Post by mummifiedstalin on Apr 28, 2011 23:02:07 GMT -5
Did anyone see this? I didn't even realize it had come out yet. I knew it was supposed to, but I've read a few things saying that it's flopping so bad that the producers have already started saying they may not make the rest of the story/movies.
I'm just curious why.
Whatever you think of her politics, I actually think that Ayn Rand can tell a good story. All of her books get preachy in parts, like the trial "scene," i.e., chapters of speeches, in The Fountainhead. But, still, I've never been as roused up by a book as I was when I read that in high school.
How could the movie flop so badly?
"Why: 'Cuz mummi says so." -- Change B. Goode "5. Butter a midget" -- Ratso's Amazon recommendation More Ratso: post you ass ag bags! Mitchell: I also just used "mount" correctly in a sentence.
Post by Mighty Jack on Apr 28, 2011 23:36:38 GMT -5
It didn't get a wide distrbution so a lot of theaters aren't showing it. And the reviews were savage. One scribe dubbed it this decades "Battlefield Earth". With that ugly image in my head, is it any surprise that I'm not rushing to my local art house to shell out time and money on the thing?
I feel like my arm is all warmed up and I don’t have a game to pitch. I was primed to review "Atlas Shrugged." I figured it might provide a parable of Ayn Rand’s philosophy that I could discuss. For me, that philosophy reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline." There are however people who take Ayn Rand even more seriously than comic-book fans take "Watchmen." I expect to receive learned and sarcastic lectures on the pathetic failings of my review.
The movie is constructed of a few kinds of scenes: (1) People sipping their drinks in clubby surroundings and exchanging dialogue that sounds like corporate lingo; (2) railroads, and lots of ’em; (3) limousines driving through cities in ruin and arriving at ornate buildings; (4) city skylines; (5) the beauties of Colorado. There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.
"Atlas Shrugged" closes with a title card saying, "End of Part 1." Frequently throughout the film, characters repeat the phrase, "Who is John Galt?" Well they might ask. A man in black, always shot in shadow, is apparently John Galt. If you want to get a good look at him and find out why everybody is asking, I hope you can find out in Part 2. I don’t think you can hold out for Part 3.
Post by TheNewMads on May 26, 2011 14:52:38 GMT -5
i think there was all sorts of intrigue during production and it actually started shooting without a complete script. plus i think if you're going to make a political movie you really need to hold way way way back on the polemics. and that's whether it be left or right. one of the things that i thought made "W." really devastating was that it really seemed like oliver stone bent over backward to be fair to george w., make him a fairly sympathetic character and hewed pretty close to the facts, cinematic hyperbole notwithstanding. on the other hand, "silent running," a movie i dare say most misties are familiar with, feels like it's hectoring you with its environmental message. overall it's a good movie but i feel that as a pro-environmental screed, it pretty much fails. sounds like atlas shrugged took the same tack and suffered for it.
also, since when is high-speed rail a right-wing libertarian thing? i really think they needed to update that.