Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Atlas Shrugged: Part 2" release date set for October 12, will

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I suppose this thread will do for posting a review. If there's to be a single thread for that here than this can be moved later. I went to a 2:30 showing. There were 4 people there, including m

I found the first movie to be extremely awful to the point of being offensive and insulting. They took what I consider to be one of the greatest works of art ever created, if not the greatest, and tur

They released a teaser poster. OH MY GOD IT SUCKS SO BAD.

  • 4 weeks later...

I prefer the first Rearden. I dislike this Rearden's voice. This one sounds like he smoked for decades, I keep waiting to see him light one up in that scene.

He looks quite a bit like someone I used to work for, who was a non-smoker with, nonetheless, a gravelly voice. Just maybe one shovel-full less than Beghe. He connects with me. So far.

Here's a new clip from Reason Magazine at last night's Washington showing. I see David Boaz, but no John Allison. No doubt Allison is in Washington, having just taken the helm at Cato what, the day before?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Hannity is going to plug the movie tonight. There was a "coming up" thingy in the bottom corner.

It was pretty short. Aglialoro and Kaslow were there. They showed the part of the movie that Hannity is in. Juan Williams, the other Bickle (not the one who played Ellis Wyatt, can’t think of his name, except that it’s not Travis), and some blonde woman talk about Rearden qua job creator etc. I suspect there needs to be more publicity, but no doubt that’s hard to come by, cheaply at least, now that we’re in Presidential campaign season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“The left dismisses Ayn Rand,” he says. “The version of her that they attack is childish, it’s a cartoon.” But he understands why.” I wish she didn’t say ‘selfishness’ as she did. That she was for ‘selfishness.’ She was human, and probably meant that in a rhetorical way. But if she was on this earth again, maybe she’d put it another way.”

-John Aglialoro at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/09/creators_of_the_new_atlas_shrugged_ii_film_believe_it_speaks_to_mitt_romney_s_critique_of_47_percent_of_americans_.single.html

I hope this kind of position doesn't reflect the direction of the rewritings of the major speeches.

Edited by oso
Link to post
Share on other sites

From http://www.slate.com...ns_.single.html:

When the third installment comes, in July 2014, we’ll probably get another all-new cast. “It’s hard to lock people down,” says Aglialoro.

Huh? For how many seasons did the cast of The Sopranos last? How about Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, The Good Wife, or Damages?

Edited by John Link
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian Doherty is in with a good review.

http://reason.com/ar...lection-edition

Anyone planning to go to a midnight showing? Even I'm waiting till tomorrow.

I'm going with my wife and some friends tonight at 7:40 on 42nd Street in Manhattan. My wife and I rewatched Part I last night and I was even more disappointed than I was last year, maybe because I've watched so much Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, The Good Wife, and Damages since then. I'm disappointed that the cast for Part II is entirely different from that for Part I but I hope that Part II be more satisfying than Part I by doing a better job of following the book. Who is John Galt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose this thread will do for posting a review. If there's to be a single thread for that here than this can be moved later.

I went to a 2:30 showing. There were 4 people there, including me, but there was hardly anyone in the theater period, so that doesn't mean much. I find that I'm in agreement with Brian Doherty's basically positive review:

http://reason.com/ar...lection-edition

Overall it's better than Part 1. The problem of clunky rhythm, particularly with transitions, remains in evidence, but I found it's less bothersome than in Part 1. I know I had less occasion to cringe, and more lumpy throat moments this time around, a better ratio. I remember in particular thinking there was some clunking early on, but then it hit a good stride and everything was really working, and then came the money speech. Now I thought Morales performed it very well, but the transition into it didn't click, I think too much from the book is cut there. I wish more of the speech itself had made it in too.

The new cast is better overall, I say Francisco, Rearden, Mouch, and James are upgrades, Eddie and Lillian are equal, and Dagny, well, someone was bound to end up in the minus column. Schilling was too young and lacked some for gravitas, Mathis is maybe too old, or maybe the right age, but simply isn't as nice to look at, and doesn't project that missing gravitas. So much screen time goes to her reaction shots, and she simply doesn't light up the screen, not enough. Quentin Daniels and Cheryl Brooks were both fine, Mr. Thompson was perfect. Jeff Allen hit a good note, though he's more gainfully employed than in the book. I thought they made a good adaptation move there. I know there were a lot of cameos in it but I don't think I caught so many of them. Biff from Back to the Future was in there (he really ought to play Cuffy Meigs, come Part 3). Teller got a line or two (such an ordinary voice! I figured he would sound like Kermit), and a long reaction shot. I didn't see Michael Shermer or Grover Norquist, though I know they're supposed to be in there.

I thought they did a good job with the climactic train wreck sequence, good buildup, nothing off to blunt its impact.

I felt the music was better this time around. But I'll trade Richard Halley's appearance for a more filled out wedding scene any day. His music sounded to me rather like a what if Prokofiev mated with Gershwin exercise. It was fine, but then again James Taggart seemed to be enjoying it (it's his date night with Cheryl); shouldn't he be listening to the parody version?

To wrap up, if you're reading this to try and decide whether to go see it: Go, and consider that the Doctor's orders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To wrap up, if you're reading this to try and decide whether to go see it: Go, and consider that the Doctor's orders.

