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.
The 1:45pm showing was nearly full, and there was lots of applause at the end. I think it’s a sleeper.
alrighty bro, I;ll drink to that!
No doubt a future Rand might have anticipated?
If it includes the 3-breasted hookers like in Total Recall, OK, I’ll make an exception.
Now that I think about it, the last 20mins of a taped “Red Eye” are on FNC right now on the east coast.
Personally, I never got that “three breast vs. two hands” thing. And the actress was a total pig.
Ayn Rand was as anti-God as any liberal.
Not that it takes away from her message or book. Just sayin’.
Seen it. I’m old.
Atlas screens are expanding next week. It doesn’t show here until next Friday. Despite what folks have said on this thread, I’m really looking forward to seeing it.
BTW, I’ve found two venues here in the Portland, Oregon metro area, and both are premier locations.
Her real complaint about religion was the "witch doctor" not God. The witch doctors are the real ones who pull the strings. God in her mind was simply there for the witch doctors to use.
LOL! I’m old, too...but I guess that makes my grands “old” as they have seen it, as well.
“It’s A Wonderful Life” is one of the best sleeper films ever. It wasn’t anywhere near being a hit when it was released.
BTW, I’m old, but not old enough to have seen it in it’s original release. ;o)
Saw the movie last night. It was awful. One star out of five.
Ayn Rand once said to William F. Buckley Jr., “You are too intelligent to believe in God.” She was an open and proud God-hating atheist.
Their marketing plan is right on the money and coming into this weekend, Fandango had Atlas Shrugged as 3rd in their sales list with only 299 theaters. That is huge because most major films hit 2500+ theaters.
On Box Office Mojo, 77% of viewers are ranking this movie an A. The first night's box office was approx. 683,000 est. or $2280/theater. That puts it near $2.3 Million this weekend in only 299 Theaters.
If this holds, expect the release to expand next weekend. Think "Blare Witch Project" with an LSM suppression field and tea partiers cheering. Who knows where this goes..
I saw the movie yesterday. Loved it. Although it showed some traces of not being a “high budget” mega production, it should please most open minded viewers who don’t depend on critics to tell them what they will like and not like. If your movie tastes mirror Roger Ebert’s, then don’ frustrate yourself. If we want more conservative movies to be released, then we should support the ones we have, even if they don’t meet the “standards” of Hollywood’s “finest”.
Wasn’t “The King’s Speech” in only a few theaters to begin with?
“Many people (like me, for example) enjoy movies but do not enjoy todays movie theater experience.”
LOL, for me it’s the office - I enjoy going out to see a movie, it is the “least worst” movie choice that we are usually faced with that I don’t enjoy!
The local angle was Flyers owner Ed Snider being the producer.
“The people who have seen this movie liked it on the whole and this has held for the whole weekend. 10% fresh by the LSM critics and 85% fresh by viewing public.”
I love the book despite its limitations and plan to see the movie, but realistically, the first round of viewers were “true believers” who have been chafing for months to see this. Unless they plan to see it weekend after weekend, the quality of audience reviews and the size of audiences seems likely to decline rather than pick up steam. In the broader public not “ideologically” disposed to see the film, I think the opinions of reviewers will matter (unfortunately). There’s bazillions of movies, going to movies is increasingly expensive, so people inevitably will rely on “experts” to help determine which ones are worth rolling the dice on.
It would be great if this were a blockbuster, but OBJECTIVELY, I don’t see that happening.
Have you seen it yet?
Actually, Johnny depp was pretty darn handsome as a non.made up weirdo character. Was Angelina Jolie in the film too?lol. I daresay a lot of ladies weren’t watching tourist for Angelina...
Atheists are so funny about G-d. Most of them say they don’t believe in a Creator because there is bad in the universe. So they would only believe, I guess, if G-d was as deep as Santa Claus and made everything perfect all the time. Their word view is so babyish.
Nice take, ct libertarian:
The Hollywood commies HATE her for HUAC and to this day will ensure that anything having anything remotely to do with her is torpedoed.
Add to this, the producers of the film were soon going to lose their option rights if they did not move quickly and put out SOMETHING.
So they said,
Big money hollywood refuses to back us
We are at the deadline to get this made
We have $10M to do it with
We can’t afford Jolie or Pitt even if we wanted them
Hollywood will torpedo any attempt we make to make this film “in the system”
This movie HAS to be made NOW to fight what Obama and his Marxists are pulling off
Putting it in this context, what these guys pulled of was freakin’ heroic.
I will be going back today and bringing my son and any of his friends he wants to bring.
Ultimately, this film is a Hail Mary pass to
Get the message out
Prove that it can be done against overwhelming Marxists odds
To land big investors for Part 2 & 3
In these contexts Atlas Shrugged Part 1 absolutely nailed it.
I will be seeing it as many times as I can to ensure its success.
“Wasnt The Kings Speech in only a few theaters to begin with?”
Not sure. Sometimes that’s done for Academy Award purposes. Early limited release for timing to qualify for Oscar nominations and large release later.
For Atlas Shrugged, definitely not the case. More of universal loathing by left-wing Hollywood.
What’s funny is that if Atlas Shrugged does become a hit, Hollywood will use the movie’s existence as an example of how they are unbiased.
On my way to see it right now.