So, who’s seeing the “Atlas Shrugged” movie?

posted at 8:39 pm on April 15, 2011 by Allahpundit

We posted the trailer months ago, but in honor of today’s opening, here’s PJTV on location at the D.C. premiere (via Common Cents). The question on everyone’s mind: What does noted liberal Roger Ebert think? Well, guess:

So OK. Let’s say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, you’re an objectivist or a libertarian, and you’ve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

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.

Any film review featuring the word “rumpy-pumpy” will always have a place at Hot Air. Anyway: I haven’t seen it yet, but based on the other reviews I’ve read, I suspect he’s onto something. Buying a ticket sounds like less a fun afternoon in the making than an act of ideological devotion, so unless you’re an Objectivist eager to make the pilgrimage to cinematic Mecca, I’m not sure why you’d bother. In fact, even some critics well-disposed to Rand politically are encouraging people to pass: Both Kurt Loder and P.J. O’Rourke came away unimpressed with the flick as entertainment, however sympathetic they might be to the message. (See Reason’s round-up for a few who were more enthused.) Have any of the Hot Air faithful had a chance to see it yet? I’m open to persuasion.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I sooooo want to see the movie, but it is not playing anywhere near me. :(

I live in Lubbock, Texas and the closest place to me which is showing it is Fort Worth. That’s 300 miles each direction to see the movie. I have driven that far before to see a movie- “Tideland” and “Highlander 2” come to mind, so I might actually break down and do it. I really don’t want to do it, though. LOL!

Theophile on April 16, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Short but sweet, from someone who really really wanted to like it.

Still going to see it tho, out of loyalty to the ideas.

PattyJ on April 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM

The screenplay is horrible and there is no character development, acting, or sense of drama. It felt like they were just rushing through the plot as fast as they could, without spending any time on character development to explain why these characters were speaking and acting the way they were. The film-makers would have been better off dropping scenes from the book, and taking time to develop only the most essential ones. And whoever played Dagny Taggart cannot act to save her life. That is a problem.

bingsha on April 16, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I sooooo want to see the movie, but it is not playing anywhere near me. :(

I live in Lubbock, Texas and the closest place to me which is showing it is Fort Worth. That’s 300 miles each direction to see the movie. I have driven that far before to see a movie- “Tideland” and “Highlander 2″ come to mind, so I might actually break down and do it. I really don’t want to do it, though. LOL!

Theophile on April 16, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Man, Highlander 2 wasn’t worth the trip IMHO. Never heard of Tideland so I can’t comment on that.

mizflame98 on April 16, 2011 at 2:36 PM

And in a book in which the ideas, not the plot, were the most important thing, there is hardly any discussion about the ideas themselves. They are just sort of taken as a given. If you didn’t know anything about objectivism or had never read the book you would be really really confused about what’s going on.

bingsha on April 16, 2011 at 2:38 PM

The yung un and I just saw it……I’ve never read the book.


Preachy, Scary, Prophetic

PappyD61 on April 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

We saw it in a packed theater in Boulder, Colorado last night. I expected to be the only folks in the place. Instead it was sold out and at the end, people cheered and clapped.

My children, who haven’t read the book and are aged 11, 13, and 14, liked the movie. We asked them about what they liked and my daughter said: “I think I know what’s going on. That John Galt guy is taking those guys to Atlantis, to get away from the government. Right?” The kids loved the beautiful train scenes and the big party scene. None of them like the fact that Dagny and Hank became lovers. (“He shouldn’t do that,” my son whispered to me. I said: “I know. It’s sad.”)

If you don’t see movies, at least buy a ticket to this one. How are we going to battle the toxic liberal culture if we can’t get a single conservative movie to succeed? And if you do see it, I think you’ll like it very much. My husband and I kept exchanging looks when they’d show derelict stretches of cities, lines at food banks, and government laws with names like “Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog.” It’s not just a movie, it’s our future.

bonnie_ on April 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Atlas Shrugged is by far my favorite book, so I was at the midnight premier Thursday. It was beyond terrible. The message was non-existant, the acting, writing, directing, cinematography, art direction and editing were all among the worst I have ever seen (and I’m not being hyperbolic).

galenrox on April 16, 2011 at 4:26 PM

1. Rio – $2666 per screen
2. Scream 4 – $2421 per screen
3. Atlas Shrugged – $2277 per screen

Rae on April 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Man, Highlander 2 wasn’t worth the trip IMHO. Never heard of Tideland so I can’t comment on that.

mizflame98 on April 16, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Yeah, a friend and I drove 350 miles to El Paso in order to see Highlander 2. It was soooooo bad. LOL!

