Atlas Shrugged II critique by LetsShrug
First of all I want to send out a HUGE thank you to EVERY person involved in bringing Atlas Shrugged to the big screen, especially right now when so many need to be awakened. NOW is the time and you've nailed it! So thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!
I was only disappointed in one thing while watching this movie: The size of the audience. Granted it was a 10:10am showing on a weekday (Friday), but I had really hoped for a bigger bunch of producers to show up. We were there with approx 60 others.
I didn't expect the movie to begin with the flight/chase scene, and for a split second I questioned that decision, but then I realized that it sucked in the viewer, making them thirsty for answers for who, what, why, where, and when is this happening? Brilliant!
I think a great job was done to tie in the details from the previous chapter (part I). Just a few words here and there were enough for the first time viewer to catch up with the present events.
The speeches: Hank Rearden in court, and Francisco d'Anconia at James and Cherryl's wedding, were cut incredibly short, but the main points were still made.
The new cast members, although older, were well cast. Particularly Patrick Fabian (James Taggart), and Kim Rhodes (Lillian Rearden).
The “bum” on the train's character was completely changed, the snowstorm, when the train stalled, was left out, and Dagny made her way to the airport, (where she buys a plane to fly to Utah to try and catch Quentin Daniels), in a truck, rather than on foot, but again, it didn't diminish the story line.
I am left with only one question. I know this is petty, ridiculous, silly, and unimportant, but I have to ask. In the part where Dagny is at their family cabin and she's cleaning up and chucking things off the front porch she heaved/dragged a perfectly good (as far as I could tell) adirondack chair into the front yard. Why? What was wrong with that chair? Okay, okay, it was HER chair she can throw it in the junk pile if she wants to...it just bugged me a little. I know I'm just nitpicking, but I wasn't convinced that she was “cleaning” at that point. I liked that chair. :(
All in all the movie is a MUST-SEE and I will tell everybody I know to go see it and I hope it has a tremendous turn out. We need it.
I was only disappointed in one thing while watching this movie: The size of the audience. Granted it was a 10:10am showing on a weekday (Friday), but I had really hoped for a bigger bunch of producers to show up. We were there with approx 60 others.
I didn't expect the movie to begin with the flight/chase scene, and for a split second I questioned that decision, but then I realized that it sucked in the viewer, making them thirsty for answers for who, what, why, where, and when is this happening? Brilliant!
I think a great job was done to tie in the details from the previous chapter (part I). Just a few words here and there were enough for the first time viewer to catch up with the present events.
The speeches: Hank Rearden in court, and Francisco d'Anconia at James and Cherryl's wedding, were cut incredibly short, but the main points were still made.
The new cast members, although older, were well cast. Particularly Patrick Fabian (James Taggart), and Kim Rhodes (Lillian Rearden).
The “bum” on the train's character was completely changed, the snowstorm, when the train stalled, was left out, and Dagny made her way to the airport, (where she buys a plane to fly to Utah to try and catch Quentin Daniels), in a truck, rather than on foot, but again, it didn't diminish the story line.
I am left with only one question. I know this is petty, ridiculous, silly, and unimportant, but I have to ask. In the part where Dagny is at their family cabin and she's cleaning up and chucking things off the front porch she heaved/dragged a perfectly good (as far as I could tell) adirondack chair into the front yard. Why? What was wrong with that chair? Okay, okay, it was HER chair she can throw it in the junk pile if she wants to...it just bugged me a little. I know I'm just nitpicking, but I wasn't convinced that she was “cleaning” at that point. I liked that chair. :(
All in all the movie is a MUST-SEE and I will tell everybody I know to go see it and I hope it has a tremendous turn out. We need it.
7:30 showing in a blue area of Knoxville, TN. Theater less than 1/4 full :( , obiviously the faithful, though a good range of ages. Laughter and applause in appropriate places, and applause at the end.
I have to admit I like the female casting in Part 1 better, but it really didn't detract from the overall effect of the movie. I found it amusing/ironic that the guy they picked for "Quentin Daniels" has made a career out of playing good-looking but stupid guys, but I thought he did a good job.
About the chair- it could very well have had dry rot or something that wasn't obvious at a distance. Anyway, you can have the chair- I want the cabin. My own personal Gulch....
Pump up the volume!
Wait...don't answer that!
At some point the filmmaker must slay the novel, and I have a few ideas of my own for a killer Atlas III screenplay.
I'll watch for the chair, might even buy it at auction -- with stubs, of course.
