Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) Reviews

• What would Ayn say?

  robbit-52012-10-13

  After paying $11 to see ATLAS SHRUGGED at a local Cineplex, I felt compelled to write this review for IMDb. The earliest review for this movie I read for this movie appeared to have been written by someone who hadn't even seen the movie yet! (It was also posted the day before the theatrical release) In fact, the extreme polarization of the majority of IMDb users appears to be strictly along political lines, since most gave the movie either a 10 or a 1! It seemed obvious to me that neither perspective was likely to be accurate or helpful in assessing whether this movie would be worth seeing. For full disclosure, I would consider myself to be a political moderate and a longtime fan of Ayn Rand's work. While I do agree with many of Ayn's sentiments about socialism, I do also resent the fact that her work is now being appropriated (and attacked) as some sort of political manifesto. Therefore, the film should be judged solely on its merits and faults – NOT because you're a liberal or a conservative. The original 1957 novel was intended as Ayn's most extensive statement on her philosophy of Objectivism and is considered by many followers to be her masterpiece. I would instead judge it to be an important, but flawed masterwork. ATLAS SHRUGGED is her love letter to the America that inspired Ayn to become such an advocate for individual freedoms, liberty and capitalism. It can also be viewed as a dire warning that allowing more government and socialist policies could transform our nation into the Russia she so bitterly left behind in 1925. The main problem I found with the book was that the characters were unrealistically polarized in their attitudes about the individual's role in society. As a result, I often found them a bit rigid, cold and lacking in any sort of personality that the reader might empathize with. Instead, Ayn entirely expected her readers to embrace the heroes in her work for their ethics, virtue and idealism alone. What she didn't anticipate were the mediocre actors that would wind up portraying her heroes and villains… This "character weakness" in her original writing is greatly magnified in this theatrical rendering,especially with the B and C list acting talent that was enlisted. To make matters even worse, budgetary constraints forced the producers of ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART 2 to recast almost ALL of the main characters?! Having watched PART 1 over a year ago, this wasn't entirely bothersome since most of the original actors weren't all that memorable to begin with. However, I can see this change being a bit more perplexing if I were to view both parts back to back. Samantha Mathis did an acceptable job with the Dagny Taggart role, but most performances were fairly unmemorable. The only semi-familiar faces I could pick out were Diedrich Bader (best known for The Drew Cary Show) and Arye Gross (from Ellen). Many of the core ideas of the book, such as "The Strike" that part 2 covers, are presented awkwardly. Therefore, the reasoning behind the actions for the strike might seem hokey or incomprehensible to those who are unfamiliar with the original book. Also, the story has been given a bit of a modern face lift which I don't necessarily take issue with. The signs advertising gasoline for $42 a gallon at various points in the movie are both chilling and somehow humorous at the same time. I say humorous only because the story seems so fantastical at some points that I couldn't help but question the credibility of this ominous vision of the future. But more often I found myself struggling to remember what was originally in the book versus what was added by the screenwriters. Regardless of who is to blame, the results are a blemish upon my memories of the original book. The decision to chop the book into 3 parts with widely staggered release dates has only served to make this controversial and often difficult book into a confusing mess. And by presenting the story in such delayed and mismatched parts, it's far less likely anyone other than a devoted Rand fan would bother to see all three parts. I actually made a point to see the movie during its opening weekend for fear that it would leave theaters quickly. (ATLAS SHRUGGED PT. 1 lasted only a few weeks in Atlanta and was next to impossible to find on the Internet for the following 6 months.) ATLAS SHRUGGED PT. 2 (and the series as a whole) is a disappointing and confusing representation of the original book. While I was initially thankful that someone finally managed to bring this book to celluloid, that feeling has now turned to regret. I felt very conflicted about the movie after leaving the theater and my friends (who were less familiar with the book) were fairly negative, even though they were politically sympathetic to the ideas in the movie. Although I will probably watch part 3 (IF it ever gets finished), I can't see giving this movie anything more than a 4/10 score. I can't really see a casual viewer with little knowledge of Ayn Rand's work or the original book getting much out of this production. This alone should be considered the film's most grievous failure. But as Ayn Rand would say, don't trust anyone else's mind before your own. If you are a fan of her books, then take the time to see these movies and find your own perspective. Her ideas alone are worth discussion and maybe someone else can be inspired to do this book justice.

• A decent follow up to part 1

  imdb-202122012-10-12

  I just came back from watching part 2 and up front, I will say that I was disappointed that the original cast was unable to return for part 2. That being said though, once the movie started I didn't really care about that anymore. I thought Dagny being portrayed by an older actress was actually more in-line with the way I viewed her when reading the book, and the same goes for the other actors, like Eddie Willers, etc. I'm unsure how I feel about DB Sweeney portraying Galt himself since I never considered him a very strong actor, but that's a moot point in part 2 anyway. As others have noted, the special effects in this aren't exactly top quality, but they're passable. It reminded me of the type you'd see on a SyFy original movie or something along those lines... not bad, but not great. Overall, it was a good movie. Let's face it, if you liked the book, you'll like the movie. If you hated the book (or never read it, but hate the very idea of it), you'll hate this movie too. But that hatred would have nothing to do with the movie itself, but about your views of Rand's philosophy. I'd give the movie a technical rating of 5-6 because it wasn't too bad, and some of the cinematography was actually pretty well done. Content I give it a 9 because I appreciate where Rand is coming from, so let's call it an 8 out of 10 overall.

