Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

An unexpected masterpiece

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

After almost 50 years, this great 20th century novel has at last been turned into a film - in three parts of altogether 4½ hours. The film is naturally not as impressive and complex as the book, but it's still an eye-opener, and its messages get through. Having completed the enterprise of seeing all three films, and having read the book as well, I will try to give the whole thing as objective an evaluation as possible. First of all, it was a great joy to see this great novel filmed at last, especially after almost 50 years and since it's a very difficult and complex story to squeeze into a film at all. The effort on the whole is successful, and I think Ayn Rand (really Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum from Petersburg, Russia,) would have been pleased with it, even in spite of the bathos in the end - but for that I would have given it a 9. The actors are all splendid, the story is made comprehensible, the arguments get through, and the filming leaves nothing to complain of, with a special applause for the train and flight sequences - the accidents (together with the great trial and TV speeches) provide the highlights of the films, and there are quite a number of them in the novel, one more sensational than the other. Also the music is perfectly suited for the story, which is kept in style all the way, with a sigh of relief for at last a great film without any brutality - until the last degrading torture scenes, which fall out. The only irritating detail was for me that the actors are not the same all the way but are switched for every new part. It's not very pleasing to find different persons under the same names for every new part However, no one falls short, and all the three girls playing Dagny, the heroine and center of the story, do her well enough justice. The novel is worth reading and re-reading, while the films don't call for the same desired repetition, at least not for a year or two, but they give a very good introduction and overview of one of the greatest novels of the 20th century - all utopia and speculation, but philosophically very pertinent and relevant, and more so than ever today. It was written (published) in 1957 long before the great hippie movements of the 60s and thus, like everything Ayn Rand wrote, far ahead of its time. It's an additional asset that the films have succeeded in updating the story to the 21st century.

I love Rand and her Philosophy , Read most of her books and loved it .But about the movie , if I hadn't read the atlas shrugged novel , seeing the movie I actually couldn't understand the connection between characters and what is the plot all about and what's going on. I think someone who hasn't read the book can't catch the grip and it may cause a lot of missunderstanding about Atlas shrugged.Plot is so spreaded , there is no background to it so the audience undersatnds characters as they should to. filming is lifeless , Acting is lifeless , you can not feel anything while watching the movie , you can't immerse yourslef in the movie . so hey say it's a low budget movie , common , for such a great novel as Atlas shrugged , making such a movie is absolutely unacceptable and desrespect to the book.I actually had downloaded part 1,2,3 and was excited to watch them all , but finishing watching the first part I removed the rest also not to spoil the great taste of atlas shrugged which I got from reading the book.I can say the worst movie I have seen in 5 years.

There's a comedy of low budget and persistence to this series that belies the essential element of freedom in the mind of the rationalist that all people get to keep the fruits of their labour and contribute as they are able and agree to do for the common good.Rational thought is considered devoid of morality by some yet rationally the common good is worth much to those who intend to be successful forever. Rational thought is Ayn Rand's message and this series is on point though production values are low. I'll buy number 3 as soon as it is available.I find the series compelling as the argument for rational thought to rule our actions is one I appreciate and will buy.comment summer 2014

I saw this a week ago, and now that I have stared, openmouthed in horror, at that travesty of a Part II, I feel I can appreciate this movie. For one thing, the casting--Dagny is lovely. She is cool and contained and lovely--an empress of steel. When she calls Jim "brother dear," the blood chills a little. When she and Hank (we'll get to him in a moment) interact, it's significantly less gag-worthy than it was in the book. She is about as human as the written Dagny will get, and the fact that it was a B-list star makes it better--I have a fresh canvas, a totally new impression. I don't look at her and think "oh, that's Reese Witherspoon" or "Oh, that's Angelina"--I think "Oh, that's Dagny." Oh, Dagny, would that they had kept you--you and your finely molded, sublimely interesting face. Would that they had not foisted upon me in your place a wrinkled, falsie-wearing imitation. Hank, meanwhile, is not quite as I had pictured him--but he's enough. He's in good shape, he's cleanshaven, he's just about old enough, he has an interesting, keen face and a clear, no-nonsense voice. He is as good as a low-budget film version of Hank is going to get, appearance-wise, and his acting is brilliant. His very eyebrows speak volumes. His interactions with Lillian are on point--the scene where he rolls off of her and she carelessly adjusts her strap is great. The rest of them are fairly well-cast as well. I particularly appreciate Lillian--visually, she's on-point: almost beautiful, but with some jarring absence, some imperfection. This is very well realized here. Francisco I found a little disorienting, mainly because of the hair, but he played the part like a pro. James is a departure from what I imagined--I always thought older, less attractive. His cheekbones startled me. Nevertheless, he and Dagny pass well for siblings. The scenery is great, and the atmosphere is as good as time constraints allow--it could, as someone else noted, do with a little more desperation, a little more fear, but one must allow that this was fairly early on in the book and everyone still thought Socialism would work. Bottom line: a masterpiece? Probably not. But did they take what they had and use it as well as they could? I think they at least came damn close. They even managed to pump a little blood, put a little humanity into the film. I commend them. My final words: quit while you're ahead. It only gets worse. Much much worse. Take this Dagny, this Hank, this Lillian and James and Francisco, and savor them. Savor them while you still can. Because before you know they've all aged thirty years and Hank sounds like a smoke-choked version of the Godfather.