It's not a great movie. Sorry. Ayn Rand held uncompromising views, so I think it's only fair that I hold the movie inspired by her books to the highest scrutiny (or, at least, very high).
First, though, some of the things that the movie had done right. The blatant right-wing view was REFRESHING. To see the politicians, and the political entrepreneurs for the criminals they are; and to see the businessmen, or the REAL entrepreneurs for the heroes they are was rewarding. I enjoyed seeing a movie that makes fun of the leftist notion that capitalists are the evil bourgeois pigs who make society worse off. Instead, it portrays them as producers and creators; the people who make society run. The whole "Equalization of Opportunity bill" was hilariously accurate; and the over-bearing self-righteous altruism of leftists was exposed for the facade of intellectually empty worldviews that it is.
With that done, here is the bad. I'll admit, my complaints may seem a little lofty, and I am no professional in the film-making industry, but I judge movies based on how much more alive they make me feel. Also, mind you, I haven't read the book, which may explain why I may not have found it so invigorating.
The first issue I had was that the pacing of the story-telling seemed chopped up in short bursts. The flow was constantly interrupted with some sort of writing or announcement that explained who the characters were, or the constant dates of when a person "disappeared".
Also, it seemed to emphasize parts which were irrelevant, and skip past parts that were much more interesting. Two examples that pop into mind is the "anniversary party" which seemed to last forever, and the part where the heroes of the story find the prototype for an engine. In movies, particularly, there are certain toolkits available to a story-teller such as the cinematography which seemed to be underutilized. Stylistically, the movie seemed incredibly mediocre.
The characters themselves, as I've seen many critiques complain, were incredibly underdeveloped. One thing I realized while reflecting later on was that I felt no real connection to any of the characters. Whether that was because of the poor story-telling, or because the characters themselves are unattractive, I'm not sure. Especially the two heroes, who seem to have incredibly unhappy lives; with no real connection to the people around them except profit. As uncompromising free market as I am, this really does not portray the beauty of the system to be lonely and hedonistic. The "love affair" to me was incredibly grotesque, but it didn't seem like the directors/producers even took the time to romanticize the affair.
And I think that characterizes the whole movie. NOTHING was romanticized; everything felt as flat as my walls.
Movies are more than aesthetically pleasing; but have the option of setting the mood and telling the story in numerous ways. The sound and music, which was painfully lacking in Atlas Shrugged, the cinematography, acting, dialogue, character development, etc... It felt as though the directors didn't even think about these aspects, and what they convey in the story.
Take, for example, one of my favorite movies, the first "Lord of the Rings" film. The music was brilliant, the acting was brilliant, cinematography was brilliant, and the relationship between the characters was PHENOMENALLY brilliant. The brotherhood that Sam and Frodo felt made me long for better friendships in my own life. The open-ended adventure made me long for adventures in my own life. The quest and purpose made me want to examine the purpose of my own life. This was because all the parts of the whole produced a brilliant film, where the music, acting, dialogue, etc. worked together to convey the larger picture.
Atlas Shrugged was overbearingly mediocre in this regard.
So, I would say, I am glad that a movie that emphasizes real entrepreneurship over political entrepreneurship is out there. However, the movie itself was incredibly underdone, underpolished, and really needed a whole lot of work overall.
2/5 austinian stars.
