Posted on 10/14/2012 2:11:18 PM PDT by ConservativeInPA
It fit well in a fine Sunday of beautiful autumn weather, worship, family, FR, and reloading. Those are my actual activities today. I guess I am still clinging to my guns and religion ... Typical Central PA activities.
I went on Friday afternoon in Augusta Maine. Maybe 30 people. Knew about half.
I enjoyed it very much;But I’m a big fan.
I give it a 3 to 4 also.
not impressed with part i. hope part ii is better. it was hard to identify with the characters inpart i.
I just saw 2016 Obama which is now on demand. Pretty good!!! I do recommend it!!!
Saw it Saturday afternoon. We also liked the cast better in Pt. 1. However, Pt.2 was a better production and the message was powerful and eerily pertinent to today.
There were about 25 people at our showing for the early matinee in northern Illinois. We would rate it 3.5 stars. Can’t wait for Pt. 3.
I saw it last night in Delaware and there were only a dozen people at the late showing (9:20 pm). I loved it. I had not seen Part I. I thought it did a great job of casting the government as pure evil and revealing liberty as the great value that binds us all together in civilization. It’s quite a wild story. At the end the protagonist, Dagny Taggart, meets John Galt. Jason Deghe as Henry Reardon was simply fantastic. His speech before the government tribunal was riveting.
Saw the 11 a.m. showing at a theater in a Dallas, Texas suburb. Maybe a dozen people there...and the crowd was retirement age (except us).
Of course, that time conflicts with church services so expect crowds will be larger later. However, definitely lighter than for Part I.
Part II had the hard slog of tying Part I with a Part III conclusion that one hopes is filmed and distributed. The middle is the difficult segment of any trilogy.
That being said, the cast and director changes did hurt the movie. The cameos were amusing but detracted from the message.
I suspect the only way Atlas Shrugged will ever get talented low-budget treatment on the screen is if the book becomes a British television series. Fat chance of that happening.
I’ll watch the third movie (if they make it) but Part II has really lowered the bar on expectations. What a shame.
I read the book and saw part I.
I couldn't identify with any of the characters.
I thought the whole lot of them were insane.
You would be guessing wrong.
The producer thought he needed “better talent.” Read up on it. It’s bizarre.
I also was a little disappointed in the casting changes from AS I. At times, Dagney looked a bit like Hilary Clinton. Was most disappointed in Hank's recasting - I though I was watching Jesse Ventura half the time with the gravelly, street-slang voice. D'Antonio's new actor was the best change, IMO.
Three stars out of five.
I think as storytelling goes, part 2 was better than part 1. It had an action-movie feel toward the end, even though the CGI aircraft were a bit cheesy.
All in all, a faithful rendition of Ayn Rand, and actually fun.
My wife agrees with you.
I agree. I’ve read the book four times since 1966. I got the DVD out of Walmart’s discount bin a couple of months ago. It was OK, but nothing to write home about. I think that when you build up the characters and scenes in your mind’s eye, someone else’s vision is often a let down.
Same thing happened to me with Gunsmoke. I’d listened to it on the radio for a couple of years. When it hit TV, many of the characters were “wrong.” Never became a fan of the TV series for that reason.
I saw it yesterday and thought it was pretty good. I liked the first Dagny better, but found out the new one is Samantha Mathis. She was Princess Daisy in the Mario Bros movie a long time ago. I thought the speech that Hank Reardon gave should be used this election cycle. It is GOOOOOOD!
My wife and I saw it in Mesa Friday evening with the Ron Paul Phoenix Meetup crowd. We enjoyed hanging out with other libertarians, and we enjoyed the movie. I liked the modern touches, such as the mention of the “Recovery Czar” and the product placement of the Apple Macbook Pro. I found it ironic, however, that the automotive product placement was a Fisker Karma, the subject of huge controversy over direct and indirect subsidies through the stimulus program.
MrsSgtBob, and I saw it Friday with maybe fifty others...can’t tell if that was a good showing, as we don’t go to the movies.
Didn’t think nothing of of the cheap ticket prices as I thought that was the “norm”....’til this morning. The ticket stub says Senior Rate. We are only 49. ;-)
Saw it today also. A few thoughts:
1. Didn’t really see a compelling need to change the whole cast. The two exceptions were the actors that played James Taggart and Wesley Mouch. The new actors in those roles were definitely more in character. Sadly, the new Dagney reminded me of a younger Hillary Clinton.
2. The story quality stayed about the same as the first one. There were a few approximations where a speech or discussion which could have been 15 minutes was boiled down to 5, but that is to be exected. I actually felt sorry for the character of Dave Mitchem.
3. Like in Part I, its hard to communicate that society is collapsing when so many things looks so polished. In particular, the electronic (TVs, computers, cellphones, and software) seem not to be impacted by a brain drain. This is probably due to the relatively low production budget. Not a lot of $$ for truely distopian sets.
That being said, “Atlas Shrugged” is a hard story to put on the screen. Even a bigger budget production with more A-List actors would have had major challenges.
Happens to me all the time.
When you’re 20, everybody is old.
We had a good laugh at that....I hope the young lady at the box office gets a job at the resturant we ate at that evening.
Cheers!
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.