CST
Oddly enough, Roger Ebert not a fan of new “Atlas Shrugged” movie
And now I am faced with this movie, the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault. I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all, and I doubt they will be happy with it. For the rest of us, it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Translation: He went into the movie not liking it because it sent a political message he doesn’t like.
amerpundit on April 15, 2011 at 8:07 PM
Still, I’m sure he hasn’t allowed his political biases to influence his review of the film.
cynccook on April 15, 2011 at 8:08 PM
Going to the early showing tomorrow and have to drive 60 miles to get to the closest theater playing it.
Hog Wild on April 15, 2011 at 8:08 PM
Well, you guys aren’t really good with the whole “art” thing.
crr6 on April 15, 2011 at 8:09 PM
I know! Where are the conservative Robert Maplethorpes and David Wojnarowiczes? Oh well, I guess we’ll just have to make do with the 2 millenia worth of religious art those hacks like Michaelangelo produced.
cynccook on April 15, 2011 at 8:14 PM
WRONG! I p1ssed on an 0bama bobble-head just this morning.
Scoreboard!
truth2power on April 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2011/04/there-are-grownups-talking-here.html
mad saint jack on April 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM
We cant always be “Duh , winning!”…
the_nile on April 15, 2011 at 8:16 PM
which means ebert never read the book. surprise…not really.
upinak on April 15, 2011 at 8:22 PM
Yeah.. You get the artist.. and drug abuse..welfare moms..sexually transmitted everything.. aborted babies.
I think its a good trade.
GoodBoy on April 15, 2011 at 8:24 PM
Well, you guys aren’t really good with the whole “governing” thing.
Pasalubong on April 15, 2011 at 8:27 PM
I’m great with art. I just put an “F” in front of it.
BierManVA on April 15, 2011 at 8:28 PM
Trains?
My same response when I first heard of this adaptation.
If the movie were set in a “Brazil“-like surrealistic parallel world, maybe you could pull it off.
But, trying to be realistic with trains is just ridiculous.
The old Gary Cooper movie of “The Fountainhead” was equally odd.
We are to cheer for a bomber because he doesn’t like his blueprints being modified?
Rand is a polemecist, which is fine, but not a very convincing literary artist. (Her dialogue reads like a pamphlet not a beating heart.)
Maybe a CGI version of Atlas might have worked.
profitsbeard on April 15, 2011 at 8:31 PM
Yet, filthy collectivists love to imitate Rand’s dystopian art:
‘Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
Rae on April 15, 2011 at 8:31 PM
The movie doesn’t seem promising. The owner of the film rights had a week before his 30-year ownership ended, and so he rushed and made an actor from CW soap opera One Tree Hill with zero directing experience the director.
In other words, this ain’t no Passion of the Christ.
Raisedbywolves on April 15, 2011 at 8:37 PM
Ebert has devolved into a self-absorbed little twit. He’s a has-been, at best. But more like a joke. Nowadays, who cares what he thinks.
Pffft.
petefrt on April 15, 2011 at 8:41 PM
Aaaand, you’re not very good at predicting the outcome of Judicial elections. Ouch!
jawkneemusic on April 15, 2011 at 8:48 PM
Hey, don’t sell the director short. He also played John Sears on one season of Beverly Hills 90210.
/sarc
On a slightly more serious note, I was under the impression that Parts II & III were in the can. I misunderstood. Apparently they’ve only shot Part I and are waiting to see if it’s a success before moving forward with the rest of the production. That’s a tough sell to audiences. It’s not like Fellowship of the Ring where you knew the other 2 entries were coming.
As for profitsbeard mentioning Brazil earlier, according to Terry Gilliam it’s a very popular film amongst conservatives. I’ll have to revisit it. I saw it one time about 12 years ago and wasn’t that big on it.
Doughboy on April 15, 2011 at 8:51 PM
And you guys aren’t really good with the whole “reality” thing.
single stack on April 15, 2011 at 8:52 PM
Roger, go lay down by your dish.
tcn on April 15, 2011 at 8:55 PM
crrap6: You too.
tcn on April 15, 2011 at 8:56 PM
I’m expecting this movie to be awful.
That aside, isn’t Roger Ebert the guy who gave a good review to “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”? Yeah.
sandberg on April 15, 2011 at 9:10 PM
This is the guy who gave the piece of crap “Saved” four stars. And it was a horrendous hunk of trash no matter where you stand on Christianity.
Ebert’s objectivity died decades ago.
mankai on April 15, 2011 at 9:18 PM
Zing!
When hollywood can’t find the reality, they make a film and pretend it’s reality. China Syndrome, Planet of the Apes (religious nuts hiding evolution evidence), and 99.7% of the films made about Vietnam.
mankai on April 15, 2011 at 9:21 PM
Are you kidding. A lib takes a dump on a piece of plywood and wet Gesso and calls it art.
I would put the artistic talents of any Conservative mind up against the lazy offerings of a lib hack any day.
hawkdriver on April 15, 2011 at 9:44 PM
But he really liked “Jaws.”
Emperor Norton on April 15, 2011 at 9:49 PM
ouch
hawkdriver on April 15, 2011 at 9:51 PM
Example #1 of feted liberal artistry
Example #2
I could go on…but do I need to?
gryphon202 on April 15, 2011 at 10:00 PM
I just got back from seeing it. I went in prepared for them to completely screw it up. They didn’t. There were definitely some gaps in the story and a few big shortcuts, but you kind of had to expect that. Some of the dialog was a bit forced, but it is a bit in the book too. If you liked the book, go see it. Of course someone like Ebert who loathes the fact that Rand ever existed isn’t going to like the movie. I’m looking forward to part 2.
emz35 on April 15, 2011 at 10:07 PM
I think this response proves my point, doesn’t it? When I say “art,” you instantly think of “piss christ.”
Your mind is unimaginative and banal. It might salvageable, if you take the time to gradually expose yourself to increasing levels of cultural stimuli. Try an open night at a coffee shop, for starters. Then maybe move on to a mildly artsy movie, like say, “American Beauty.” Before you know it you’ll be able to go to an art museum without making comments that things are “weird” and you don’t “get it.”
crr6 on April 15, 2011 at 10:10 PM
So would I, obviously.
The point is, that in the aggregate, talented artists are more likely to be liberals. And I think that should make you a little uncomfortable.
crr6 on April 15, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Roger Ebert is a terrific barometer of films today. I know reality is the exact opposite of what’s vomited from his keyboard.
Left Coast Right Mind on April 15, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Talented artists are more likely to be Liberal? Please! Some of the best contemporary artists are Conservative but doing things you’d probably turn your nose up at. Artists I personally know like Dietz and Rothenbush make a pretty good living painting patriotic and military themed lithos. They have talent. They can really paint. They don’t rely on pop culture sensationalism to sell what they produce. It’s good.
Commenters right here on this blog are Conservative and talented. Jelly Toast has no less than four prints hanging in my home. He is a true artist in my book in that his talent is in a soft realism that is in all he paints. You can see his models in the faces of his work. There is no, “Oh yeah I get it” BS in the technical quality and feeling that he puts into his paintings. And while I’m certianly not as talented as JT, I myself am splitting time between playing on the computer and working at my drawing table doing the character study for a new sculpture.
Really sad that your narrow-minded side requires acceptance of a political litmus test before you can honestly appreciate someones work. You all miss the point of art.
hawkdriver on April 15, 2011 at 11:32 PM
Anyone can do the pop art you find so amazing. A monkey with a brush and palette could. I challenge you to paint like Jelly Toast though.
hawkdriver on April 15, 2011 at 11:36 PM