Atlas Shrugged the Movie Part 1 Trailer

[homeless]

and rated as the second most influential book after the bible

 

[melensdad]

Well I am still looking forward to seeing the movie.

I'm in N.W. Indiana, no theaters up here have the movie, I'll be taking the family to Chicago to see the film on Thursday afternoon.

On the movie website "Rotten Tomatoes" the fan reviews give an 85% approval rating to ATLAS SHRUGGED Part 1. The biggest gripes I hear are that some of the acting is stiff and the movie looks more like a 'made for TV' type of movie. Most people seem to indicate that the message of Ayn Rand comes through pretty well, but it also seems like most of the people who like the movie are people who've already read the book. Those who have not been exposed to the book, from what I gather, seem less impressed with the movie.

 

[Truckerman79]

Well I am still looking forward to seeing the movie.

I'm in N.W. Indiana, no theaters up here have the movie, I'll be taking the family to Chicago to see the film on Thursday afternoon.

On the movie website "Rotten Tomatoes" the fan reviews give an 85% approval rating to ATLAS SHRUGGED Part 1. The biggest gripes I hear are that some of the acting is stiff and the movie looks more like a 'made for TV' type of movie. Most people seem to indicate that the message of Ayn Rand comes through pretty well, but it also seems like most of the people who like the movie are people who've already read the book. Those who have not been exposed to the book, from what I gather, seem less impressed with the movie.

I think it's the other way around. I think people who haven't read the book and haven't been exposed to Rand's philosophy will find it easier to take. The movie makes many political statements, but the philosophy is left out. Plus you will notice inconsistencies between the movie and the book.

I really wanted to like it. You may really enjoy it. I hope you do. Take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[redneckmedic]

My favorite comment in this thread.....

I mean, trains in 2016, LOL.

You know that that is 5 years right? And train travel is still very popular.


Terrible acting.- Bad acting doesn't mean bad movie in my book, Arnold Schwarzenegger was a terrible actor in several very good movies.

The setting in the future was retarded. I wouldn't really consider 2016 a mind bending futuristic setting again, its only 5 years from now.

Underdeveloped characters. Like the first released star wars? Just Say'n.

I'm not saying its a good flick, I haven't seen it. I just think your review is empty and biased. It feels forced to me, almost as if you were expecting to not like this movie going into it.

 

[Truckerman79]

My favorite comment in this thread.....

You know that that is 5 years right? And train travel is still very popular.


Terrible acting.- Bad acting doesn't mean bad movie in my book, Arnold Schwarzenegger was a terrible actor in several very good movies.

The setting in the future was retarded. I wouldn't really consider 2016 a mind bending futuristic setting again, its only 5 years from now.

Underdeveloped characters. Like the first released star wars? Just Say'n.

I'm not saying its a good flick, I haven't seen it. I just think your review is empty and biased. It feels forced to me, almost as if you were expecting to not like this movie going into it.

U mad? This is my OPINION. Have you read the book? I don't know how anyone who has read the book could be a fan of this abomination. I'm not a professional movie critic, so I'm sorry if my review didn't meet your standards. The movie sucked.

I love the book. The movie falls way short as most movie adaptations of books do. It was a low budget disaster. Go see it and check back. It sounds like your opinion of my opinion is biased and empty.

Trains in 2016...LOL

 

[homeless]

Heading out to the Fox and the Hound and then to see Atlas again for the second time. Swing out and join us for a beer.

 

[redneckmedic]

U mad? This is my OPINION. Have you read the book? I don't know how anyone who has read the book could be a fan of this abomination. I'm not a professional movie critic, so I'm sorry if my review didn't meet your standards. The movie sucked.

I love the book. The movie falls way short as most movie adaptations of books do. It was a low budget disaster. Go see it and check back. It sounds like your opinion of my opinion is biased and empty.

Trains in 2016...LOL

Mad no, just didn't think you backed your opinion very well, that is all.

 

[Truckerman79]

Mad no, just didn't think you backed your opinion very well, that is all.

Go see the movie and give us a well backed opinion.

 

[Fletch]

Two Thumbs Up for Atlas Shrugged - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[johenz]

Aw, c'mon, really. Ayn Rand is just regurgitated Nietzchian "will to power" BS novelized.