I rather like your brief review. However, I found the first one absolutely horrible - I fastforwarded through most of the movie. Still, I am intrigued by the new Hank Rearden and Francisco. I intend to view the movie as independent from part I, if I do see it. The continuity is pretty much shot already. With my uncertainty about this movie and the disaster that preceded it, would you say rental (cheap for me with Netflix), or spend $11+ to see it in theaters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

would you say rental (cheap for me with Netflix), or spend $11+ to see it in theaters?

On the assumption that you are going to see it, sooner or later, you may as well see it sooner, that way you can share your opinion of it here while it's being actively discussed.

Few more random things: Mouch looks like Lenin, he has the same facial hair. That guy was really good, I know I've seen him elsewhere. Uh, there was too much of people waving signs, like protesters, Occupy Wall Street etc. And hearing "Who is John Galt" got annoying. It was just like in the book, but hearing it is different, it wore thin. The special effects were decent, basically TV movie quality, or modern day Dr. Who quality, but not what you'd expect from the likes of Michael Bay. I'll say this, if Rand had gotten it made as a TV miniseries in the seventies, as she planned, I doubt it would be as good as what we've got here, in Part II. It's a solid step up from Part I.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked this one much better than the first. It still got campy in parts, but I was right about the improved dialogue spacing. My theater was about half full last night, with lots of laughter at three or four points.

Biff from Back to the Future was in there (he really ought to play Cuffy Meigs, come Part 3).

I think he'd have made a good Fred Kinnan.

"McFly, you know unions don't hold water... Unless you're in it for POWER!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from having the pleasure of watching this film. It was only me and two others in the movie theatre. I went to the 10:05am showing. Cost: $5.00. Worth: Much more nonmonetary value..

I thought it was excellent. The essense of non-objective law was described, the money speech I thought the essence remained intact, Rearden's courtroom speech the essence remained intact, when Daniels said that the State Science Institute was a State Institute without the science made me laugh...

Dagny is very pretty, she isn't as slender as the first one, but the extra pounds on her figure did not take away from her attractiveness at all, but added to it a nice plump rump, full lips, her hair cut reminds me of Sylvia Plath(esp. Paltrow's when she played her role in Sylvia.

Less drinking in this this one (as Dr. Hsieh will probably note that), nice action scenes, hough you can tell it's digitized in a lot of it, didn't always pass as 'real looking'. I don't understand the beginning with the plane chase, why the fuck waste precious minutes on showing it then and retuning to it towards the end showing some of it again?

Daniels fit the the part, I thought the first Lillian was perfect cast for the role, but this one I had to get used to the most as the movie played on. Rearden and Dagny, Willers, I got used to the new cast very quickly, and enjoyed them, and still enjoyed the first ones, too.

Cheryll was played well, I like how hero worshippy she was when she recognized Taggart at the store.

Of course there were changes made, but they are trivial, at least to me. Seeing ONCE AGAIN IN THIS PART, AS IN THE FIRST PART OF THIS FILM, the MORAL/PHILOSOPHICAL essences, the theme, characterization of the novel remains respectably intact, at least to me.

I did not even stop to ask myself - "should I wait and just rent it on the Kindle Video Store?, borrow it from the lbrary?, buy it later? to watch? After having watched Part 1, it was out of the question. I thought in the expediancy of the moment, I thought NOW.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll write up something better with more time, but I saw the movie today and was pleasantly happier than after the first film. They did a lot with the time they had and the casting was better, including Dagny which seems to be a bit of an issue for some but I thought the actress looked the part (although her lines could have presented her better a few times).

A few side notes:

The actress who played Lillian deserves an award for nailing the character with a few lines, some attitude, and a look. As a complete aside, she rocked that black dress. No wonder Rearden married her.

I’m much happier with Francisco although he’s still not the troubadour I envision from the book, but that might be me. Overall good.

Stadler is being played Robert Picardo who played the doctor on Star Trek: Voyager. From seeing him act before I expect good things when he gets it next film.

The guy who played Dr. Farris nailed the warm and friendly versus slime ball well. His eyes were twinkling like an uncle talking to a kid when he was blackmailing Rearden into signing the certificate.

We get to see Richard Halley going on strike. It was a powerful how they did it and in this case I thought they used the visual medium to surpass the book.

No Ragnar mention? Boo!!! I know, I know, we’ll see his offshore escapades become highlighted more in Part III. I just really like the character and wished there was more references to his lesson for the looters. I understand Rand wrote him in more but removed it later for (valid) reasons.

Little things they did to take the ideas from print to visual worked well:

1. Dagny paying over $800 dollars for a tank of gas.

2. Speaking of the gas, did you notice it was still increasing slowly as the movie progressed? It started at $40 and crept to over $42 by the end. Yes, I love the little things at times.

3. The partially burnt out neon sign above Rearden when he was calling his lawyer to divorce Lillian spelled out “hopeless”.

4. A protestor’s sign: “We are the 99.98%” Heh.

5. The jet Quinton and Galt used was pretty cool.

6. I still like how they write the date on the screen when someone goes on strike. It’s like an obituary as a narrative.

7. When Rearden’s furnace blew, he saved the worker first. This was a powerful visual to remind people that the good guys are the ones who are concerned about life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...