Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike

After paying $11 to see ATLAS SHRUGGED at a local Cineplex, I felt compelled to write this review for IMDb. The earliest review for this movie I read for this movie appeared to have been written by someone who hadn't even seen the movie yet! (It was also posted the day before the theatrical release) In fact, the extreme polarization of the majority of IMDb users appears to be strictly along political lines, since most gave the movie either a 10 or a 1! It seemed obvious to me that neither perspective was likely to be accurate or helpful in assessing whether this movie would be worth seeing.

For full disclosure, I would consider myself to be a political moderate and a longtime fan of Ayn Rand's work. While I do agree with many of Ayn's sentiments about socialism, I do also resent the fact that her work is now being appropriated (and attacked) as some sort of political manifesto. Therefore, the film should be judged solely on its own merits and faults - NOT because you're a liberal or a conservative.

The original 1957 novel was intended as Ayn's most extensive statement on her philosophy of Objectivism and is considered by many followers to be her masterpiece. I would instead judge it to be an important, but flawed masterwork. ATLAS SHRUGGED is her love letter to the America that inspired Ayn to become such an advocate for individual freedoms, liberty and capitalism. It can also be viewed as a dire warning that allowing more government and socialist policies could transform our nation into the Russia she so bitterly left behind in 1925.

The main problem I found with the book was that the characters were unrealistically polarized in their attitudes about the individual's role in society. As a result, I often found them a bit rigid, cold and lacking in any sort of personality that the reader might empathize with. Instead, Ayn entirely expected her readers to embrace the heroes in her work for their ethics, virtue and idealism alone. What she didn't anticipate were the mediocre actors that would wind up portraying her heroes and villains This "character weakness" in her original writing is greatly magnified in this theatrical rendering,especially with the B and C list acting talent that was enlisted. To make matters even worse, budgetary constraints forced the producers of ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART 2 to recast almost ALL of the main characters?! Having watched PART 1 over a year ago, this wasn't entirely bothersome since most of the original actors weren't all that memorable to begin with. However, I can see this change being a bit more perplexing if I were to view both parts back to back. Samantha Mathis did an acceptable job with the Dagny Taggart role, but most performances were fairly unmemorable. The only semi-familiar faces I could pick out were Diedrich Bader (best known for The Drew Cary Show) and Arye Gross (from Ellen).

Many of the core ideas of the book, such as "The Strike" that part 2 covers, are presented awkwardly. Therefore, the reasoning behind the actions for the strike might seem hokey or incomprehensible to those who are unfamiliar with the original book. Also, the story has been given a bit of a modern face lift which I don't necessarily take issue with. The signs advertising gasoline for $42 a gallon at various points in the movie are both chilling and somehow humorous at the same time. I say humorous only because the story seems so fantastical at some points that I couldn't help but question the credibility of this ominous vision of the future. But more often I found myself struggling to remember what was originally in the book versus what was added by the screenwriters. Regardless of who is to blame, the results are a blemish upon my memories of the original book.

The decision to chop the book into 3 parts with widely staggered release dates has only served to make this controversial and often difficult book into a confusing mess. And by presenting the story in such delayed and mismatched parts, it's far less likely anyone other than a devoted Rand fan would bother to see all three parts. I actually made a point to see the movie during its opening weekend for fear that it would leave theaters quickly. (ATLAS SHRUGGED PT. 1 lasted only a few weeks in Atlanta and was next to impossible to find on the Internet for the following 6 months.) ATLAS SHRUGGED PT. 2 (and the series as a whole) is a disappointing and confusing representation of the original book. While I was initially thankful that someone finally managed to bring this book to celluloid, that feeling has now turned to regret. I felt very conflicted about the movie after leaving the theater and my friends (who were less familiar with the book) were fairly negative, even though they were politically sympathetic to the ideas in the movie.

Although I will probably watch part 3 (IF it ever gets finished), I can't see giving this movie anything more than a 4/10 score. I can't really see a casual viewer with little knowledge of Ayn Rand's work or the original book getting much out of this production. This alone should be considered the film's most grievous failure.

But as Ayn Rand would say, don't trust anyone else's mind before your own. If you are a fan of her books, then take the time to see these movies and find your own perspective. Her ideas alone are worth discussion and maybe someone else can be inspired to do this book justice.

I just came back from watching part 2 and up front, I will say that I was disappointed that the original cast was unable to return for part 2. That being said though, once the movie started I didn't really care about that anymore.

I thought Dagny being portrayed by an older actress was actually more in-line with the way I viewed her when reading the book, and the same goes for the other actors, like Eddie Willers, etc. I'm unsure how I feel about DB Sweeney portraying Galt himself since I never considered him a very strong actor, but that's a moot point in part 2 anyway.

