Having read the book, seen the movie, and read a representative sample of user reviews, I feel I can confidently make a few points that may help those who haven't seen the movie yet.

The negative user reviews found here can all be placed in one of three distinct categories: (1. Those who disagree with Rand's philosophy for whatever personal reasons they have and would despise the movie for that reason alone, even if it were a cinematic masterpiece (it's not -- not bad under the circumstances, but "The Fountainhead" it's not); (2. Those who agree with Rand's philosophy and enjoyed the book, but are repulsed by the relatively low-budget treatment of the film and the somewhat stunted screen writing that isn't entirely faithful to the original work, and (3. Those who are completely ignorant of Rand's work and are seeing the film and judging it in a relative vacuum (these negative reviews do, in my opinion, have a certain merit inasmuch as the film doesn't really stand on its own as something that would appeal to the general movie-going audience).

That said, I enjoyed the movie. I agree with Rand's philosophy (not the "all-about-me" world view that her dissenters accuse her of espousing), so seeing it on the big screen is refreshing for me. The main faults I find with it are no doubt due to condensing roughly 350-400 pages of book into about 90 minutes of film without butchering it beyond recognition (films adapted from Stephen King's works generally have the same faults) compounded by a woefully inadequate budget. That the finished product came out as good as it did (budget limitations notwithstanding) is a testament to the production team.

In summary, the book is far superior to the movie (as is almost always the case), but I found the movie to be, frankly, a better adaptation than I expected and well worth seeing -- if one can identify with or at least appreciate the ideology presented.

I have to admit that it's been years since I read the book (required high school reading) and while I struggled to get through it, I did appreciate the concepts of a dystopian United States, the philosophy of Objectivism and the idea that civilization and society simply cannot continue to exist where there is no creativity.

Almost none of this is covered in this first part of the trilogy. Don't get me wrong, the film covers a lot of ground, in fact it's front-loaded with heavy doses of exposition. The problem is the film is shot like a PBS made-for-TV movie (mainly a series of talking heads) and the stiff dialog is lifelessly delivered by TV actors that lack big screen presence.

Now, don't mistake me for one of those people who feel the subject matter of the book is too didactic for mass appeal, I just think this low-budget and amateur version lacks the fire and fury that Rand's novel deserves.

I'm not saying not to see it, just avoid the mistake I made. Go in with no expectations.

Hell, it might even make you want to pick up the book and give it a read.

I was prepared to cringe at this Atlas Shrugged, universally panned by the critics for its low budget and no-name cast. Instead, I was pretty impressed. The story was faithful to the book, and the message and narrative clear, with the producers wisely sidestepping most of Rand's stilted polemics.

Yes, the budget did confine most shooting to interiors, but there was enough "big sky" material, railroad operations, and steel mill shots to give the film some scope. And the SFX and CG used in the supertrain shots, which probably absorbed half the budget, were worth every penny.

The cast, and especially Taylor Shilling, who played Dagny, and Grant Bowler (Rearden) did a great job.

Overall, I liked AS, and look forward to the sequels. I just hope the producers can raise the financing to make them.

The movie isn't awful, but it isn't that good.

To anyone who has read the book, the movie lacks in several ways. The movie jumps in right at the point where the Taggert Transcontinental crashes after derailing. There's no background on the peoples' lives. You don't understand the relationships between Dagney, James (her brother), Francisco (her friend and first love) and Eddie (her friend and employee). You don't understand how much Dagney loves the railroad and how she took any job at the railroad when she was younger. It doesn't show how much the employees respect her versus James. You don't understand how intelligent and creative Francisco is and how he respects his ancestor who sacrificed everything for his love and his future generations so you're not confused (like you should be) why he's acting like he is.

I didn't get the "feel" of how desperate the general public deals with everyday life. Yes, there were a lot of street people, but the viewer doesn't understand why or that not everyone is lazy and/or greedy. You don't "feel" the disintegration of everyone's life and the country. You see superficial greedy, politicians but you miss the fear in most everybody's eyes. Also, it doesn't show how hard Dagney works to save the railroad by building the "John Galt Line." It doesn't show her frustrations or the long hours she puts in and how weary she becomes, but doesn't give up. Also, her office in the basement of the Taggert Building is sparse and cramped in the book which adds to her strength, but in the movie it looks just like her regular office.

The one scene that I think is important to the story is when Dagney is working very late one night and she sees a shadowy figure walk up to the door of her office and she thinks it might be Hank Reardon. The figure paces back and forth and then walks away. I think it's important to the story because later you find out it was John Galt and how he knew that it wasn't the right time to talk to her. The movie ends just like the book (part 1) with Dagney screaming "no!" at Wyatt's Torch. The movie is only 97 minutes long so they could have added more depth to the movie without tiring out the audience.

I don't think the movie will recoup the expenses of making the movie. If not, it doesn't seem they will truly continue with part 2 or 3.

I don't want to make this a philosophical discussion on Ayn Rand. I rather talk about movie logic, and story construction. I've never read the book, and I'm not going to. It's the movie I'm reviewing and it has many problems.

The general level of production is much better than a syfy TV movie, but it's much lower than most big screen theater releases. For a $4.3M production (if IMDb is accurate), it's actually pretty impressive. I have no problems with the production or Taylor Schilling's acting. She does a good job as the driven woman executive. The problems lie elsewhere.

