Wonderfully offbeat film!

Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

A Brilliant Conflict

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

I can kind of see where people critical of the movie are coming from but their complaints are very exaggerated. This is a philosophy movie, not a thriller. And its philosophy indicts so many people in one of two classes: Those that have been directed into a dependent state by society, and those that exploit those that have been directed there.The message is what is important and the vehicle that carries it is good enough in Atlas Shrugged 3. I've seen the critics forgive far worse-time and time again. I've all but given up watching movies they say are "good" only to be disgusted yet again by two certified morons in yet another unneeded sex scene to take them seriously. And even Gone with the Wind was the nemesis of the critics when it came out. Fact.People need to learn that the water of capitalism merely carries the addictive poison of statism, and that the cure is not to add more poison and then continue blame drinking water for making them sick. I'd be happy to see it done better but for some reason I don't anticipate many critics with government funded liberal arts educations would feel good about such a message.

The mind on strike! What if the world's most talented and hard-working people would go on strike leaving behind the tax collectors and greedy bureaucrats? One should see all three parts of "Atlas Shrugged" for Ayn Rand's message rather than for quality of production, although it's a much better option to read the book. The whole series is based on an over 1000 page book written in 1957, which was a fiction novel at that time. Now it can be moved to the non fiction section, because the future described in the book is becoming reality. It happens at a slow rate, like the pollution and the global warming, therefore public perception is low. The plot of the movie is not about "a revolution made by the rich for the rich" as one reviewer wrote. In the background of the story, which focuses - for dramatic purpose - on a few wealthy people (successful, creative and hard-working), there are engineers, doctors, simple employees who go on strike. John Galt himself, the inventor of the revolutionary engine, is just an employee, not a rich man. Towards the end of the movie, a lineman calls Eddie Willers saying: -"Hey, it's not my place to tell you, but nobody else will. We're about to have a disaster on our hands." This lineman goes on strike too but he certainly doesn't leave his workplace because he is a "greedy, selfish capitalist". Ayn Rand doesn't encourage people to be greedy and selfish but to take care of themselves first so they can be in a better position to help others. One reviewer is concerned about "who does the actual 'work' in Galt's Gulch? Who built the cabins?" Workers like the nameless lineman could have done the actual "work".Some negative reviews imply that real-world economy is bad due to the greed of large corporation owners. But can rich company owners, such as Bill Gates or Christy Walton be blamed for any economic turmoil? I just picked up 2 random names of very rich company owners as examples of real-world equivalents for Henry Rearden (a creator of new technology) and Dagny Taggart (an inheritor of a prosperous business). Responsible for the economic crisis in the real world are the financial institutions, banks, lenders who gave money to people that could never pay back, creating phony assets. Government is bailing them out by printing money, by taxing productive companies and by taxing people who produce and create. The Atlas Shrugged series draws here a clear line, in part II, when it shows how most financial institutions don't lend money to Dagney Taggart for building the Galt line. More than that, there's an emblematic dialog between Dagny and Midas, after Dagny arrives in Galt's Gulch, in this movie (part III): - "How did you get here Midas?" - "Me? I made my fortune lending people money to buy houses and build businesses, and I only loaned to those people I was confident could repay me." - "They called me heartless, which I could live with. But when they forced me to give loans to people who could never pay me back, I got the hell out." Real-world Franklin Raines 'earned' 90 million USD in salary and bonuses while he was head of Fannie Mae and I guess that he's not one of those who would admire or stand for a guy like Midas. I'm curios if he ever gives to charity any of the money he earned producing disaster. Gates gives to charity some of the money he earns producing technology! And this reminds me of another line in the movie: "We honor charity and benevolence, but it must be provided on the givers terms...voluntarily and not by force". How much of the money that governments are forcing people to pay is used wisely?As an impartial observer of USA politics (I am not American), I see that Republicans and Democrats cooperate well to satisfy their greed ( "Paulson financial rescue plan", the meltdown of the Middle East, etc.), regardless of the excuses used later for confusing the electorate. Politicians' interests lead always to cross-party collaborations that are detrimental to peoples' interests. That's part of Ayn Rand's message. "I am offering you Wesley Mouch's Job. Now, there's nothing bigger than that. [...] In Washington, everyone's going to want to be your best friend. You're going to have power!" Thompson says to John Galt. Galt answers: "But that kind of job shouldn't exist. No one should have that kind of power." Despite the budgetary constraints, which had a strong impact on the quality of the movie, the producers made an admirable effort to present Ayn Rand's message, condensing it brilliantly: "This is a strike of our minds. [...] We're not trying to impose our values on the world we left behind. They're free to continue to believe as they want, whatever they want, but they're going to have to do it without our help. [...] We know what it takes to build something and how little recognition you get from the outside world. [...] The people on strike worked for their own vision of what was possible. They rebelled against the quilt you wanted them to feel for their own success. You counted on them to keep producing, to keep thinking. [...] I showed them they were being punished for their own virtues, and I showed them how evil that is. [...] All evil needs to win...is the consent of good people."The missing production values have been pointed out by other reviewers extensively, that's why I'm not mentioning them. It's quite painful to see the ending, for which there was probably no production budget left. However, the movie is worth watching.Considering the production difficulties, it is unreasonable to evaluate this movie based on market response only, like some reviewer suggest. I agree with the comment: "let's hope, like Dune, the film is the impetus for a better quality miniseries".

