Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Saw AS Part 2 at an Advanced Screening

Rate this topic


Dormin111
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bottom Line: Definitely better than the first. I and literally everyone I talked to and overheard agreed. It was better directed, has some decent comedy, and was even pretty suspenseful at times. But...

It's still a TV movie. It still looks and feels extremely cheap. The acting is mediocre and "stage-like" with the exception of the new Rearden who was actually pretty damn good. Everything still feels clunky and disconnected like the writer was just trying to pack as many plot points from the book into the movie as much as possible. It gets especially bad when they try to do "big speeches" like Rearden's trial and Fransisco's Money Speech (even cringe worthy).

Feel free to ask any questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speeches were very awkward. I certainly can't blame the writer for shortening the monologues, but I think it would take a far more competent director to make it work. Basically they were turned into extended dialogues where the hero will say three or four sentences worth of clunky Rand dialogue (which works a lot better on paper) and then the villain will respond with an obvious looter one liner like, "But what about the public good!?" (which also sounds a lot better on paper). Then everyone just stands around staring, or in the case of Rearden's speech, clapping.

I thought Rearden's acting was good, but Fransisco was just plain awkward.

It ends with (SPOILER BELOW)...

The first appearence John Galt.

Edited by Dormin111
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I plan on seeing it, though I will have to get used to any new actresses/actors. I will dearly miss Taylor Schilling as Dagny. I thought she made a great moral exemplar of a virtuous egoist.

The way Dagny dresses is attractive, showing her slender figure, her lipstick matches and goes well with what she wears, too. She is very attractive. To me. Definitely. Both mind and in body. Boy would I have liked to have seen her as a huge celebrity in all those People magazines and other such magazines for this role she played, but I don’t think the cultural barometer could handle all her hotness anyways… heck, what am I saying - they wouldn’t even be able to recognize such hotness if it burned them. How do you compare the two Dagny's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too very much liked Schilling as Dagny. She was beautiful and had a unique elogance to her thats hard to come by. And the party scene where she walks in with the fancy dress... BAM!

As for the new Dagny, ehhh.... I wasn't a fan. Samantha Mathis is a decent looking 42 year old, but is too old and has nowhere near the the stunning beauty of Schilling. Acting wise she was par for the course for the movie, which isn't saying much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that they tried to conceal the cast change by giving the impression that time passed with older looking actors?

There was no indication of this. The movie just ignored the cast change. There was actually a laugh from the crowd when Eddie Wilers appeared as a very different looking, but still black, guy.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...