I have a feeling that most reviewers are going to be either biased against or for the new adaptation of Atlas Shrugged based on their opinions about the book and its author Ayn Rand. I read Ebert's review before going to see it, and he just tore it apart. Before he even gets into his review he mentions how much he despises the ideals represented by the book. Maybe it helped lower my expectations, but I found the film to be quite watchable. Most every complaint Ebert had about the film was baseless.
But of course there were several minor problems with the film. If you've read the book you know that John Galt is some kind of famous non-entity, a shadowy figure that only the reader is allowed glimpses of. In the movie they literally put him in his own personal shadow that seems to follow him around. Very cheesy. And there was a potentially excellent moment of suspense as they first ride a train on Rearden steel that was almost completely wasted. Let's just say the directorial choices weren't as strong as they could have been.
But my biggest complaint is that they just didn't develop Dagny's character. It's a real shame they couldn't have kept Angelina Jolie, who was originally slated to play Dagny. Taylor Schilling is a lovely and talented actress, but she wasn't quite right for the part. That sort of mis-cast can be compensated by great direction and character moments, but that just doesn't happen here. Angelina practically is Dagny already. She's got an air of cold beauty. You can see the intelligence in her eyes and the way she talks. You wouldn't be surprised if she canceled Christmas and made everybody work through the holidays. But if you look deeper, you could see that she has a real compassion for what she sees as important. I'm rambling. Anyway, it's just a shame. It probably broke this film.
It's only Part 1, so the film ends abruptly after an emotional moment. The wikipedia article says that this is the first part in a trilogy, which is hard to imagine. They're moving through the plot so quickly that a lot of it probably won't make much sense unless you've read the book. Is there really that much left of the core story? Maybe Part 3 is reserved for a full reading of Galt's speech.
It's tempting to spend some time writing my opinions on objectivism, but since this is only Part 1, it really wouldn't make much sense. That kind of discussion would be more appropriate after the story's end, or perhaps in a review about the book itself.
As for the film, I recommend it to anyone who has read the book. Anyone else will probably just be lost. And it's not a "good film" in and of itself. Like the book, it is only interesting as a means of conveying the ideas of the author.
Comments welcome!