I don't know how hard they try to follow the book, but I think they would be better off to abandon the storypoints and keep the philosophy. It's written in the 50's by a woman who doesn't know much about business or steel. It was questionable at its time but is incredibly outdated today. I don't know why the filmmakers believe steel would sound futuristic by people today. They are talking about steel...Right? We're watching IronMan and Transformers and steel is the new material?

This is an apocalyptic world on film. There is nothing new there. Every other movie is the end of the world. But the filmmakers really need to set it up better instead of some generic oil crisis. They're trying so hard to gin everything up to recreate the Atlas Shrugged storyline that it has no relevance to today's world. Instead trying to adapt the feel of the book, I think they try to recreate the book for today. Maybe it made sense when it was written, but it makes no sense today. It makes 'Red Dawn' look realistic.

I have many other problems with the movie logic here. Let's just say I rather not get bogged down. It's not a bad production if they could make the story more logical.

It's been many years since I read Ayn Rand's iconic novel, but it all came back to me as I watched this movie unfold. Indeed, the characters have more depth and complexity in the movie version.

Most impressive is the production quality. I'm told this is a low budget movie, but it doesn't look that way. It is a visual treat.

The story line is true to the book but updated and set in a modern context that makes it feel fresh and exciting.

Every single performance is first rate, but the leads are truly standouts.

I can't wait for Parts II and III.

I was convinced Atlas Shrugged could not be put on film, but this movie proved me wrong. It has a contemporary look and feel, while retaining the Art Deco elegance of Rand's novel. The acting is superb, particularly Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart and Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden. Bowler manages to cram more meaning into a half-cocked eyebrow than most actors in a dozen lines of dialogue, and Shilling captures the sleek, cold elegance of Dagny, while giving just a hint of the passion simmering beneath the surface. Indeed, all the performances are impeccable.

This is a beautiful movie to watch, with sets, locations and costumes that are both gorgeous and convincing. The run of the John Galt Line is thrilling, and when it crossed the bridge made of Rearden Metal, I wanted to stand up and cheer.

Director Paul Johansson (who also plays John Galt) obviously knew exactly what he wanted to put on the screen, and manged to do it. He is faithful to Rand's story, and in particular to the philosophical message that is at the heart of the work, while maintaining the excitement of the plot.

During her lifetime, Rand did not allow the novel to be made into a film, perhaps for fear that the movie would not be faithful to the book. It's too bad that she didn't live to see this movie because, I believe, she would be surprised and pleased by how well it captures the essence of her work. This is clearly a labor of love that will help make Rand's ideas accessible to many who have not yet read her work. And it's exciting and rewarding for those of us who have been Rand fans for many years. Can't wait for Parts 2 and 3.

I went into this film as a blank slate - someone completely unfamiliar with Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I am aware that there are a number of people who cite her novel Atlas Shrugged as a life-changing blue print for living and society and others who dismiss it as complete bilge with incredibly destructive properties.

I cannot attest to how faithful this film remains to the source novel, but I can attest to the fact that it is an utterly deadening, mind-numbing and thoroughly unenjoyable viewing experience. If I understand the gist of the Rand philosophy embodied in Atlas Shrugged, it seems to be that personal self-aggrandizement, selfishness and greed are the most important aspects of society and should be encouraged, while the average working man is so much forgettable dross to be dismissed and trod over. I believe Michael Douglas encapsulated this in a memorable speech back in 1987s Wall Street. It only took him a moment to convey it, whereas it takes Atlas Shrugged the entire film (plus a projected two more) to convey the exact same message. If I am incorrect about the Rand philosophy, then blame the film as those I went with came away with the same impression. I find it deeply disturbing that anyone finds this lunacy a blue print for society.

The story is pretty much a bunch of nonsense about uncompromising glacial blond Dagny Taggart teaming with Hank Reardon to build a new high speed rail system in the US against the obstacles placed there by the villainous government regulations. Anyone who disagrees with Dagny and Hank are depicted as either weaklings, villains or preferably both.

The story is purportedly set in the near future, but it is utterly laughable because it seems to exist in a hermetic bubble that has no relation to the world we actually live in. The fact that so much of the story depends on the success of high speed rail transit is ironic considering that conservatives, libertarians and Randians alike are currently trying to throw assorted obstacles into the path of such a plan currently being developed. The lunacy the film spouts about regulation and Big Government is pure hilarity considering that regulation has become progressively extinct in the US since the 1980s and it has proved to be to the detriment of the country not to its success. The film fails to mention anything about such modern conveniences as the internet and mentions nothing about the progress of other industrialized nations. Whereas we are currently looking at a corrupt government weakened by corporate brown-nosers answering to the highest business bidder, Atlas Shrugged seems to present such a thing as a utopia.

The film looks suspiciously like a made for TV movie, but made on the cheap. The cast is a wash-out with an array of unknowns and barely familiar faces trying to invest some degree of passion or emotion into the proceedings to little success. Taylor Schilling is hopelessly out of her element in the central role and she is ill-supported by the remainder of the cast. Director Paul Johansson casts himself as the elusive John Galt, an enigmatic mystery man behind the disappearance of the supposed cream of the crop in business, but this plot thread is so uncompelling as to be rendered comatose.