Tideland is awesome (but very, very dark and disturbing). I had to go to Austin, 450 miles, to see that one, but it is by my favorite director, Terry Gilliam. He is an amazing director.

I will probably pick a time soon and go see Atlas Shrugged, even making the 300+ mile trip. I just wish that it was playing here.

Theophile on April 16, 2011 at 4:49 PM

The yung un and I just saw it……I’ve never read the book.


Preachy, Scary, Prophetic

PappyD61 on April 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

In that case, it may do the book some justice. You really, really should read the book. Wait until you see second and third parts of the movie- they only get more acute when it comes to prophecy, scariness and preachiness (as they must). The third part will be very preachy, but it has to be. There is a 63 page soliloquy in the book at that point which is the most amazing treatise ever. It is necessary and amazingly important; it is the crux and reason for the book. It will be interesting to see how they put that part on the screen.

Theophile on April 16, 2011 at 4:53 PM

So, is this movie proof that Hollywood liberals still dominate the industry and put this clinker out as a way to discredit Rand, Libertarianism and anyone in Hollywood who is to the right of Sean Penn?

NNtrancer on April 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

We saw it yesterday afternoon. The theater was over half full even at that time. Had college kids, senior citizens and everyone in between. And we all clapped at the end. It was nice to see the story come alive. Although some commenters here didn’t like it, we thoroughly enjoyed it. The book is better, but isn’t it always?

unlisted on April 16, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Saw it in Wilmington NC. Theater was nearly full. There was even applause as “The End” rolled.

The message was loud and clear, probably not a bad thing for those “hard of hearing”.

Hog Wild on April 16, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Review from a libertarian Hollywood type:

Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 has both the merits and limitations of an indie film. It has the bold, iconic vision of an indie film that can never exist in studio green-lit productions which are made within the boundaries of cookie-cutter formulas. It therefore had to choose between spending its production funding on building sets and massive CGI, or on A-list star salaries which are often enough higher than this movie’s entire production budget.

With a star director like Steven Spielberg or James Cameron, a star writer like William Goldman, and star actors like Aaron Eckhart and Scarlett Johansson, Atlas Shrugged could have been a perfectly executed movie. That’s what’s made possible when any production roadblock can be solved by throwing gobs of money at it. You get cinematic perfection, even if it has to be re-shot or fixed in post.

That movie could never be made. The people who okay writing checks that enormous share the values of the people Ayn Rand was attacking in Atlas Shrugged. They’re the big businessmen Atlas Shrugged skewers and damns to atheist hell.
Given these standards, Atlas Shrugged; Part 1 is as good as it gets for an indie film production from a novel that demands ten times the money it was made for. Blaming it for not being as polished as a studio film shows either ignorance of the movie business or is just a cheap way of cursing at it by people who hate its authorial viewpoint and look for new and better ways to attack it. When you hear a critic lambasting the production values of Atlas Shrugged, they’re lying. They’re attacking the production values of an ambitious indie film because they can’t attack the movie’s content without admitting their bias.

Rae on April 16, 2011 at 6:16 PM

^ That was only an excerpt. The whole review is worth reading.

Rae on April 16, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Just got back from seeing it here in San Antonio.

Not bad. Pleasantly surprised.

Yeah, it could have ‘been better’ but many movies can be.

The message was there and IMO was presented in such a way that only a moron or hard core lefty either wouldn’t ‘get it’ or would be offended one way or another.

Also liked the explanation, right at the beginning for the film which answers the “Trains? Really?” question quite well I thought.

The last 15 minutes were really the only part of the movie which seemed ‘forced’ IMO. Seemed like they were trying to get as much stuff in as possible.

If your a fan of Rand, I think you’ll like the film – if you can be open and ‘objective’ about it (see what I did there?). Yeah, not very clever, I know…

If you’re a Conservative I also think you’ll like the film. Many of the parallels to today are quite evident.

Again, not bad. You could spend your movie money on worse films.

catmman on April 16, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Just saw it in LA. The ticket seller was dissing it as he was selling the tickets. grr.