And if the new Wyatt is better than the old, I'll eat my hat -- *and* my stubs.
My spoiler radar is on high gain now.
As to the Adirondack chair: I don't like them either. Pretty uncomfortable, and better suited for kindling.
Had a pretty fair audience size (Newport Beach) for a 4:30 matinee, but I am hoping like all of you that Part II has a much bigger draw and is financially successful for the producer, especially since we do need to have a Part III.
The great thing was the opportunity to discuss with them the power of reading the book and seeing Part I. We talked about the premise of both the book and the Objectivist philosophy. And I believe we have some new converts.
Now about the film, itself. On the whole it was well done. But I have a major bone to pick about certain casting.
First, in both movies, the actors who played Francisco were simply not believable either as the scion of the multi-generational aristocratic builders and owners of a multinational mining empire nor an aristocratic, Euro trash playboy. The first one looked like a drug dealer (although he did project more personality than Esai Morales). Morales simply had no charisma, which, if there is one thing that would characterize Francisco, it is a powerful charisma that makes him impossible to ignore even when behaving like a worthless playboy.
Even worse, the combination of a weak Francisco and very poor editing of the money speech totally wasted what was potentially a powerful moment in the film. It was simply not believable that anyone in the room would be affected in any way by that speech.
I also disagree with LetsShrug's assessment of the casting of Lillian Reardon. Lillian in Part I was a strong, cold, and fierce woman with an elegant mask and a definite agenda when it came to Hank.
In Part II, Lillian was a whining, bimbo whom one could not believe would EVER have attracted Hank Reardon. Since the character plays such a pivotal role in Part III, Kim Rhodes took away all of the character's power needed to play out the role and Lillian's agenda. Kim Rhodes' Lillian isn't smart enough much less vicious enough to set out to destroy anyone nor try to take alternate vengance when she is unable to destroy him.
Jason Beghe gave a very strong performance as Hank, but I missed Taylor Schilling's exterior toughness and inner passion in Dagny. Although Samantha Mathis did a credible job of Dagny, she appears too vulnerable and soft and more likely to be manipulatable and not fully capable of taking control of what happens to her.
I also have to agree with LetsShrug about the "cleaning" scene. Was that what she was doing? Was she throwing everything out? Or merely moving out temporarily. I don't know if the problem with this was in the screenplay or directorial weakness. There didn't seem to be any explanation for what she was doing, especially with the way she tossed out the chair. Now I am not a particular fan of Adirondak chairs, but if she was throwing out all the furniture, what was she going to sit on inside? If one has read the book, one understands what is going on, but that was certainly not played out on the screen, and, yet, here again, this is an important event in the story. But in the film it has lost its power.
I'm sure it appears from my criticisms that I did not like the film. In fact that is not the case. I did like it; I only wished it had lived up to what I know could have been spectacularly wonderful. All the scenes I have criticized are powerfully dramatic in the book. They were not so much so in the film. But all in all, I'd rather have a film even with justifiable criticisms than no film at all. And I look forward to see what is done with Part 3!
And, of course, it is critically important to have these films to introduce new generations to a concept usually unheard of in film - not all businessmen are corrupt and evil. And that what we have in this country is no longer the capitlism that built this great nation, but a nation of crony-capitalists, looters, and moochers who are destroying what real capitalists have built!
Also, just maybe, these films might inspire people to read not only Atlas Shrugged, but Rand's other works, including her essays and commentaries. Not only is she a powerful writer, her ideas set standards for what it means to be a human being.
I appreciate the concerns over the chair at the cabin and it did strike me as odd, however it was blown away by my concern over the car. Fisker? Really?
I need some help understanding why it was tauted in the credits as well. I need to understand how a Fisker fits the ideals of the book and presumably the movie. I am not a US only type, so I will not pick on the amount of animation completed in red
China, but somebody needs to explain to me why a government mooching auto like the Fisker made it into this movie. Oh well, at least it wasn't a Government Motors.
Thank you for the excellent review. I enjoyed the movie Saturday night with a small party I brought with me. As is the case with every movie made from a novel I have read, I recognize the sacrifices that must be made for a screen play, and in this case the adaptation was as well as could be expected. The theatre was almost full. The crowd made rather primitive snarls at the dialog “…Capitalism doesn’t work without government…” My friends enjoyed the movie, and like last time tried to extract answers from me about what happens next. I again repeated, “read the book, or wait till the next installment.” They are not sated. I fear the cliff hanger endings might cost me some friends if A is A doesn’t come out soon! LOL
So now I am impatiently waiting for the DVD release date and the premier of the final movie!