Laughably, despite the reported nadir of the country in the film, everyone we meet is wealthy, well-to-do, dressed to the nines and impressed with themselves to the nth degree. The "action" is basically a series of business meetings set in different random places. If you think your average staff meeting is provocative and sexy, then this is definitely the film for you. Imagine an episode of Dallas or Dynasty with lower production values, an absence of the campy characters that make the shows a guilty pleasure, and completely set in boardrooms/meeting areas and you have Atlas Shrugged down pat. Considering one must imagine the producers had some degree of passion to bring this to the screen, it is woefully absent on screen. The film lumbers to an exhilarating crescendo wherein we see people ride a train...quickly. This realization of this dream is so much for Dagny and the married Hank that they must consummate their romantic ardor in a scene with all of the erotic splendor of a memorandum. The complete ennui which dogs this film leaves the viewer soporific by the time it grinds to a halt.

Based on this initial effort, one can only wish that the world will not be victimized by Parts 2 and 3. As drama, it fails miserably. As a propaganda piece, it is more stillborn than the least interesting story from Pravda. As a life-changing film, one can only pity those who feel there is something of depth or worth here. Over the weekend I decided to give Rand another chance and caught The Fountainhead with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. The story was more nonsense which is purportedly about an uncompromising architect, but seems much more interested in jackhammers plunging into the earth while Patricia Neal lasciviously looks on posing provocatively in her impressive foundation garments next to the sky. It was foolish, but you know what? At least the overt sexuality was fun and Neal was amazing looking, both ingredients missing from this rotten mess.

I have little to no knowledge of Ayn Rand or her philosophy, but if this odious cheap-looking stool sample is an accurate depiction of her feverishly acclaimed novel, then there are a lot of delusional psychotic people in the world.

The plot and action has all the momentum of winter sludge. Self-impressed icy blonde Dagny Taggart struts and preens all over the place in some daft effort to convince us that she is "uncompromising" and "bold" as she attempts to pursue high speed rail with an amazing new super-steel against the wicked machinations of the almighty government regulation and evil unions. The film is so laughably black and white in its depictions of everything that it fails to attain even the depth of a Dick and Jane preschool book. In short, Dagny and her married semi-lover/compatriot Hank Rearden are pinnacles of brilliance, while the rest of the world is comprised of either villains trying to stop them or an offensively simplistic depiction of the average working American as slovenly unimaginative ingrates whose fates are of no concern so long as Dagny gets her way. Given that Dagny and Hank are supposed to be such larger-than-life legends, it comes as a real shame that neither has a distinct personality.

Incomprehensibly, the film is set in the future, yet the action centers on the importance of rail transport. It would be hilarious if the film obviously did not regard itself with such outlandish relevance and undeserved reverence. Minimal effort is made to update the story, with little to no acknowledgments of such issues as air travel, the internet and the technical advancements made since Rand wrote her tome. The material would have fared far better if it was set in the past, but then again that would only have exacerbated the idiocy that nothing predicted in the novel has come to pass and, in fact, many of the policies the book/film seems to advocate so strongly for have led to very real disasters out in the real world. Of course, that doesn't stop this myopic piece of fiction from steadfastly advocating them anyway.

The country presented in Atlas Shrugged is supposed to be a notch above a wasteland, yet nearly every character that promenades across the screen seems to be a billboard for wealth and privilege. Admittedly, the film has little interest in the unwashed masses that it hold beneath contempt because it reasons they have no valuable contributions to make in the grand scheme of things. The events that do not unfold on the rails do so in ritzy clubs and swanky boardrooms, with the characters freely imbibing and trading such banter that sounds like it came from a particularly dry article of Money Magazine. A lot of what they spout is suitably incomprehensible gobbledy-gook, but then we average folk are not supposed to comprehend this level of brilliance. Given that this is only Part 1 of a planned trilogy, one can only hope that the action speeds up to a crawl by Part 2.

The look and feel of the film definitely smacks of cheapness, and Paul Johansson's stagnant direction is a further detraction. The only cast members I vaguely recognized were Michael O'Keefe and Michael Lerner, both of whom have fallen a long way from their forgotten glory days as Oscar-nominated actors. Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler are the ostensible leads of the piece - both are undemonstrative and forgettable. It is admittedly difficult to portray larger-than-life ideologues, but neither Schilling nor Bowler have the charisma to bridge the mammoth personality black holes that pass for characters. If you think they lack as singular characters, as a couple they have all the charm of inanimate titanium rods. Their "love" scene is not only one of the most chastely filmed in the history of cinema, but has all of the heat and passion one associates with clenching a block of ice between one's butt cheeks. The film does not so much build to a conclusion or a "cliffhanger", so much as it resembles a comatose patient that expires on the operating table in front of us with no warning or fanfare.

For all of the film's bloated self-importance, it comes off a lot like that old relative that everyone dreads showing up at family events, who talks too loud and has a ragingly unpopular opinion on everything, and whose grip on reality is tenuous at the best of times. Yes, much like that relative, Atlas Shrugged is in dire need of being put in mothballs or consigned to the old age home of broken philosophies where it can mercifully fade away into the oblivion it so deserves. In the meantime, for those who similarly endured the torment of this film, you have my sympathy. And for fans of the film, you have my pity and I sincerely hope your therapist is a good one.

How is Atlas Shrugged different from any other movie? Why has is taken 54 years to bring Ayn Rand's epic 1,100 page novel to the big screen? Why is it lacking participation from the A-list Hollywood names once attached to it, Anjelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Faye Dunaway? Why did it open on only 300 screens nationwide, and why was that opening on April 15, 2011, coincident with the third annual Tax Day Tea Party? Why are the founders and top executives of the nation's most successful industrial empires disappearing without a trace, one by one? Why ask useless questions? Who is John Galt? Because they have answers, that's why. Those who have read Rand's 1957 magnum opus know the answer to the last of those questions. This posting will suggest an answer to the first, which may in turn offer clues to the others.

