moving, no dry eyes here. My personal thanks to all involved in these productions. Well done!

I had almost the same reaction when he said, "I'm always open to a deal!", because I could anticipate what was coming next. Excellent scene!

What a shame. That is more an art house type movie total.

I burst out laughing when Galt said, "What have you got to offer me?" It was so good natured and open and all it still said, "What the fuck could a creature like you possibly have to offer me?" Very nicely delivered. Good scene!

Indeed, a remake of the Fountainhead would be nice. To get rid of Gary cooper's wooden performance. And to show that someone like Patricia Neal should have played the Dagney role.

Harry M

I saw this movie last night (Friday night), 10:15pm showing. There were 12 people in attendance including me. Saw it again this afternoon, 2:25pm start time. There were 49 or 50 people, ranging in age from early 20s to probably late 60's or early 70's, and all ages in between.

I agree that the first 15-20 minutes were a little tough to sit through. I also agree that the Galt speech was well done. I thought they did a really nice job condensing a 3 hour speech into 3 or 4 minutes.

And I also agree that Hugh Akston's conversation with Dagny was the best scene in the movie. In that 2 minute scene, the entire conflict between the producers and the moochers & looters was explained very well.

And although I like Joaquim de Almeida, his casting as Francisco d'Anconia just didn't work. On the flip side, Larry Cedar was well cast as Dr. Ferris (almost as good as Rebecca Wisocky as Lillian Rearden)

I'll follow Lionel's lead and not get into much detail to avoid any spoilers for anyone who hasn't see the movie yet.

But in considering what had to be done in order to bring this literary masterpiece to the big screen, ASP3 suffered (if "suffered" is the right word) from the same malady that afflicted ASP1 and ASP2: far too much story to tell in far too little screen time.

When I look at the trilogy, I think that everyone involved did about as well as they could have done, knowing that they would have to condense 60 hours of an audio book into maybe 5 hours of movie.

But because so much either had to be left out or had to be severely condensed, there were things that just wouldn't make much sense if one was seeing any of the three parts without having read the book.

I do have one question: Why was there a license plate on Galt's vehicle? I'm assuming he never drove it out of the valley, and I'm also assuming he flew his plane back and forth between Colorado and New York. Since the vehicle never strayed onto public roads, why the need for a license plate?

thanks for your inspiration and for promoting the movies. we have the world to win

You are so right about people finding AR through the movies. In today's culture many, if not most people have an attention span of 140 characters. They find a book of any size daunting. The movies expose them to AR. Some of those exposed will read the book. When people see the conversation between Akston and Dagny, when they hear the doc talk about his invention without the interference of government controlled health care, when they hear Thompson and Galt....they will get it.

I personally have introduced over a dozen people to AR just through the movies.

Saw it yesterday - first screening. I thought I was the only one disappointed in it.
REALLY ? You brought Ragnar in the movie....for THAT ?
Reardon - too old.
Dagny - too young.
The destruction of the Taggart bridge was too important to have sluffed over like that. The death of Jim's wife ? a fish out of water - ZERO perspective. Project F was laughable. There should have been more leading up to "the end". How could you NOT show when Reardon was finally convinced to join ? I LIKED AS1&2 - this was not even in the same category. After waiting 2 1/2 years, I'm glad it was done, but I wish it had been done better.

thanks for your comments. if you want stuff, you have to offer value for value. what have you done to ensure people go see it? Just because you, as an AR fan, found things to be critical about in the movie-don't assume someone who has s not yet heard of AR or AS would view the movie in the same way. 10s of thousands have been introduced to Rand through these movies. I know. I meet people everyday in the gulch who have. Some of my closest friends I have met because they watched the movies and found this site. Unbelievably they knew nothing about AR before they watched ASP 1. amazing!! Who Is John Galt? You

call talk radio hosts in your state who are local. get them to get the producers on the radio. same with your local news paper. find an angle. now- non fiction. call theaters. rockymountainpirate had no theaters in Montana showing the film. She got through to the CEO of a string of theaters in her state. They were highly enthusiastic and getting the film. Who is John Galt? You

The picture is headed to a very low audience total and a poor box office as things now stand. Is there anything that can be done to change that course? How long will the limited number of theaters continue to run it without a sizable audience. It is probably too late for an advertising campaign, even if there is funding for it. I wonder if a plug from Rush would help if he were willing to do it? What else?

I saw it last night. There were about 30 or 40 of us in the theater on West Sahara in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, only 5 of the people in the theater didn't have gray hair. I'd like to see more young people exposed to this.

I hate to say anything negative about the movie because I really want it to succeed and I really was hoping more people would be exposed to Atlas Shrugged as a result of seeing the movie, but... I'm sorry to say I was severely disappointed with the acting and direction in the first 10-20 minutes. Overall I'd have to rate the movie a B or a C. The acting in the first 20 minutes quickly killed my enthusiasm for the movie. All that enthusiasm turned to dread about how bad the following scenes would be. It was less than I'd expect from a high school play or a soap opera.

It did pick up later on with a few bright spots.

The scene with Akston and Dagney turned out to be the best part of the movie. PLEASE post that to YouTube. If the people of America see nothing else but that one scene they'll get the entire point of Atlas Shrugged.

James Taggert was brilliantly acted. I really, really enjoyed watching his parts. Brilliant!

Francisco was too old to be Dagney's old childhood boyfriend and there was zero chemistry between them. Not already knowing the storyline from the book, I would have thought he was an older family friend. Casting completely missed the mark on that one.

I, too, failed to see the horror of Project F. What a joke.

Too many important parts of the story were left out or glossed over. Another 30 minutes of film could have made this a much more powerful movie storyline.

I'm glad it was made, but I'm greatly disappointed with the result. Now, I'm looking forward to a remake of it.

Again, though, PLEASE post the Akston/Dagney scene to YouTube. If the people of America see nothing else but that one scene they'll get the entire point of Atlas Shrugged.

I was actually impressed with the "upgrade" version of the first two.
Ayn wrote philosophically (non-concrete-bound) so the principles are the same ... the content of the sets and props change.
For instance: We used to watch TV on a small screen situated in a gigantic box with vacuum tubes and transistors. NOW we watch TV on our cell phones because of digital technology.
TV is still TV.

Yes, Taylor Schilling was great. She "looked" the most like Dagny of the three, to me. But then I always wanted Lauren Bacall as Dagny. So sad.

I also thought that this was a great Jim Taggert -- and Gerald Starnes was good too. Ned Vaughn was so energetic in that small role that I wish he had had a bigger part in the movie. He looks the age and could conceivably have been a good Ragnar.

The Cheryl/Dagny scene just felt flat -- lacking context, you don't understand why driven Dagny would respond so gently to Cheryl.