The audience clapped at the end. Could have been improved but not bad. Enjoyed it more than I expected.

Fuligin on April 16, 2011 at 7:33 PM

I saw it today. I was impressed with the crowd for a Saturday matinee showing of such a terribly reviewed movie. I don’t normally do movies, but this reminded me of the crowd size for revenge of the sith and significantly larger than when I saw Star Trek (again, both Sat matinees). The movie itself was great, just wish it would have pushed the whole book through, but alas not possible in a 1 hour 45 min time frame. If you have any interest at all in the ongoing battle of freedom over tyranny I recommend you go see it and take a friend or two.

long_cat on April 16, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Saw it last night in Minneapolis, west end theaters.

If you had read the book prior to going, you’ll get it. If not, which one of the buddies I brought had not, you are going to leave unimpressed.

I hate to Monday morning QB here, but if they had taken more time to set up the characters I think it would have been more entertaining. And we all know that without some level of entertainment, the few that we’d hope would learn something are simply going to dismiss it and remaining parts yet to be released.

The parts that express the ideology of Rand all seemed too forced. Blatant statements that left little to be distinguished from the ideological statements of the left. On the other side of the debate I could close my eyes and hear Pelosi making her “children and old people will starve” comments.

I think the book would have faired much better as an educational piece in the format similar to how Band of Brothers was done. One episode per month for a day to tax day. Allowing for the story to be told, and discussion between episodes as the story unfolds.

Just my $0.02. And..whoever casted Dagny Taggart, high five.

rplath on April 16, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Maybe someone can help me on this. I’ve gotten about halfway through the book and I don’t think I can finish it. It is like more of a chore than entertainment. I found it to have some really large leaps in logic and the prose a bit hyperbolic. I’m sympathetic to her politics and to the themes in the book, but the story just doesn’t really gel with me that much. Maybe because I typically read sci-fi and war history, this book is just not my cup of tea.

I feel like that stupid kid in the corner who doesn’t get the joke everyone is laughing about.

Gyro on April 16, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Interesting op-ed about Rand.

Remembering the Real Ayn Rand
The author of “Atlas Shrugged” was an individualist, not a conservative, and she knew big business was as much a threat to capitalism as government bureaucrats.
• Article
Tomorrow’s release of the movie version of “Atlas Shrugged” is focusing attention on Ayn Rand’s 1957 opus and the free-market ideas it espouses. Book sales for “Atlas” have always been brisk—and all the more so in the past few years, as actual events have mirrored Rand’s nightmare vision of economic collapse amid massive government expansion. Conservatives are now hailing Rand as a tea party Nostradamus, hence the timing of the movie’s premiere on tax day.
When Rand created the character of Wesley Mouch, it’s as though she was anticipating Barney Frank (D., Mass). Mouch is the economic czar in “Atlas Shrugged” whose every move weakens the economy, which in turn gives him the excuse to demand broader powers. Mr. Frank steered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to disaster with mandates for more lending to low-income borrowers. After Fannie and Freddie collapsed under the weight of their subprime mortgage books, Mr. Frank proclaimed last year: “The way to cure that is to give us more authority.” Mouch couldn’t have said it better himself.
But it’s a misreading of “Atlas” to claim that it is simply an antigovernment tract or an uncritical celebration of big business. In fact, the real villain of “Atlas” is a big businessman, railroad CEO James Taggart, whose crony capitalism does more to bring down the economy than all of Mouch’s regulations. With Taggart, Rand was anticipating figures like Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide Financial, the subprime lender that proved to be a toxic mortgage factory. Like Taggart, Mr. Mozilo engineered government subsidies for his company in the name of noble-sounding virtues like home ownership for all.