So, what makes Atlas Shrugged different? It takes place in the near-term future, 2016 (a departure from the book). That's not it; we have seen thousands of movies about an imagined future. The nation is in the worst economic recession in history. Nothing new there. People of former means are living in the streets, homeless and destitute, while the captains of industry and owners of large corporations grow rich. No departure from the Hollywood norm there. The story is told from the points of view of those ultra-rich tycoons and moguls, the movie's sympathetic characters. There it is. Never before has a major Hollywood movie departed from its pet formula in which the "bad guys" are the evil rich. Not until now has a movie examined the question, why do we hate the founders of corporations, and why do we blame them for unemployment, when they are the ones who create jobs, not destroy them?

Atlas Shrugged asks the viewer to think and understand, similar to other business- themed files like Wall Street and Rollover. Readers may be disappointed that the monumental size of the novel does not afford time for the screenplay to take the user into certain folds of the full story, since many characters must be introduced, and much of the political/business climate must be laid down as foundation. As a result, much of the screenplay consists of dry dialog, and much of the action from the novel is absent, presented in exposition such as newspaper headlines. The train wreck with which the book introduces us to heroine Dagny Taggart's heroic can-do character is shown only on a television news screen, and mentioned only once much later in dialog. The story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company's failure is given in brief narration by Hank Rearden. The back-story relationship between Dagny and Francisco D'Anconia is not explored at all. Eddie Willers is reduced to little more than an office messenger, periodically updating the principles on the latest story developments.

Dagny and Rearden themselves are played with dry professionalism by Taylor Schilling and Paul Johansson, owing to their characters' purely-business attitudes toward life. Only in the final cliffhanging scene does Schilling display the real passion of Dagny, in a single exclamation reminiscent of Scarlett O'Hara's anguished cry which closes the first half of Gone with the Wind. Some familiar character actors are present: Graham Beckel gives a compelling performance as oil magnate Ellis Wyatt, as do John Polito as steel competitor Orren Boyle and Michael Lerner as Washington lobbyist Wesley Mouch (conspicuously not pronounced, "mooch"). Rebecca Wisocky is delightfully unlikeable Rearden's ungrateful wife of 10 years, Lillian, inducing chuckles among viewers as she delivers snide, condescending comments directed at her successful husband, from whom she is nonetheless not too proud to freeload.

The cinematography is extraordinary, particularly during a montage in which the inaugural run of the new Rio Norte train crosses breathtaking views of Colorado. This movie gives us heavy industrial shots such as rail yards and steel mills, not as hideous rusted eyesores but as the industrialists see them: glorious grand machinery producing goods and pumping wealth into the nation's economy. That is another way in which this movie is different - its view that industry is not evil, enemy to all that is good and healthy, but rather the foundation upon which modern society is built.

The biggest disappointment is the sudden ending, to those who have not read the book and were expecting more than "half a movie." In reality, it is one-third, as the filmmakers have divided the story in same manner Ayn Rand divided the novel: into three parts. Atlas Shrugged, then is a trilogy, in which Part 1 only begins to hint at the answer to the pervasive question, "Who is John Galt?" The closing credits veritably beg for Part 2.

warning: very mild spoilers

It is difficult to believe Atlas Shrugged could be made into a movie at all. To imagine it could be made into a movie for $10 million dollars in only several months is mind boggling. Yet there it was, on the screen. To be fair, the movie being released April 15th, 2011 is only the first third of the book, with parts 2 and 3 scheduled for the same date in 2012 and 2013. Also to be fair, if I didn't realize how difficult this novel would be to convert to film, and if I didn't know how tiny was its production budget, I might subtract a star or two.

Many characters, locations and events had to be eliminated to squeeze the first third of this 1150 page book into a 110 minute movie. They chose well what to retain and how to present it. While the novel was set in the 1950s, the movie is set about 5 years in the future. This was a stunningly risky decision, but to my great surprise they pulled it off quite well. This surely saved them millions in budget.

None of the actors are well known to me, though I thought a few of them looked vaguely familiar. The only actor I could place was Quark from "Star Trek Deep Space 9", which is rather humorous since he was buried deep in plastic, rubber and makeup in that series. However, the acting was almost uniformly good, and sometimes excellent. In particular Grant Bowler was a spot-on perfect Hank Rearden, as was Rebecca Wisocky as his crafty and vile wife. But other actors also impressed during their limited screen time.

One incredibly difficult aspect of making this movie is the inability for a movie to do what novelists regularly do... explain extensively what their characters are thinking and feeling. So by necessity this film implies what the characters are thinking and feeling with subtle cues, and by placing the characters in difficult situations and letting the audience watch how they react. This makes it impossible to include the kind of explicit exposition of philosophy that exists in the novel, but... this is a movie after all, and no plausible alternative existed. Besides, anyone who finds the movie compelling can read the novel and read plenty of explicit philosophy. Furthermore, fans of the novel already know what the actors are thinking and feeling, so this audio-visual presentation is the perfect complement to the book they already consumed.

