AS2 Movie Review

Posted by moviecritic 13 years, 1 month ago to Movies
9 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Just saw the movie on Sunday, in the afternoon. After the 1st week, the theater only had daytime showings- not a good thing.

Not a great movie, primarily because of the actors. Dagny was too old, looked around 40. Wasn't she in her late 20s in the book? In the cabin scene where Fransisco visits, what's with the heavy mascara/false eyelashes? She's there alone in the cabin fixing the porch, and she has all that makeup on? Totally unrealistic and stupid.

Rearden and Francisco, supposedly leading men, right? Both too short, not dynamic enough, really bad. What's with Rearden's voice? A raspy whisper - really annoying. Reminded me of Keifer Sutherland - he always speaks in a whisper, so annoying. Can't you talk like a regular person? I hope Galt is at least taller than Dagny.

In the courtroom scene with Rearden - you see a big crowd of people in the gallery - WHERE ARE ALL THE FAT PEOPLE?? All the people were normal weight, so unrealistic. In any large crowd of people today, half of them are obese. The big excuse for obesity is they are so poor they can't buy healthy food so they eat fast food, etc. (which is a total crock, as fast food is much more expensive than buying fresh produce and meat in the supermarket.) Anyway, in the movie more people than ever are poor and on the government dole, so wouldn't there be more obese people than ever?

A major flaw - when Rearden is blackmailed into signing that paper, he does it to protect Dagny's reputation. Give me a break! In the 1st place, the movie takes place in 2012, not 1957. In 1957 a single woman having an affair with a married man was a scandal, but today, what else is new? Today, who cares? That scene was laughable. In the 2nd place, even if it was a scandal, would the character of Dagny even have cared? No way - she would have said to Rearden, "Don't you dare sign that paper! Who cares what people think of me?" But does male chauvinist Rearden even think to ask her, before signing that important paper? No, he makes the decision for her. Yes, male chauvinism was rampant in 1957, but either the movie takes place today or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways. You can't have everybody using cell phones, and then have characters acting out the morals of 1957. So stupid. They should have figured out another reason for Rearden to sign the paper.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Shrugger 13 years, 1 month ago
    I'm sorry... I'm going to make a lot of enemies here, but I'm afraid the producers of AS may have set our movement back at least a decade.

    Ayn Rand's novels, and Atlas most specifically, are, to my knowledge, the best stories ever written supporting the freedom movement. I waited thirty years to see this movie... and I can't begin to describe how disappointed I have been with both films.

    At one point there was substantial support in Hollywood for making this movie. I remember when Angelina Jolie was reportedly considering the role of Dagney, with Brad being whispered about as possibly playing John Galt (likely a pipedream... but briefly considered possible by many of us).

    The producers went forward when they did because they were about to lose their option rights... but they were not suffidiently prepared to move forward.

    I won't enumerate on everything I find wrong with both these films. Someone else on this site said it best... I'd go see an Atlas Shrugged Puppet Show if it was available.

    But now that it has been done... no serious producers of merit will consider touching the book again for at least the next 10 years, and that's a shame.

    I would have preferred to wait another few years and have someone with more resources and access to talent tackle this monumentous project.

    I'm sure I won't be very popular for stating this opinion... but there it is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 13 years, 1 month ago
      If Jolie and Pitt were in it I wouldn't have gone to see it. For me, this movie is about getting the message out so people will then read the book. There is no possible way to make a movie measure up to a book of this magnitude, but at least someone finally made an effort....in a climate where they didn't get much support even. I applaud everyone involved for believing in the Atlas message and getting it to the big screen. Nit picking it to death is counter productive to "our movement". (Fake eye lashes and fat people...seriously?? Focus on the big picture...not the shallow shit. ..Unless it's an adirondack chair.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by overmanwarrior 13 years, 1 month ago
      I just saw all this stuff and I'll say the movie is good because it has people talking about Rand. The books are selling like crazy and the movie certainly pushes that along. It has people talking about it on radio shows, and TV talk shows, so it has done what it was set out to pull off. As to the opinions of social worth versus 1957 to 2012 it is not the task of the artist to make some piece of junk movie and change everything just to fit the lowered moral conditions of our society. And as to fat people, if I want to look at them, I'll look to the left and right of me in the movie theater. I don't want to see them in front of me on the movie screen. I enjoyed the movies and I hope they make a third one. A lot of people don't have any idea how difficult it is to make a film like this, primarily because the entire industry was working against it. The guys who made the film are not film school geeks who studied film all their lives. They are business people who wanted to tell a story with film and they did a fine job of it. If anybody thinks they could do better, than where is the effort? Its easy to sit on your fat ass and bitch when someone else is doing the work!

      And finally Samantha played the role very well, and she WAS realistic. I didn't think she looked too old at all. The statement above comes from a fool. At one hand they complain that there aren't any fat people in the film, then they complain that Mathis looks too old and not sexy enough? It doesn't make any sense.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -4
        Posted by C_S 13 years, 1 month ago
        "A lot of people don't have any idea how difficult it is to make a film like this, primarily because the entire industry was working against it." . . . you mean, an entire industry was not working -for- it, it just didn't care whether it was made or not.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by overmanwarrior 13 years, 1 month ago
          I mean people who say the kind of things listed above don't have context to understand what an uphill battle it can be to make a picture from financing to delivery and the kind of internal politicis it takes to get through it. This film runs counter to everything modern Hollywood stands for, so it was very hard to get names to sign onto it, from cinematographer to director, to even actors. The story is not a good career move for them, and it takes guts in this day and age to sign up for a project like this. And you can bet they "cared" if this movie was made or not.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by patricesez 13 years, 1 month ago
    I see the Atlas Shrugged films as preaching-to-the-choir. I greatly preferred Part I over Part II. The reasons are simple (& have nothing to do with Story, of course) and I put them into a review on my You Tube [http://youtu.be/GaSW891uQWI] channel and posted the TRANSCRIPT on my writing blog (both can be linked here: patricestanton.com). I love and greatly admire Rand's magnum-opus, but I went reluctantly to "Part 1" and ended up enamored with it to the extent of nearly counting-down the days to "II." But "II" has led me to speculate there will NOT be a "III" and that "simple" reason is unless the Producers go back to a CAST that an audience will want to spend 90-120 minutes looking at, the last Part will perform even worse at the box-office. Superficial reason? Yup. But I believe it's true.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 13 years, 1 month ago
    Interesting criticisms.
    Read with interest since I will not be seeing Part II until Feb next year.
    Dagny too old: Dagny was in her mid-thirties when the story opens in the book.
    Make-up on when alone: 'Totally unrealistic and stupid' maybe, but that is how movies are done generally,
    and could be from a sense of self image, not allowing oneself to go scruffy, same as a man shaving when he is alone, a sense of self-discipline.
    Leading men too short: oh dear . .
    Not enough fat people in the crowd. You were counting?
    Rearden signs away his inventions: Yes, he does it to protect Dagny's reputation, not to enhance his wealth. The character of Rearden has a strong sense of values not influenced by the trend of the hour.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo