Skip to comments.Will Conservatives Make ‘Atlas Shrugged’ A Hit?
Posted on 04/16/2011 10:47:22 PM PDT by presidio9
After more than 50 years, Ayn Rands seminal novel and ode to free market capitalism Atlas Shrugged is finally hitting the big screen this weekend, in the first of a planned trilogy of movies. Independently produced and distributed by entrepreneur John Aglialoro, chairman of UM Holdings Inc, the film Atlas Shrugged, Part 1″ was budgeted under $10 million and includes a cast of little-known actors (newcomer Taylor Schilling stars as the powerful female industrialist Dagny Taggart).
At one time, Algialoro, who optioned the books rights 18 years ago, had struck up a partnership with Lionsgate Films to make a version of the movie, possibly as a TV miniseries for the new EPIX cable outfit. But when the project dragged on without getting the green light, Algialoro turned to entertainment attorney and executive producer Harmon Kaslow to get the film made quickly before the rights to the book reverted back to the Ayn Rand estate. Shot in just 26 days and completed several months later, the entire films creation, from green light to this weeks release, took about a year, according to Kaslow.
Reaching out to conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute,
While advance interest in the film may be high among the films conservative base, reviews have been terrible. For example,
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
That being said, I enjoyed this movie, but I was somewhat disappointed by the inconsistent quality of the acting. The only actor who impressed me was Graham Beckel (Wyatt), though I probably came prepared to enjoy seeing him in this movie. And even he overdid it in his initial meeting with Dagny. The immortal Michael O'Keefe was a good pick for Akston in a mostly unknown cast, though his role in this movie was pretty minimal. More from him later.
Setting the film in the near future was a nice political touch that probably went a long way towards pissing off the "professional" ctitics, who may or may not have actually read the book itself. That being said, the adaptation is probably too literal. This could (and should) have been an initiation to Rand's work. Instead, we a left with an overly complex triptic that will probably only been appreciated by Rand fans. It's probably a good thing that the movie was made with such a small budget. It won't make much at the box office.
I don’t see how any movie rushed in 26 days could be that phenomenal. Sounds like this wasn’t thought out well... better to not be done at all than butchered.
I have a feeling the movie will sell a lot of DVDs. Many people (like me, for example) enjoy movies but do not enjoy today’s movie theater experience.
For a movie heavily dependent on dialogue,,with a good crew, and good planning, 26 days is a reasonable shooting schedule.
And remember, it was in post-production for a year.
And it appears to have worked fine.
Not everything has the shooting schedule of “Jaws”.
Have you seen the film yet? Sometimes I got the distinct impression that there was a TelePrompter hidden somewhere on set, and Taylor Schilling (Dagny) & Grant Bowler (Rearden) were reading from it. The acting was that bad occasionally. I agree with Streetpreacher: This one could have used a bit more simmering.
If you enjoy movies, may I suggest "It's A Wonderful Life?" This one is strictly for mild to hardcore Rand fans.
That's only four minutes of movie time per day. Not exactly a breakneck pace.
Im sure a lot of it’s popularity will come from people who are fans of the book and it’s capitalist story,,,just as im also sure others will whine about it because they dislike Rand *the person* on a personal level.
Angelina has her own disaster out now at Redbox. It's called "Tourist", and it's the sorriest "movie" that I have ever watched half of.
i am still glad she/they had nothing to do with this film...
I agree...how about when Angelina glides into a room in front of Johnny Depp, dressed to kill, and Johnny just stands there and says, “Oh, F**k”. I mean, Cary Grant he ain’t;)
The problem here was casting. Who goes to see Johnny Depp playing the normal guy? Any producer who was aware of John Belushi's painful "Neighbors" or "Continental Divide" would have put a quick stop to this. I'm not a huge Depp fan, but if you don't know that he can be fantastic at time, then you haven't seen all of his work.
Does it matter about the acting??
I would rather fork over my hard earned $$$$ to a film that is close to my principles with the worst acting on earth VS a liberal elitist anti-God liberal sermon of a film stacked with lefty Oscar winners.
>Who goes to see Johnny Depp playing the normal guy?
He played the “normal guy” in the Tourist’. OK..your priorities is awesome acting but not the objective of the film which is to preach the message of Rand.
Ok gotcha. I would rather give my cash to conservative actors who couldnt act their way OVER any lefty Oscar winner actor anytime and all the FN time.
No need to fork over those $$$. Stay home and watch Star Trek reruns. Gene Roddenberry was a Rand disciple, and Shattner would have raised the bar on the quality of acting chops in this film.
Saw movie Friday night in one of the most capitalist cities in the country. Audience average age was mid-40s. Theater was about 90 percent packed. Everyone clapped at end.
My guesstimate is that this movie will do around $1.7 million the first weekend at the box office. Not bad for 300 screens. Distribution is key. If this had been released on as many screens as “Rio,” it would have earned a lot more.
Don’t see the numbers working out for parts 2 and 3, even with DVD sales, unless Atlas expands to more screens next week.
How do you know Roddenberry was a Rand disciple when the entire series is all about multi-culturalism and the Federation is compared to the United Nations?
The youngers ones are frequent guest on Red Eye, and if you own a DVR, you really should watch this show.