Still, most of the heroes of “Atlas” are big businessmen who are unfairly persecuted by government. The struggle of Rand’s fictional steel magnate Henry Rearden against confiscatory regulation is a perfect anticipation of the antitrust travails of Microsoft CEO Bill Gates. In both cases, the government’s depredations were inspired by behind-the-scenes maneuverings of business rivals. And now Microsoft is maneuvering against Google with an antitrust complaint in the European Union.
The reality is that in Rand’s novel, as in life, self-described capitalists can be the worst enemies of capitalism. But that doesn’t fit in easily with the simple pro-business narrative about Rand now being retailed.
Today, Rand is celebrated among conservatives: Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) insists that all his staffers read “Atlas Shrugged.” It wasn’t always this way. During Rand’s lifetime—she died in 1982—she was loathed by the mainstream conservative movement.
Rand was a devout atheist, which set her against the movement’s Christian bent. She got off on the wrong foot with the movement’s founder, William F. Buckley Jr., when she introduced herself to him in her thick Russian accent, saying “You are too intelligent to believe in God!” The subsequent review of “Atlas Shrugged” by Whittaker Chambers in Buckley’s “National Review” was nothing short of a smear, and it set the tone for her relationship with the movement ever since—at least until now.
Rand rankled conservatives by living her life as an exemplary feminist, even as she denied it by calling herself a “male chauvinist.” She was the breadwinner throughout her lifelong marriage. The most sharply drawn hero in “Atlas” is the extraordinarily capable female railroad executive Dagny Taggart, who is set in contrast with her boss, her incompetent brother James. She’s the woman who deserves the man’s job but doesn’t have it; he’s the man who has the job but doesn’t deserve it.
Rand was strongly pro-choice, speaking out for abortion rights even before Roe v. Wade. In late middle age, she became enamored of a much younger man and made up her mind to have an affair with him, having duly informed her husband and the younger man’s wife in advance. Conservatives don’t do things like that—or at least they say they don’t.
These weren’t the only times Rand took positions that didn’t ingratiate her to the right. She was an early opponent of the Vietnam war, once saying, “I am against the war in Vietnam and have been for years. . . . In my view we should fight fascism and communism when they come to this country.” During the ’60s she declared, “I am an enemy of racism,” and advised opponents of school busing, “If you object to sending your children to school with black children, you’ll lose for sure because right is on the other side.”
If anything, Rand’s life ought to ingratiate her to the left. An immigrant woman, she arrived alone and penniless in the United States in 1925. Had she shown up today with the same tale, liberals would give her a driver’s license and register her to vote.
But Rand was always impossible to pin down politically. She loathed Dwight Eisenhower, whom she believed lacked conviction. And in 1975 she wrote, “I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan,” primarily on the grounds that he didn’t support pure laissez-faire capitalism. But she endorsed Richard Nixon in 1968 because he supported abolition of the military draft. Rand was especially proud of her protégé Alan Greenspan for serving with Milton Friedman on Nixon’s Gates Commission, the findings of which led to today’s all-volunteer army.
Rand was not a conservative or a liberal: She was an individualist. “Atlas Shrugged” is, at its heart, a plea for the most fundamental American ideal—the inalienable rights of the individual. On tax day, with our tax dollars going to big government and subsidies for big business, let’s remember it’s the celebration of individualism that has kept “Atlas Shrugged” among the best-selling novels of all time.

Bradky on April 16, 2011 at 10:56 PM

I feel like that stupid kid in the corner who doesn’t get the joke everyone is laughing about.

Gyro on April 16, 2011 at 10:50 PM

It’s okay — the book is tough to get through when you’re reading it as an adult. Oddly, I think it’s easier when you’re a teenager. Ayn Rand’s writing has been criticized as more polemic than novelistic.

My advice? Go see the movie. I liked it, and I bet you will too! :-)

Mary in LA on April 16, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Some or most of you should have gotten the jpeg in your teaparty emails. Print them and post about town.

One 8×11 poster stapled on one phonepole at an intersection in your town. 5? 25? costs you nothing…

people need to know how America is and how she got here and if it takes an entertaining film to get them pointed in the right direction then..

Do it. Post your town.

You can google it then hit image, right click print.

have fun.. no one is looking.


amend2 on April 16, 2011 at 11:15 PM

We just saw it. It’s been about 10 yrs since I read the book so I basically knew what was going on, but had forgotten the details.

I think it was good, and if they manage to make a part two, I would definitely go see it. As far as I remember they did a good job staying true to the book.

When you consider the small budget and tight timeline, the director/producers were extremely effective in achieving their goal of producing a part I that is true to the novel.

My critique of it is that the format doesn’t fit well with the intent. If they had wanted to be strictly true to the book, an 8 part miniseries would have worked better.