 

[Westside]

for those who don't want to drive to Carmel it is also playing at the Rave theater at Metropolis IN Plainfield.

 

[Fletch]

Aw, c'mon, really. Ayn Rand is just regurgitated Nietzchian "will to power" BS novelized.

You do understand that she wrote a whole lot of non-fiction, right? And that man-as-agent is only a portion of that?

 

[flagtag]

I think that the point is that a novel that she wrote in the 50s could have been the headlines of our current government. (She saw it coming.)

 

[bwframe]

I think that the point is that a novel that she wrote in the 50s could have been the headlines of our current government. (She saw it coming.)

I've been listening to the audio book. It's eerily similar.

BTW- I haven't made it to see this yet. I might be up for an Indy south side run.

 

[flagtag]

I've been listening to the audio book. It's eerily similar.

BTW- I haven't made it to see this yet. I might be up for an Indy south side run.

I don't like to go to the movie theatre, but would be willing to for this one.

 

[bwframe]

I don't like to go to the movie theatre, but would be willing to for this one.

Ditto. I have not been to the theater in years.

 

[johenz]

I do undersatnd that Rand wrote a lot of non-fiction, but man-as-agent is the basis on which her writing are based. The primacy of the individual is a flawed assumption, though. We are individuals, that is true, but we are members of society as well. Social interaction is hard wired into us, this forces us to consider our actions not only as individuals, but we must also consider our actions in the light of the common good.

 

[dross]

I do undersatnd that Rand wrote a lot of non-fiction, but man-as-agent is the basis on which her writing are based. The primacy of the individual is a flawed assumption, though. We are individuals, that is true, but we are members of society as well. Social interaction is hard wired into us, this forces us to consider our actions not only as individuals, but we must also consider our actions in the light of the common good.

You don't understand Rand's philosophy. She wasn't anti-society. Her argument is that a man acting in his own self-interest will also benefit society. The success of capitalism as the economic system based on the primacy of the individual is evidence that this is correct.

 

[Fletch]

I do undersatnd that Rand wrote a lot of non-fiction, but man-as-agent is the basis on which her writing are based.

Man-as-agent is merely the "how" of Objectivism. It is not the basis. The basis is objective reality: the idea that reality exists independent of perception, or as Rand put it in her own colorful way, "existence exists". Man-as-agent really only comes into play in the politics and ethics of Objectivism. The metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics deal more with the nature of reality and thought.

The primacy of the individual is a flawed assumption, though. We are individuals, that is true, but we are members of society as well. Social interaction is hard wired into us, this forces us to consider our actions not only as individuals, but we must also consider our actions in the light of the common good.

Nothing forces us to consider our actions in light of the common good. We may decide that the common good is important to us and use it as a basis for our decisions, but it need not be a factor in our thinking. And ignoring the common good is not necessarily a sociopathic behavior: some will assert that there is no such thing as "the common good", and it is entirely possible to engage in capitalistic trade without antisocial tendencies and with an eye toward the wants and needs of others.

 

[dross]

Nothing forces us to consider our actions in light of the common good. We may decide that the common good is important to us and use it as a basis for our decisions, but it need not be a factor in our thinking. And ignoring the common good is not necessarily a sociopathic behavior: some will assert that there is no such thing as "the common good", and it is entirely possible to engage in capitalistic trade without antisocial tendencies and with an eye toward the wants and needs of others.

Walter Williams explains this eloquently. He talks about going to the butcher to buy meat. If his butcher were to ask him, "Williams, I only sell meat to those who have provided value to their fellow man, and to society. Can you prove you've helped your fellow man?"

To which, Walter Williams would reply, taking out his wallet, "My fellow man has given me these pieces of paper, which symbolize the value I have provided."

Some twist the argument that you can benefit yourself by cheating someone else. This has two flaws according to Rand. One, by endorsing the act of cheating, you are endorsing someone else doing it to you, and that's not rational. Then the spoils are just divided among the best cheaters, the same as if they were divided only between who was strongest and could exercise the most force.

The other flaw is that by cheating others you might gain in the short run, but it won't pay off in the long run.