yes, I was really surprised they left that out.

Well, we do, sort of. She calls him, wants to talk, and he says, no, I get it, we're through, Francisco's waiting for me, kthxbye.

I was also looking for Dagny's white turtleneck when they rescued John. lol

Agreed. To coin a phrase: Rob Morrow is no Hank Rearden. Also missed Dagny's drawing the sign of the dollar on Nat's statue as she left Taggart Transcontinental.

yes, think about it. the love triangle is complicated to get across. But of course to you Hank is noticeably gone. But to a someone new to the movies who hasn't read the book-
there is much we can do to get people into the theater and introduce them to Rand. What other vehicle do we have that can expose people exponentially?

yes. for people not familiar with the book-do not assume their reaction. Thousands have come to Rand through the movies. You will never have such a vehicle to spread the word again in a long while. Call your paper call your local talk radio stations get interviews with the producers. Who Is John Galt? You.

I agree with Ramius, above. Yes, the complicated "quadrangle" of Frisco/Hank/Galt and Dagny plays out well in the book - when I heard the Producers weren't really including him, I was disappointed. But the way they did it worked out all right for me, and seeing him being a tough guy at the rescue in the end showed enough of him, I think.

After seeing the first two movies I enjoyed so much and having all the feelings that commenter's posted about Rearden missing from the movie. And Francisco looking like he could be Galts Dagnys kids he looked so old and out of shape. Not to mention some of the other characters like Ragner not fitting the profile of the book. It just felt like such a rushed movie throughout the whole thing compared to the first two I enjoy so much. I walked out feeling deflated after getting so excited waiting for the last movie. But on a high note this was my wifes favorite of the three and liked the romance between Galt and Dagny. She never read the book so she has no idea on how much is missing from the movie.

I was surprised he wasn't there... but I think filmmakers have to make tough choices sometimes. In fact... the central story of the last third of AS just isn't about Hank. It's about Dagny and John. Adding Hank's parts would have made for a confusing movie. There wasn't enough time to do it justice. And... his part was pretty much over.

The voiceover by Hank when Dagny is on the train returning from the valley is very jarring, and then we miss the whole attempt to blackmail Dagny and her triumphant vindication of her relationship in the face of the smarmy government types. Oh well, we can still hope for the 13-week mini series to include all the characters and all the beautiful set pieces [the tramp on the train, the Wet Nurse and the assault on Rearden's factory, Ragnar giving Rearden the gold bar, and so on].

In addition, without Hank (and Lillian) included in part 3, we get no resolution of their crumbling marriage (which we see played out in parts 1 and 2). We also don't see Hank resolve his relationship with Dagny after she returns from the Gulch. So instead, we see the movie version of Dagny jump from Rearden to Galt (jarring to say the least).

I just don't understand how Rearden can be such a key character in the first two parts of the movie and then left completely unresolved in the third part.

When I saw who was cast as Hank, I was appalled.
Perhaps the director did us a favor by not torturing us with it.

Yes where was Hank? He would have added so much to this movie.

No, I usually blog on Tuesdays, so I haven't done one yet. Mulling it over. Will likely see it again before I write!

I agree, I wondered the whole time where Rearden was... I honestly can't recall seeing his face, the only scene he was in was the rescue at the SSI, and it was very dark.

Do you have a write-up on your blog? I looked but couldn't find anything.