• Better Than Part 1

  AngryPatriot2012-10-12

  Just finished watching this. Moves better than part one for sure. The acting is better as well. Some of the graphics still show it is not a high budget movie, but they didn't detract from the story. They did a great job of connecting the story to today, as is quite easy to do with the subject material. The signs held outside protests were from today... As with the first one, some of the 'bigger' concepts and ideas the characters were discussing went by fast and for people not familiar with the work already, those parts will be hard to keep up with. And to be clear, for all who have actually watched the movie, there is no need to wonder why they made a sequel... It isn't a sequel, it is Part 2.

• Better than the first; Initially difficult to pair with Part 1

  jehyatt4552012-10-12

  Atlas Shrugged Part 2 followed Rand's magnum opus very closely: in terms of plot & storyline. Overall an excellent depiction of the book. Fifty years later, the message is still (if not more) relevant and just as rejected by looters. The acting in the second Atlas Shrugged movie was much better than in the first Atlas Shrugged. The cast selections in this movie matched the appearance and demeanor conceived by Rand in her book better so than did the thespians in the first Atlas Shrugged movie. However, due to the fact that I had the previous cast images in my mind (from the first movie) it was initially difficult (right-brain-wise) for me to invest in the story being told as the sequel to the first movie. The special effects and sound quality were indicative of the purpose for which the movie makers were aiming. This, however, was not a huge negative for the film as anyone expecting such entertainment value from this film obviously miss the objective of the movie makers. Similar in objective to the movie "I (Heart) Huckabees", this movie attempts to put into picture and sound the abject ideas found in a philosophical system ...and similar to "I (Heart) Huckabees", this movie entertains those who are seeking such entertainment more so than it does those who are looking for just entertainment by means of flashy effects and dramatic plot-lines. This movie (and its predecessor) find their place on my favorite move list somewhere between "I (Heart) Huckabees" and "Memento". I do not separate this movie from its predecessor due to the fact that it is its sequel and an excellent one at that. There are few films that offer as much as does Atlas Shrugged (I and II). For a movie that entertains, presents the tenets of a world-view, begs discussion and debate, and educates; while also engaging in a wonderfully crafted story: there are few films that function on this level and even fewer films that functions as such so well.

• Both better and worse than the first

  ejonconrad2013-07-11

  In my review of the first part of Atlas Shrugged, I described it as "better than I expected", and I was honestly looking forward this installment. I guess it's roughly as good as the first. On the positive side, some things actually *happen* in this movie, which is a step up, but other things pull it down, so it's kind of a wash. First, although it takes up where the first left off, all the actors have magically changed - and for the most part they're worse than the originals. I actually liked the first Hank Rearden, but this guy is smug jerk who goes through the whole movie with a superior smirk frozen on his face. Dagny has bags under her eyes and a permanently strained look that I couldn't help but interpret as menstrual cramps. The smoldering passion between the two of them that was in the book went from lukewarm in the first part to nonexistent in the second. While we're on that subject, the makers shied away even more from Rand's penchant for rough sex, and toned things down even more than first, which was already strictly Hallmark Channel to begin with. The Wesley Mouch of the first movie really captured the insidious evil of the character Rand had written, while this guy's just kind of annoying. One of the only ones who did a halfway good job was the guy who played Ken Dannager, the coal magnate, but he has a small part and disappears around the middle. The only truly good casting was Dagny's brother. Rand would have been pleased. Easter Egg alert: keep an eye out for a short cameo by Teller (of Penn and Teller) - in a speaking role! The movie also abandons the atmosphere of the first, so now it looks more like "the future" than a weird alternate history of the 50s. This arguably makes more sense, but it also loses some of the charm of the first - and charm is in short enough supply. It also makes it even more implausible that railroads are suddenly so important again. Rand has a rather simple point to make, and she doesn't believe in subtlety. In the first move, she makes her point by repeating things, and in this one, she does it by getting sillier and sillier, and her plot is even more ridiculous as a movie than in print. Things pick up a bit with some dramatic tension after Dagny goes on vacation and the railroad begins to fall apart. This is the high point of the movie and it's actually pretty good for a while. Here, the movie actually makes its point in the action, rather than by preaching, but it's too little to late. Those who have read the book will recognize the beginning as foreshadowing Dagny's arrival in "Galt's Gulch", which gives you hope you will actually see their vision of Rand's Utopia. Unfortunately, the movie ends with that arrival, so you'll have to tune in for the third installment - presumably with totally different actors and settings - for the payoff. Once more, the movie is pulled down by slavish devotion to the book. Rand believed that great men could follow many paths: engineers, scientists, artists, architects, businessmen, authors, musicians...pretty much anything by comedians. Like the book, and all her books, there's not a trace of humor in the movie. The closest thing to a "joke" is when Francisco D'Anconia sets fire to his mines to bankrupt his investors. Yup, a real knee-slapper that one. He is polite enough to warn Rearden (making it both arson *and* insider trading) - and of course nobody else matters. Even so, although Rand's writing is devoid of humor, she at least gave them a certain "joie de vivre" that's totally lacking in the movie. The actors deliver their lines, economic lectures, and sermonettes without a trace of joy or passion. It struck me that James Taggart's wedding is a good representation of the movie as a whole. If listening to a political debate at a wedding reception is your idea of a good time, then you'll probably love this movie. Otherwise, like me, you'll probably want to shout "lighten up" at several points. Still, if you watched the first one, you'll probably want to watch this one, and if you watch this one, you'll find yourself hoping they'll finish the trilogy. I want to see their vision of Rand's Utopia. Personally, I've always wondered who cleans the toilets in a society populated entirely by arrogant supermen.