Another approach would have been to give the Cliff’s notes version of the book and jazzed it up a bit, and fit it into a 2hr+ movie. Obviously, A lot would have been left out, and some Rand junkies would be disgruntled, but I think that the audience would have related to the felling of over-reaching govt taking away everything they worked for, and this would have made a pretty successful movie.

bitsy on April 16, 2011 at 11:16 PM

I had the same sense as some others, that the plot seemed rushed and the characters and ideas were not fully developed. One person said, that if you had not read the book you probably would not know what is going on. I was thinking the same thing.

However, my wife got the gist of it and she had not read the book. She even picked up on subtle things like Dagney trading for the bracelet, and the Wyatt’s sign at the end.

So I guess, try not to worry about the book, the ideas, etc… just enjoy the movie.

IUnknown on April 16, 2011 at 11:18 PM

It’s okay — the book is tough to get through when you’re reading it as an adult. Oddly, I think it’s easier when you’re a teenager. Ayn Rand’s writing has been criticized as more polemic than novelistic.

My advice? Go see the movie. I liked it, and I bet you will too! :-)

Mary in LA on April 16, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Interesting, thanks. I’ve seen that many have read it at a young age. The concepts in the book would have probably been more provocative to me as a youth as well.

I’ll try to see the movie.

Gyro on April 16, 2011 at 11:47 PM

I read the book, I liked the movie. I will go to part 2 and 3.

IowaWoman on April 17, 2011 at 12:13 AM

Just saw it. Spent 8 hours reading the book a few days ago so that I’d be prepared for it.

I saw it at the Monmonth Mall multiplex. The young black lady who tore my ticket asked if I’d read the book, and declared it a great book. (She did NOT use the word “awesome, but was more enthusiastic than just “great.” I predict she will go far.) Perhaps due to the heavy rain, the 21:45 showing was not very full. It was in one of the smaller theaters at the far end of one of the wings of the multiplex.

I was pleasantly surprised. The movie told the story fairly well. There were compromises made due to low budget, but money was spent where it counted–I really liked the Reardon Metal bridge. The pacing was good, but not quite as good as it might have been. And the final scene could have been handled with less AAAARRRGGHH!!! and more creepy shell-shock. (One viewer’s opinion, of course.)

The similarity between the villians of the story and our political Left was drawn out in flashing neon arrows and chase lights! And yet, only a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist could call what they were doing “good”. The disconnect between the Professional Do-Gooders and the people they claim to be trying to help is well-drawn, but perhaps not well-enough drawn. Instead, the focus is on the gathering of power by the power-brokers and the misuse of politics for rent-seeking, which misses, I think, the heart of Rand’s argument.

All in all a good use of the time and a good argument to make to the politically “independent” (that is to say, the apathetic).

njcommuter on April 17, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Saw the first showing in San Francisco. And there were actually quite a few people there!

I’m surprised that it’s receiving such horrible reviews. I honestly don’t know what people were expecting from a small independent film about a struggling railroad company. Lots of explosions and giant robots or something?

Plus, this is just part one of three. And that doesn’t mean there will be a sequel, but rather a true continuation of a single movie.

I don’t know… i guess Part I should stand up better on it’s own as a movie. But i imagine people may think better of it as a whole when the final film is released. Either way, i enjoyed it enough.

Rude on April 17, 2011 at 1:22 AM

We originally planned to see it tomorrow but saw it today instead. We all loved it, and I was the only one who had read the book. The first thing my 18-year-old son said was “I’m reading the book”, which he promptly started when we got home. It will give him some good debate materials for his AP economics class.

I thought the quality of the movie and the acting was just fine, I think big name actors would have detracted from the story.

I have a few quibbles, being a native Coloradan. No train on any kind of track will be going 250 mph on the curves and grades in our mountains. Maybe there could be a high-speed train on the eastern plains where things are flatter and straighter, but not in the mountains.

Wyatt’s Junction, supposedly in the mountains, couldn’t have been anywhere close to 5,280 ft. Denver is 5,280 ft and anything west of I-25 is higher. You’re at 6,000 ft by the time you reach the foothills and you haven’t even started climbing yet.

Our mountains do not have traditional oil fields, those are on the northeastern plains, mostly Weld County. Denver and the eastern plains used to be a shallow sea, which trapped plant and animal material and created the sandstone formations that contain the oil and gas. The mountains are mostly granite and contain gold, silver, lead, molybdenum, and other minerals, but not oil. The Western Slope does have oil shale, but that hasn’t been developed yet and won’t have little oil and gas pumps scattered around when it does. Shale is rock, not liquid.

