Atlas Shrugged: Part II (2012)

Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The film suffers from attempting to make a modern adaptation of Ayn Rand's master piece. Part 2 does better than Part 1 as we now see the cell phones and computers in abundance. However, alternative energy seems nonexistent. Indeed with gas at $40.00 a gallon, Volts and Prius would be everywhere. Since plastic comes from petroleum, the use of plastic as a coffee cup lid would have ceased. But the film was made to show us that when all the world's best and brightest are taken away, Sean Hannity would be left behind and no one can fill the void of those wonderful job creators.No matter which side of the political spectrum you are on the film agrees with both: The poor couldn't exist without the rich. Henry Rearden (Jason Beghe) is quite the despicable character to be the hero of libertarian capitalism. He makes amateur speeches similar to those made by tax protesters I knew in the 1980s...the ones who ended up in jail. His message is simple: Government is evil. Taxes are robbery. Tax money given to help everyone but himself, goes to looters. In this film capitalism has gotten so out of control, they force the hand of government to nationalize all business and created a sudden communistic society by executive order. Can't happen, but try to go with it.There is a gross exaggeration of the battle between capitalism and socialism, as if the two can not coexist in one society, except it does exist that way in every society to one degree or another. However, they don't exist exclusively without each other. You hear the mantra of the barter system "True value for value." Hand me my barf bag.The main problem I had with the film was not the exaggerated if not cartoonish view it took on economics, but the stiff cardboard characters who can't act. The directing, editing, and screen adaptation also left much to be desired. And yet, as bad as it was, it was an improvement over the first film.

When other reviewers write that many people rate this movie low because they disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy and values, they fail to realize that her characters - this movie's characters - are unsympathetic and almost across the board unlikable.The Screenplay and its character development, with the necessary creation of drama on which the story hinges, is the foundation of any film. This production failed from the start. I won't even go into the extreme mess they made of the politics behind the corporate machinations depicted here, except to say that this story was like Wall Street's answer to its fraudulent actions that caused the long-term collapse of our country's economy and the immediate collapse of the whole world's. Who can sympathize with those whose only goal is undying greed?In the end, who can or will identify or empathize with the characters here who show active disregard and even distaste for other human beings, like the ones buying the movie ticket?

I just got around to watching the first two parts of Atlas Shrugged in preparation for the upcoming release of Part III.Looking past all philosophical objectives, this book changed my life. I have never been so connected to a group of characters or a story line in my life as I was when reading it. I don't consider myself an advocate of objectivism, but the way Rand depicts the triumph of the human spirit has always proved to be uplifting for me personally, and I love all of her novels.That being said, I was terribly disappointed in these movies. I feel like the casts did what they could, and that the general idea was portrayed decently, but there is a depth and beauty in the novel that was totally lost in translation to film. The film is left dry and without any real feeling to it. Instead of feeling connected to the story and uplifted by the successes of characters I love, I was bored and disheartened by the total obliteration of one of my favorite books.I also hate how much they give away about the disappearances throughout the movies, when reading the novel you are left in a lot more suspense as to what is happening. So, basically, these movies are a lot like the book if you strip everything away from the book that makes it wonderful.

Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book. I read it about once every 3 years. It is a beautiful study on culture, government, society, business, and economy. It's almost elegant how Ayn Rand describes the characters so clearly that you feel like you know them. These actors (if you could call them that)fall very short of the protagonists you picture while reading the book. Henry Rearden comes across as a crooked cop rather than a genius metallurgist. EVERY SINGLE ACTOR is different from Part I. Despite the fact that there are more recognizable actors in this movie, the acting is still record breakingly bad. I seriously performed more convincingly in my HS rendition of "Little Women" when I was 15. This is not a book that should ever have been made into a movie. It's too big for film. Atlas Shrugged, the book, is number two on the Library of Congress' list of most influential books, second only to THE BIBLE. Seriously, THE BIBLE. It's a book that should only be in the imagination of the reader. Otherwise...it's sadly downgraded to a low budget, no name, nothing special film. Ayn Rand would be so ashamed of what has become of her greatest work. Please read the book to fully understand this masterpiece!