Posted on 09/18/2014 1:00:14 PM PDT by bkepley
To say there is a decline in the quality of the screenwriting and production values would be an understatement. I know there was a Kickstarter movement at one point to raise some geetis (and faux outrage, apparently). And the producers have admitted that Parts I and II did not make a profit. But great jumping dust bunnies, this thing makes Plan Nine from Outer Space look like the original specs for the Apollo 11 moon launch.
(Excerpt) Read more at intercollegiatereview.com ...
Not exactly Randian.
I haven’t seen ASIII (yet), but I get the feeling that if the movie had a collectivist/statist slant, many of the reviews would overlook the supposedly glaring shortcomings that make it so supposedly unwatchable.
Like they do with Michael Moore’s body of “work”.
Great review. The guy obviously had a good time ripping on the film.
I know most FReepers seem to love Atlas Shrugged, but I thought the book fell apart in the last third. I liked where Rand was going in the first two parts, and I loved Dagny as a character, but I thought the last third was really laughable. The way this review describes the movie is how I would describe the book. And it isn't just Galt's speech at the end that is overbearing. There are overlong speeches throughout the book. Frankly, I am surprised they cut "the" speech as much as they did. Rand herself nixed a previously planned big budget version because the producer told her Galt's speech would have to be shortened.
Well, I saw all three parts, and I have to agree this one was the weakest. I still loved it, but technically it’s a piece of crap. So is the novel, as a novel, though its philosophy is spot on.
True. I'm one of the minority here on Free Republic that don't really care much at all for Ayn Rand. That alone proves that not all FReepers march in lockstep of thought. And I've yet to be zotted for my utter lack of enthusiasm for Alisa Rosenbaum.
My remarks in the post were directed at the poor writing style and terrible grammar typical of the so-called "education" from communist skrewels. MIT's Noam Chomsky is an exhibit of a leftist with a ponderous, unintelligible way with words in spite of his "degrees" in linguistics.
Sorry, it really was very bad. It felt like they had too much story to tell so they resorted to a narrator instead of acting to fill in the missing pieces. Really, not worth the time - and I was really looking forward to it, too!
I hate to agree with it, but I was lucky I was the only person in the theater when I saw it on Monday. I spent most of my time cringing at how bad it was.
They’ve gotten progressively worse. The first one was tolerable. The second was marginal. And this one sounds horrible.
” True. I’m one of the minority here on Free Republic that don’t really care much at all for Ayn Rand. “
Ayn Rand’s works were a instruction manual of *most* of the mechanics of limited government without the needed “soul” of such a movement....
When you consider where she came from in life this becomes apparent with her being a refugee from the horrors of godless soviet russia.
What, exactly, was ‘bad’?....the acting?....the plot?....the screen play?....the dialog?........
Saw this and despite all of its shortcomings I still recommend the movie. I knew going in that this one was going to be weak, and I was correct. The third part of the book is disappointing after the buildup of strength of the second part, and budget and casting are definitely lacking in this installment. That said, the film manages to complete the series by hitting the relevant points. I don’t think any movie could have provided what wasn’t in the book, namely a powerful depiction of the success of the srike and how it rebuilt the world.
I’ve never expected these movies to be blockbuster entertainment...faithfully following the book precludes that. Part one was fairly boring just like the book, which was offset by a decent budget with good actors and production which encouraged at least those with me who hadn’t read the book to look forward to part two. Part 2 served up the action (again like the book) but was weaker than it should have been, due, I assume, to budget problems. Part 3 continues the trend...weak ending in the book, low-budget weak movie. More like homework than entertainment, but I still recommend it. I believe it was faithful to the book. It also shows how current events are unfolding in frightening parallel.
Just my 2cents
O2
I love the hypocrisy of a film about objectivism that is objectively unsuccessful.
No, actually it really was awful.
I hold on to the hope that the message will still be received through the mess of part III. The character changes in each of the movies made it a little distracting. The acting wasn’t stellar. The scenery was beautiful, although some of it reflected the small budget. My daughter said that the music reminded her of 50’s tv although I have no idea how she would know that. And some of the production was beyond cheesy.
Having said all of that, the message of self reliance vs a society crumbling do to too much government intervention was pretty strongly expressed.
They’ve gotten progressively worse. The first one was tolerable. The second was marginal. And this one sounds horrible.
>What, exactly, was ‘bad’?....the acting?....the plot?....the screen play?....the dialog?........
All of the above.
What does the publication this come from have to do with the relative merits of those colleges?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.