I know that this may be a bit pre-mature, but I must ask, when is the estimated release date for DVD sales and is there a preliminary estimate for the premier of the final movie? I can’t think of a more disappointing possibility than failing to make the final movie! I must have it!
Regards,
O.A.
One thing that got me was the office in New York having instaneous information on the "smoker". There was no passing of responsibility down to the lowest of the low. But then, how does one show cluelessness in the time allotted for that scene. At least the "vacation" was mentioned. AND... the phones always worked! Even in the book there was phone trouble!
The speeches were another disappointment to me. Until I realized that 'sisco's speech is a full 18 minutes, and the trial would have been 10. Still, the Fountainhead kept Roark's speech more in the forefront. Another side item; I just watched "The Men who built America" on the history channel. The parallels between John D. Rockefeller and Rearden are striking! Not that I trust the history channel all that much...
I originally did not like changing the cast. If Harry Potter could keep 'em... I thought Mathis an even trade for Schilling, with different strengths. But I did like Jason Beghe and Richard T. Jones. Eddie is way out of the book, to the point of losing the story line. I wish Robert Picardo would have been Dr. Robert Stadler all along. The story line carried though.
All in all, the movie was great. The flight scene was a nice bonus. John's plane was really cool. I was thinking "Hey, don't throw that chair out" too. Thanks to "THE STRIKE" PRODUCTIONS for their efforts and commitment to this project!
Critiques of the movie:
The ONE PART of each speech that I wanted to hear and wasn't there:
Francisco: the part about if you see producers having ask permission from those who produce nothing...
Rearden: I will not apologize for my wealth, etc.
Didn't "get" Dagny throwing everything out, and she wasn't upset enough when she ran back to TT
Wedding - Cheryl needed a veil, and there was no screaming exit of the guests
Can't decide which James Taggart I like (hate) more in each movie. The one in Part 1 was a smarmy weasel. The Part 2 James was a smarmy weasel. But taller. :-)
Liked Michael Lerner better as Wesley Mouch. Although this guy looks the part.
Also liked Pt 1's Eddie better.
What I liked and what had to "massaged" for the movie:
The tunnel crash. The kid was great.
Jeff Allen - perfect setup with the truck
Also liked the fact that Dagny took the truck and had to fill it with gas. Yikes!
Liked this Dagny much, much better. More natural acting, looked more like a serious businesswoman.
A better Francisco would have been Eduardo Verastegui (sp?). Just a matter of personal taste, because Esai Morales was great.
Can't wait for Part III so that I can get the complete DVD set with deleted scenes and all. Just sayin'.
All in all,
Just joking, but finding actors you can afford, talented, available and willing could be another task for Atlas.
But why does Ragnar Danneskjöld rate *no* mention? Nor Project X?
And: Eddie Willers is a completely different person. What do you suppose the producers will do with him in Part 3?
I think the introduction of Project X would have been confusing without full context. I think it will fit well on it's own as the next phase.
I still missed the newspaper salesmen and the "hustle and bustle replaced by fear". I actually loved the replacement of the stow-away as the engineer with the hat (I need to get that hat, he says wearing the ASII hat). Loved his linkage to Fransisco previous and Dagney's puzzled yet forming reaction.
It is tough to create all the linkages and drop the hints without the written word. This connection to Galt was well done but I missed Ragnar....DVD edition:)
Ready for III, right now. Shrugged Marathon time in 2014. Required attendance for looters to receive govt assistance...(too far?)
Thought the flying scenes were nifty, a la Top Gun. Can't wait to see how Galt is portrayed. His voice seems much more gravelly than I imagined. I'm really looking forward to part 3, since that's where all the good stuff happens!
As to your nephew's name, a hoot indeed.
If trends continue, are there enough walkers and canes in Hollywood to supply the actor corps of III? If Dagny goes from strong and svelte in I to sad sack (please tell me Mathis is capable of any expression other than hangdog?) and unfit in II, maybe the next is a Sheriff Andy Taylor's "Ain't Bea?"
Not to get too norbert_numbnuts here, but at this point, the weekend (or week's end) tolls will need to rise, and rise sharply, to pull this wagon into the black. It's not unheard of, I'm not crying "Uncle!" yet.
"Finally! To enjoy the fruit of the film. I have to work tomorrow. Now I'm going to bed. Good night."
How'd I do, Maestro?
Load more comments...