Though the movie was excellent, I would have made a few changes. And indeed, it is possible some of the more trivial of these might be changed before formal release. First, I would not state in the movie that the current date is 2016, or any other specific date. The novel is timeless, and should remain that way on film as much as practical.

As I recall the novel, John Galt is not seen until quite late in the book, except anonymously in informal lunches with Eddie Willers. In fact, one interesting mystery for the reader was guessing whether John Galt was a real human, or just an accidental name plugged into the popular saying "Who is John Galt?", which was a popular synonym for "futility", "resignation", "hopelessness" and "who knows". However, they chose to make John Galt a very clearly real character in the movie (albeit never clearly seen). I don't understand why they did this, and unless I'm missing something, I wish they hadn't.

I can't ding the movie for this, but probably the worst part of the movie was... it ended after only 1/3 of the story is told. But that's true of many long stories, from the "Star Wars" saga to the "Lord Of The Rings" trilogy and so forth. But damn was it annoying to think we must wait another year for part 2, and an additional year for part 3. Perhaps adding to the bummer was the fact that part 1 ended on a very downer note (kind of like "Empire Strikes Back" did). Poor Dagny has to endure her pain for a whole year before she can move forward again. Oh well, that's life in the movies.

I hope this film works as well for people who never read the epic "Atlas Shrugged" novel, but I'm not sure I can answer that. I suspect it is compelling enough to get many to read the book, and learn why so many consider why this work even more crucially important today than it was ~54 years ago when the novel was published.

Definitely go see "Atlas Shrugged" at the theater on April 15, 2011 if it is released on a screen near you. If it isn't, call your local theaters and demand they bring it to your town. If all else fails, presumably a DVD will be released in a few months.

There are other reviewers which have chosen to discount this movie because it was made on a relatively small budget, has no major Hollywood stars, or because it takes place just slightly in the future, instead of the distant past.

However, as a big fan of the book and given the current US and global political climate and turmoil, I would rather see this movie made now, under the conditions described above, than have to wait another 50+ years to see it hit the silver screen.

The filmmakers plausibly weaved the original Ayn Rand novel into the present without sacrificing much in the process. Combine that with solid acting and the overall feel of the movie, and they have delivered an enjoyable movie that I will see more than once in the theater, which is rare for me.

Not once did I feel that I was watching a movie that was "thrown" together as some have suggested, or that sacrificed quality or story. Instead this had nearly all of the look, feel and polish that you would expect to see in a big-budget Hollywood movie, with the sole exception of the A-list actors.

My fear though is that many people will skip this movie either because they have not read the novel or because they just don't hear about it. My wife is a perfect example as she does not plan to see it with me because the premise of the novel (which she has not read) did not interest her when I described it.

My biggest criticism is that this movie is too short (90 minutes long) and ended fairly abruptly. Given the amount of material involved, and that it is being split into 3 movies, the first movie could have/should have been at least two hours long.

I am not in the film industry so maybe I didn't catch some editing issues since I thought the move was great. Ayn wrote Shrugged in such a cinematic way, it was great to see the sweeping landscapes, witty banter, and some steamy scenes come to life on the big screen. It was really great to see some beautiful scenes of the rail and steel industry.

The actors were excellent, especially the main characters. Bowler and Schilling nailed it.

Now, I'm a huge fan of the book, so I'm a bit biased towards the story, but I thought the movie was entertaining, paced well and held true to key aspects of dialogue and scenes. I think people will enjoy it even if they haven't read the book, and hope it inspires people to read the book.

From the sounds of it, Part 2 and 3 are a go and will be released Tax Day 2012 and 2013.

Having long-ago read both Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue Of Selfishness, I knew exactly what I was getting in to when I made the improbable decision to check out this film. If you haven't already figured it out - I'm not a follower of Ayn Rand's... peculiarities.

But that's not what this is about. This is about the translation of a work of fiction from novel to celluloid.

The Successes: I have to admit that it qualifies as a motion picture, by definition. Kudos.

The Failures: The acting is terrible - excepting a handful of familiar faces, the cast must have been plucked from Kirk Cameron's Left Behind series, and even Michael O'Keefe hasn't done anything of note since Caddyshack. The dialogue is comical - I'm assuming it wasn't drunkenly improvised as there's a screenplay writer credit. The cinematography is sub-blargh - most of the film is set indoors and the entire look is just strange, as if some days there weren't enough people to hold the various lights and reflectors. The directing is nonexistent - I say that only because the film is directionless. The production quality is borked - the interiors were clearly done on the cheap, and (as one famous movie reviewer has pointed out) come the hell on, Wisconsin looks nothing like New Mexico. Even the costumes are junky - they're the kinds of outfits that Marshalls eventually sells to dollar stores. To top it off, the film isn't even entertaining-bad like an Ed Wood film - it's simply an exasperating, self-important POS.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I is an anti-masterpiece; if one of its empty film canisters were to come in contact with one of Citizen Kane's, the universe would explode.

Two stars, since it's twice as crappy as every other one-star film.

I saw Atlas Shrugged Part I at a special preview in New York City, on March 3. The script captures the spirit of the novel and that is the most important aspect about it. The actors do a good job, especially Grant Bowler as Rearden, Taylor Schilling as Dagny and Graham Beckel as Wyatt. The baddies are equally terrific: Rand fans will find Lillian Rearden (Rebecca Wisocky) shockingly evil, and same for Wesley Mouch (Michael Lerner) and Oren Boyle (Jon Polito). Paul Larkin (Patrick Fischler) and Dr. Potter (Armin Shimerman) are even creepier than I imagined when reading the book. Matthew Marsden is the perfect James Taggart -- and I expect he will really begin to show Taggart't true colors in the later parts when more is demanded of his character.