As others have noted, the special effects in this aren't exactly top quality, but they're passable. It reminded me of the type you'd see on a SyFy original movie or something along those lines... not bad, but not great.

Overall, it was a good movie. Let's face it, if you liked the book, you'll like the movie. If you hated the book (or never read it, but hate the very idea of it), you'll hate this movie too. But that hatred would have nothing to do with the movie itself, but about your views of Rand's philosophy.

I'd give the movie a technical rating of 5-6 because it wasn't too bad, and some of the cinematography was actually pretty well done. Content I give it a 9 because I appreciate where Rand is coming from, so let's call it an 8 out of 10 overall.

Just saw the film, and was disappointed that the original cast wasn't involved. The 2 lead characters, Dabney and Henry, don't have the same appeal or chemistry as the leads in part 1. The film seemed very uneven, and didn't flow well enough to engage the audience, but the thematic material was so relevant to what is going on in America today, that I'm sure every audience member was angered at what was a very clear representation of the destruction of America, as we've known it, which is in progress today, because of the 99%ers. This film is ultra relevant, and should be seen by as many people as possible, just like "2016, Obama's America". People have got to start acknowledging that socialism is destructive, de-motivating and only a cover up for an "elite" group who will have total control of everything and everyone. See the film, for the message. In that context, it's very powerful.

Part II of the film version of Ayn Rand's famous book "Atlas Shrugged" has a bigger budget and a better known cast, consisting of Samantha Mathis, Jason Beghe, D.B. Sweeney, Esai Morales, John Rubinstein, Ray Wise, Diedrich Bader, Arye Gross, and Stephen Macht.

There are some knockout interiors, but the process shots, especially in the beginning, are horrendous.

Ayn Rand was a controversial person, and her philosophy of Objectivism is also very controversial. However, she was a visionary. In The Fountainhead, she talks about the rise of mediocrity in the arts, tabloid journalism, and the lack of artistic integrity. She believed in independent thinking, and in not compromising in your art.

In "Atlas Shrugged," Rand again proved herself prescient as the world in her story is just about the world we live in today - too much government intervention, gas prices sky-high, and a major recession. All the independent thinkers have disappeared, and the question on everybody's lips is, "Who is John Galt?" We learn here that John Galt threatened to "stop the motor of the world." He's just about succeeded as Part II progresses.

The characters in Atlas Shrugged are difficult to relate to, as were the characters in The Fountainhead. That's because they're symbols. Somehow they're easier to relate to in the books, I'm not sure why. Everyone does as good a job as they can, but this is a film about politics and ideas, with characters representing them.

I'll say this is better than Part I, it's better acted and less cheap looking. I hope there is a Part III, and I hope they keep this cast.

I can't say whether or not I recommend this. I would recommend reading the book first. I still believe in Rand the writer, even if her philosophies are tough to take.

I only give six stars because for some reason I have long loved "Atlas Shrugged" the novel and for years have longed for a movie version of it. But the bottom line is that this is a pretty poor excuse for a movie and really doesn't do the novel justice.

I guess somehow they came up with a bigger budget for this one and have re-cast all the major roles with.... well .... somewhat higher level actors. Maybe you could say they moved from D-list actors to C-list actors? Unfortunately in some ways the "unknown" actors in the first movie were much better than the familiar faces you will recognize in Part 2. To call them D-list actors is perhaps unfair...when really they are just unknowns.

The most glaring casting problem here is Samantha Mathis, and I cannot adequately express how much this pains me to say because I have long loved her and think she is a talented actress. But all you can say about her role here is, "What in the WORLD happened to Samantha Mathis?!" First of all physically she is all wrong for the part; too old, too bloated, too tired-looking. Once upon a time she might have been able to pull it off, but that time was past a decade ago. If you've read the novel you know what I mean. Dagney Taggart is a force of nature and Samantha Mathis spends the entire movie looking confused and exhausted. You know who would have been an awesome Dagney back in the day? Someone like a young Lauren Bacall---the body type, the facial features, the intensity....that's Dagney as described in the novel. Samantha simply doesn't have it, and it makes every scene she is in excruciating to watch.

The other thing is this movie is extremely talky, and honestly if you haven't read the book I am not sure you would be able to follow what was going on. The movie is 2 hours long and at times it drags. Blah blah blah, talk talk talk. Works in the novel, but not in a movie. Show don't tell.

I like the other casting choices although the jury will be out on D.B. Sweeney as Galt. They don't show his face in Part 2, but honestly I have seen some of his recent appearances in movies and TV, and he looks about as tired and done-in as Samantha Mathis (maybe this is what they are going for, a matched set?)

I will go see Part 3 if it gets made. I did notice a lot more people at the showing I went to than when I saw Part 1 (literally watched the first movie with one other person in the entire theater). So maybe this one will actually make money? I would like to see them re-cast Dagney although I know that's not likely to happen. Still if they could do it once....