There are many movies structured around Utopia. Lost Horizon gave us Shangri-La where Jane Wyatt played the marvelous hostess, and later in Father Knows Best she symbolized the ideal housewife and mother. The Wizard of Oz gave us a land initially wonderful to Judy Garland until she realized she was homesick for Kansas.In Atlas Shrugged Part Three: Who Is John Galt?, Dagny Taggert's plane crashes in Galt's Gulch, a hidden haven in Colorado where the other inhabitants have been chosen by their leader to create a paradise. Analogizing Atlas the legendary giant holding up the world who shrugs it off after getting no thanks, they have taken their talents away from the ungrateful governments. Dagny finds it heavenly but decides she can't leave behind the battle for Earth. Upon returning she does not remain long, quickly reconciling herself to the world's inevitable demise. After making love with Galt then soon rescuing him from the regime's attempted crucifixion, she heads to the Gulch to live happily ever after.The fundamental question for these movies is whether perfect societies can actually exist?In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve violated their Creator's edict and were exiled. They had merely wanted to use their brains for something, so reached for the fruit of the forbidden Tree of Knowledge. But after deportation, were they any different in temperament? Their incestuous children established the human race, which has had a persistently violent history.The U.S. was founded under Thomas Jefferson's brilliant Declaration of Independence, yet he was a slave holder of black people and nearly exterminated the American Indian. His intelligence did not overcome his racism.Arthur Koestler postulated Darwin's Evolution leaving us with genes from the savage T-Rex, dooming humanity.I've read Atlas Shrugged and seen all three movies. In my earlier review of Part One, I demonstrated how that film adaptation contradicted the novel's premise and I felt the actors did not get it. Part Three differs as in night and day. The theme of this feature largely parallels the tome. The actors understand what they are saying and doing.However, it is your decision if the ideas therein convince you to wish joining Galt's bunch or remain home facing your current circumstances. You may dislike their personalities or believe you wouldn't fit in, assuming they'd even allow you entry. (In the book, admirable Eddie Willers was not admitted, in the movie he is.) If you are attracted by the group's apparent congeniality, consider it a fanciful escape as in Peter Pan or Lost Horizon or Oz.Otherwise simply turn off your video and may you elsewhere discover a distraction from the travails of life.

Unfortunately, this third installment is probably the weakest. One and Two are absolutely compelling, the realism and effects astounding, and the blending of current TV 'reporting' as part of the plot masterful! The book is very lengthy, dissuading some from tackling it, so bravo for the effort in bringing it the screen! Some drawbacks: since this project lacked major studio support and the undertaking was so huge, the budget seemed to dwindle and major characters had to be played by differing actors in each episode(which makes continuity a little confusing). Yet the plot is compelling and chillingly current. Nothing suffers here due to the age of the original story! My big gripe--in this 3rd episode: Galt's speech to the citizens of America squandered the earth-moving climax. In my mind (in the book), I 'heard' a Charlton Heston...a James Earl Jones...a commanding Shakespearean voice from a well seasoned, almost crusty veteran with vast life experience. Here, Galt is a youthful love interest for Dagny, too young to have been the great creator from Century Motors of decades before, and lacking a commanding presence. He is underwhelming. I would have loved to have rated this higher; the first 2 episodes were in the 8,9 range. This concluding episode pulls it down, unfortunately. BUT, this is a tough project, and the other reviews show the difficulty in trying to please all tastes.