The music is transporting. Given the complexity and scope of the novel and the fact that they only go up to Wyatt's Torch, it is still tremendous. Anyone familiar with the book should enjoy it even if some scenes are rearranged, shortened, etc. I'm hoping that anyone not familiar with the book is inspired to read it.

By the way, just so you know that I'm serious, we're seeing it again on the official opening, April 15th.

Many of the reviews have said they are not sure how it would play to someone who is not a fan or have hinted that the only way to like it is to overlook things.

I had not read the book before seeing the movie. That being said, I still like it. As an independent film it really rates up there as one of the best. The photography was great as was most of the music. My biggest complaints were the editing. There were a couple of bad transitions, a bad splice, and at one point the music was off. As someone who watches a lot of independent films however, I can tell you it was not as bad as most other low budget films.

As to the story line itself, that has been driven in to the ground by those before me. I will say that by not having read the book it does play out as more of an intellectual adventure. If you are not reading too much in to the characters, they are just as fleshed out as any movie. I guess that is one of the problems of bringing any popular book to the screen, people will tend to use the enhanced knowledge when viewing the work.

Wow... this movie was absolutely terrible. I'll admit, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand and objectivism, but this movie was awful beyond the suspect politics.

Acting = terrible.

Story = dull

Politics = I think Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck must have loved this.

Cinematography = Not even good enough for a Lifetime TV movie.

Why was this worse than "The Room"? At least in "The Room" you got a good laugh. It was groans and yawns through this (dare I call it) film.

There you go. You can tell that I didn't like it at all. Watch Brazil instead.

The movie was everything my wife and I hoped for. I did not give it 10 stars simply because I can't tell whether a person who has not read the book could appreciate the movie to the full extent. If you haven't read the book, I recommend you read at least the first 500 pages or so, and then watch the movie - it will mean a lot more.

I would be interesting to see if Part 2 will be chapter 2; or if perhaps Part 1 was chapter 2, and parts 2 and 3 will be chapters 1, and 3. I say this because as has been said, the movie covers roughly the middle third of the book, and makes it very interesting.

The actors and actresses played their parts very well; especially Taylor Schilling as Dagny. The movie is fast-paced and it ended quicker than we expected; sort of as Kill Bill 1 – both movies leave you knowing that there is a lot more to the story. BTW, I am not suggesting that there are any similarities between KB-1 and AS-1 at all, other than there was more to follow.

The story in the book appears to take place sometime through the 1940's through 60's - perhaps. The movie sets the time around 2016, so it implies that this could (still) happen. Unfortunately, there are many parallels between the events in the story and today's events; too many for my comfort. But that's just me.

Also, for railroad fans, there are spectacular views of Taggart Transcontinental (actually, John Galt Line railroad at this point)passenger train traveling at 250 mph through beautiful Colorado country side and over breathtaking bridges.

The title of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged analogizes the legendary giant holding up the world, who finally tiring at receiving no thanks, decides to shrug. My eyes are tearing as I report that while retaining the book's name, the movie shrugs its intricate underlying story and moral teachings.

Published in 1957, the opus largely transpires in a not too distant future. Describing the ruination of the '50's culture of hope and prosperity due to the welfare state forcing people making a living to pay for those too lazy to work, John Galt leads the best minds to cease contributing their time and talents, thereby causing the country's collapse.

The author was prophetic. Although Galt was fictitious, the railroads, the mills, the family farms have since disappeared, joining other productive jobs now overseas. Doctors no longer make house calls: the true cause of our health care crisis. Atlas Shrugged years ago, the novel standing as a history lesson needing to be understood if humankind is to recover.

The movie ignores that history, commencing five years from the stagnant present day, the railroad and mills incomprehensibly restored. We're fed merely flashes of newspaper reports on the bad economy with no comparison to America's glorious days.

In contrast, the novel opens with Eddie observing specifics of decay as he walks New York City streets. The scene shifts to his railroad boss Dagny experiencing first hand the circumstances ordinary folks endure as she rides a train stopping from negligence. Later, we're presented the essential backstory of Eddie and Dagny growing up together, how their past shaped their present. Context, focus, and drama, so frustratingly absent from the motion picture.

In this feature, hero Hank looks Hollywood handsome and initially seems more upright than today's crooked businessman in bed with politicians. Except noble Hank literally beds rival Dagny who displays a mindless grin after their tepid sex. Dagny's earlier relationship with Francisco in the novel is richly complex, although in the film he's a nitwit, so I guess it doesn't take much from Hank to satisfy her. Oh, by the way, Hank's cheating on his faithful wife Lillian. Missing is novel Hank's guilt and struggle over his affair with Dagny. You see, back in the book's time, it was wrong to violate one's marriage. Today it's common behavior, so the movie, yes, I'll say it, shrugs this immorality and its consequences. (I'm a Hitchcock fan, and had he been director, I imagine he'd have had Hank take a shower. . .)

In the novel, Dagny's brother James is a villain who drives his wife Cherryl to suicide. The film does not reference her. Indeed, James is portrayed as a nice guy over his head as chief: he's bullied by his powerful sister, his subordinate. Ergo, Dagny and Hank are painted hedonistically, their suffering victims being James and Lillian.