I did love how they showed the train. The landscape and the tracks were real with the train CGIed in, it looked pretty good.

We had a good-sized crowd for a 4:10 Saturday movie, mostly middle-aged people with at least a dozen young people, including my two. Like others have reported, everyone applauded at the end, not something you see at the movies these days.

I hope the movie is successful enough to have the second part out soon. I never listen to movie critics, they don’t like what I like in general. I hope most people feel that way and see the movie.

Common Sense on April 17, 2011 at 1:55 AM

I feel like that stupid kid in the corner who doesn’t get the joke everyone is laughing about.

Gyro on April 16, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Gyro, it’s ok, in the Ayn Rand school, there’s no end-of-semester and no final grade. There are many things that took me time to work out before I finally got it.

One of the ways to “get” her is to understand the writers she admired. One of authors she most quotes is Victor Hugo. In “Les Miserables” he writes a huge connected arc, finally returning to explain several chapters down the road. Rand writes a long narrative, almost detective style, leading the reader down a long road to end at a certain conclusion, but leaving the reader to make assumptions on the way.

If you’re interested, I would start with reading “The Fountainhead” first. I like both books very much, and starting with this will help to understand the philosophy laid out in Atlas Shrugged.

itsspideyman on April 17, 2011 at 8:53 AM

If you’re interested, I would start with reading “The Fountainhead” first.

itsspideyman on April 17, 2011 at 8:53 AM

I would start with reading We The Living first, then Anthem, then The Fountainhead and finally Atlas Shrugged.

If you’re going to read Rand’s fiction, read it all – its only four books (though AS IS huge).

It covers all of her fiction writing right from the start. We The Living and Anthem aren’t huge books, though WTL is a hugely depressing read. It isn’t about her philosophy but is a snapshot of the beginnings of Soviet Russia right after the revolution.

catmman on April 17, 2011 at 9:21 AM

I saw the movie last night in Chatsworth, CA. The theater was full. People clapped and cheered at the end of the movie.

Unfortunately I read some reviews before seeing the movie, so I was self conscious the whole time. It wont win an Oscar, but the story and feel was interesting to me.

My main take–this is the first movie I have ever seen where the “head of the corporation” is the hero, and the government was corrupt. That makes the movie feel different throughout. Not that movies don’t have corrupt politicians, but the whole political system was corrupt. So the good guy/bad guy scenario was switched, which was refreshing.

It was comical the amount of legislation and commissions were always being created to make things “fair” that really served to destroy everything and everyone. That point is very relevant at time in our country.

MPCpian on April 17, 2011 at 12:05 PM

first of all, who is Atlas Shrugged?

second: is there nudity

and H: will there be popcorn?

Opinionnation on April 17, 2011 at 7:13 PM

It covers all of her fiction writing right from the start.

catmman on April 17, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Not all of her fiction. There’s also “Three Plays” (the omnibus title), which for first efforts really weren’t too bad. Even the worst of the lot (the gimmicked-up, actually-ripped-from-the-headlines “Night of January 16th”) was something I wouldn’t have minded seeing on stage, let alone “Think Twice.” That one should almost have been called “Atlas Shrugged, Beta Version.” “Ideal” has more in common with “The Fountainhead” than it does with AS, but it’s still a decently entertaining little story as I remember it.

Blacksmith on April 18, 2011 at 12:13 AM

I try not to provide income to Hollywood, so I quit going to the theaters long ago. I’d rather read a good book.

zoyclem on April 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Husband and I saw it Sunday. Very good movie, and very apropos for today.

hachiban on April 18, 2011 at 1:35 PM

I try not to provide income to Hollywood, so I quit going to the theaters long ago. I’d rather read a good book.

zoyclem on April 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Fair enough, but this movie isn’t “Hollywood” — it’s Hollywood’s worst nightmare: A purpose built production company formed to film a conservative-libertarian movie because none of the big studios were brave enough to touch it.

I hope you’ll give it your support and go see it. If you want to starve Hollywood (and I think that’s a fine idea!), don’t buy any overpriced popcorn and soda! :-)

Mary in LA on April 19, 2011 at 12:40 AM