John Galt in the novel is a man of mystery and integrity. On screen he becomes a shady figure in a ponzi scheme luring people with promises of higher profits derived from later investors.

The film abruptly halts. Parts two and three depend upon ticket sales. On opening weekend, I attended a nice theatre in a nice suburb with a tiny audience most of whom fell asleep. The online rave reviews came from book admirers desperately reading into the movie the countless pieces lacking. In the tome, Dagny and Hank wouldn't hurry a project to finish on time, they'd do it right or not at all. Whereas the movie makers failed to practice what they ineptly preached as they apparently rushed through this mess to meet a completion deadline.

The novel's concluding chapter is entitled "In The Name Of The Best Within Us." An authentic version of Atlas Shrugged could be filmed by someone who hasn't shrugged. Perchance, kind reader, how about you?

I liked the movie.

I've read the book, and I was excited to see them make a movie because, frankly, the book is too long and deep for most readers. I was excited to hear that they were making a movie because the book has been so thought provoking for me and I want my friends to get a chance to think about the same things. I think they did a good job of putting the message of a 1,150 page book into a stylish and interesting movie.

I'm not surprised that most of the professional critics didn't like it. This is a story is about rational principles. It's about anything but emotion. To someone accustomed to judging a movie based on the emotions portrayed, this movie would be a flop.

Be aware that this is the first of a three part series, and as such, it is definitely a cliff hanger. The book breaks up well into three parts though, and you get a good story in each. I brought a friend with me who hadn't read the book, and he seemed to follow the story just fine. He looked deep in thought when the movie was over.

"Motive power ? thought Dagny, looking up at the Taggart Building in the twilight ? was its first need; motive power, to keep that building standing; movement, to keep it immovable." (1.4.1.1, Ayn Rand)

I saw Atlas Shrugged (Part 1) last night in the Peoples Republic of Berkeley. Without a doubt the worst movie I've ever seen. It deletes almost all her essential content while condensing her remains into 15 second scenes without context, depth, or original meaning. The acting is so poor you're startled when a line is delivered averagely.

The film is a re adaptation of Atlas Shrugged taking place in 2016. The opening montage is thrilling, civil war in the middle east, gas prices at $36 a gallon, continual bank bailouts, sky rocket inflation, widespread unemployment Etc. So I was excited the first and only time during the film for about 118 seconds.

It was so bad. Berkeley students were supporting the novel. "Well the movie sucked but the book's not that bad. Ya, its important to understand other points of view." In one night, Atlas Shrugged was transformed from the right-wing bible to a retarded child who happens to be conservative. "It's not nice to tease the mentally challenged." Apparently, the company that made the movie had less than 10 weeks because their rights to the novel were about to expire. But still, I could have made a better film with my cellphone

The screenwriter has really come up with clear adaptation of the story and the key issues Ayn Rand was trying to communicate in her greatest novel. The appeal of this movie to me is how clearly the main characters and issues of Atlas Shrugged come across on-screen. The novel can be difficult to read and I think after seeing the movie, new readers will be able to follow the book a lot easier.

Seeing the faces of the characters and the issues that drive the story in context was very special. I think many, many more people will discover and read the book with proper appreciation even if this first part is the only part produced.

I got a huge kick seeing the vague depiction of John Galt in "Part 1" of the movie looking a lot like "Rorschach" from "Watchmen". Nice tip of the hat to the objectivist vigilante by the director.

It's worth going out of your way to see this. The hostile critics just don't get it. You will. It's very clear in the movie. Ayn Rand would approve. Her message is undiluted and not compromised. Great job.

First of all, I hope my English is good enough to express what I mean, sorry for misspellings that may happen during this text. :-)

Its the first time I commented on something here on IMDb, but enough is enough !

If I had the number 0 to vote, it would have been my choice.

This movie is an abomination and absolutely intolerable.

The director, the writers and the actors turned a life changing book into a big pile of mediocre horsesh.. ! I am really angry, as this book means so much to me.

The Characters are so anemic and without any chemistry, its unbelievable and so very frustrating ! Besides Rands philosophy, the book is a story of passion, honesty, bravery, lust, struggle, betrayal and truth. And these diletantes turned it into garbage.

None of the characters are casted in a proper way, non of the actors actually fit to their role. The personalities of the book don't come across at all.

If you haven't read the book, you simply don't understand whats going on, as the whole situation with the government trying to control companies for example doesn't come across.

Also the whole personal situation of Hank Rearden with the dullness of his family members, the arrogance and the indifference of his wife, just isn't there. You have to understand where people are coming from, what motivates them in order to feel empathy or to build a connection.

The same goes for Dagny Taggert, her brother for example is a opportunist, with no honor, trying to jump on any bandwagon there is. His personality does show that either.

Don't get me started on Francisco D'Anconia. Who on earth casted this actor ????? I could go on and on and on.

Can someone in Hollywood, please make a proper TV series out of it??? The story is perfect for a TV series.

THIS BOOK DESERVES BETTER ! It deserves RESPECT ! Cheers from Berlin Germany Beate Geibel

Perhaps you have to be an Ayn Randian, as I was at 15. I'm now 62, have long realized the world isn't that simple.

Doesn't make the book, or this movie, any less fun or thought provoking.

For the Ayn Rand naysayers, forgeddabowdit, give it a pass.

For movie-goers/renters who never heard of her, rate it six or so, for drama and good acting/directing.

For those who appreciate the message (however warped it is from current reality...mind you--she began writing as a sci-fi author--and this IS near-future sci-fi): Enjoy, as I did, giving it an eight out of ten. She copied Orwell with her early stories (yawn), hit her stride with Fountainhead, then with Atlas, then went over the top with her New Objectivism (which in my opinion at 17, was garbled nonsense). She should have stuck with fiction, so labeled, in my youthful opinion.

A good anti-communist sci-fi political-philosophy read, made into a surprisingly good film as our nation descends into a socialist miasma. The only reason it doesn't quite rival Orwell is that his stuff, most depressingly, is coming all too true. He wrote a playbook for modern world controllers (actually wrote himself to death doing it). Rand wrote an alternate future which didn't quite work out that way.

Still provocative and fun to watch on film. Rand probably would've bitched about it unless it sold more of her books, either way she'd have bought the first copy she saw and secretly stored it in her underwear drawer.

It's good cinema, from a political-philosophical-sci-fi legend's best work, and nicely done. Hoping the best for the rest (I want to see MORE).

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 (1:37, PG-13) — SF, 3rd string, original

An economy, I learned way back when, is built on 4 pillars: resources, labor, capital, and entrepreneurial ability.{1} Ayn Rand was convinced that the only 1 of these that mattered worth a damn was the entrepreneurs — the only Truly Worthy people in any society, deserving most of the power and money as a reward for making the society even possible, let alone thriving, in addition to their general swellness. She dramatized this attitude{2} in a series of novels which, as alternate history, fall within the bounds of science fiction. Now they've made one{3} of them into a movie, Atlas Shrugged Part 1. If it does OK in the theaters (pretty likely, considering the low production costs and quasi-religious fan base), there will surely be sequels, but be perfectly aware up front that this film is not the complete story at all.

The Randian heroes (and mistake them not for mere protagonists) are railroad tycoon Dagny Taggart (tall, slim, leggy, semi-expressionless blonde Taylor Schilling) and steel magnate Henry "Hank" Rearden (tall, fit, dark, ruggedly handsome, and reasonably competent Grant Bowler). They fight bravely to keep an effete, decadent, self-absorbed society afloat, but it's an uphill battle against the corruption of socialism and its evil underpinning philosophy, altruism. Demigod (mistake him not for a mere mortal) philosopher-engineer John Galt (played by director Paul Johansson) has long ago seen the futility of such efforts and concluded that the rabble must be left to implode on their own. He's been busy preparing a sanctuary wherein the Truly Worthy may wait out the inevitable societal collapse and its ghastly aftermath, where the worker ants get the doom they deserve, preferably starting with the unionized ones.

The source novel was written in 1957, and tho the ostensible timeline has been updated to the present, the Holy Writ of Objectivism has not, so there's nary a glimmer of acknowledgement that there's such a thing as environmental awareness or the internet, let alone an entire information age. All glory to heavy industry, welding sparks, and belching smokestacks! And bankers, of course.

Is this propaganda? Oh, yeah! How does it work as drama? Just as well as propaganda usually does.{4} It's talky, stiff, and didactic. The height of excitement is when the new Taggart supertrain hits 250 MPH on its spiffy new Rearden Steel tracks, and our 2 heroes smile at each other in the air-conditioned engineer's cab. (They subsequently consummate their attraction with all the passionate intensity of a corporate merger.) The villains all but twirl their mustachios as they plot their power grabs. We can forgive the patent illegality and unconstitutionality of such plots, but not their laffable lack of plausibility within the story line.

For all its talkiness, much goes unexplained. We see Rearden grimly signing over his companies, 1 by 1, following passage of a federal law limiting each person to owning no more than 1 company, but nobody ever explains why there appear to be no such things as stock issues, subsidiaries, holding companies, or offshoring of legal titles, all tested, tried, and true dodges in the real world of corporate finance. And there's no mention of the bazillions of bux he must have been paid for all that sold-off property.

The film is populated almost exclusively by the fabulously rich, powerful, and, uh, fabulous, but this leads to some oddities, such as an almost complete lack of extras in what should be heavily populated areas. Also, the low budget probably produced the dissonance of ill-fitting costuming among people who should by all rights have their own personal tailors. Plus ridiculous scenes like the one where Dagny tours a muddy railroad construction site in her sheath skirt and stiletto heels.

Still, the performers give it their all, it's basically a kind of interesting story, the locations are properly palatial, there's a guest appearance by the State of Wisconsin (site of the portentously named 20th Century Motors), and there's even a token black guy who ISN'T the 1st one bumped off. (Indeed, the "disappeared" appear to be exclusively rich, white men, but we'll have to wait for the sequel to learn why.)

––––

{1} There's some mooshiness between categories. Nowadays we tend to think of capital as nothing more than money, but it classically included things that weren't expended in the production process, like equipment and machinery. Electricity and highways might be viewed as capital by some or as resources by others. Similarly, marketing skills might be seen as part of either labor or entrepreneurship. Indeed, some schools of thot contend that all of entrepreneurship is nothing but labor with an inflated self-image.

{2} a collection of prejudices with pretensions of being a whole new branch of philosophy (rather than a fringe cult like Scientology) and which went by the grandiose name Objectivism (primary virtue: selfishness), symbolized by a dollar sign.

{3} actually about 1/3 of one.

{4} Leni Reifenstahl excepted