Atlas Shrugged: Part II - The Strike (February 19, 2013)

[Brown]

Are the powers-that-be even going to allow this thread to open?

The first movie (and this site's official review of the blu-ray) caused quite a stir around these parts.

So here we go. For the record, I purchased Part I for my father and enjoyed it despite some clunky dialog, and I am looking forward to this middle portion (if the producers are still aiming for a trilogy). Surprisingly, the film appeared in a very popular theatre in my area, but I wasn't moved enough to go.

I hope this thread at least remains open to the disc's release in February.

[growler]

I enjoyed part 2 even more than part 1. Those who despise Objectivism will condemn the movie, probably w/o bothering to watch it as some critics have done re the book.

I recommend reading the best selling book for the best introduction to Objectivism. Or visit Ayn Rand.org website to learn about the ideas in the book & movie. I have read that Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) was not involved in the movies. Atlas Shrugged is a book that presents a philosophy using a fictional story.

I'll repeat what I posted on the (closed) thread for part 1 re Objectivism:

From the web site “Introducing Objectivism” -- a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.

1) Metaphysics -- Objective Reality
2) Epistemology -- Reason
3) Ethics -- Self-interest
4) Politics -- Capitalism

“If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.


4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”

For Rand’s books or movies her philosophy is CENTRAL. That is why Objectivism is critical to this movie & any discussion of the movie.

[Brown]

I hope any discussion here remains respectful and good-humored.

Although I "liked" the first movie, perhaps the problem I have with it and other politically-bent flicks is that they aren't very subtle. I guess I prefer metaphor to sermonizing. At least, it is more entertaining (to me). I think perhaps the finest example of a program that took on the themes of capitalism and what draws people into society was DEADWOOD. Unfortunately, too much focus was placed on the violence, profanity and (at times) problematic dialog.

I look forward to this release, but I don't feel that the success of a film should depend on prerequisites (e.g., having read the book, attending an Ivy League school).

[jetthead]

I enjoyed Part I even though I disagree with Rand's philosophy. I'll probably pick up Part II when I see it cheap enough.

No Taylor Schilling makes me sad though.

[bigdaddyhorse]

All politics aside, I really couldn't stand the first one but have a morbid curiosity about the series. It'll go on the library list and be watched when they get it to me, no more, no less.

[jrmac2000]

I enjoyed the first film enough to read the book, so I'll be picking this up. Too bad the cast has been changed though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[growler]

Originally Posted by Brown

I don't feel that the success of a film should depend on prerequisites (e.g., having read the book, attending an Ivy League school).

Rand's Novel "The Fountainhead" (1943) was made into a film in 1949. Her novel Atlas Shrugged (1957) was thought by many to be impossible to film. At one time a TV miniseries was in the works. It is a very long novel. Even more than with most adaptations from book to screen-play there were many cuts. I didn't mean to imply that one could not enjoy or get the message w/o reading the book. Just that the definitive statement of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is the Novel "Atlas Shrugged" & not the film which neither she nor ARI had any part of creating.

An example of editing is
"Francisco's Money Speech" which is considerably shortened in the film. It would have to be. When reading one is able to pause & reflect unlike watching a film. Here is a much longer excerpt of that speech from the book:


http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/0...-money-speech/

[rock, stone]

Without casting aspersions, it really has to be acknowledged that many, many people who don't think much of the books or objectivism in its current state have indeed read the books.

For my money, the hardest thing about the books is that Rand was pretty tedious as a writer and rarely says in two words if she could say it in seventy five.

Anyone not feeling educated enough to cotton to Atlas Shrugged, shouldn't. Complexity is not analogous to length.

Personally, I hope they manage to get the third one made, if only for my personal curiosity about how they plan to handle Gault's 3 hour

[Show spoiler](not exaggerating)

speech.

I'm hoping they add a boat chase.

[Lucy Diamond]

I will definitely be picking this movie up and I must admit I didn't see it in the theaters.

I DID see part I in the theaters and I loved it and I feel like I got thrown off when they replaced Taylor Schilling.

[Brown]

Just finished this. The casting changes are a bit odd, but Samantha Mathis brings a warmth that this material needs. The politics remain ever-present, but the dialog is noticeably less clunky, and though Part 3 lies ahead, this film doesn't feel as much like a tease as the first.

This isn't a glossy studio flick, but as I said of the first, this is a professional product. The PQ and audio are fine. Blacks are not deep, but that is about the worst of it. I don't have any numbers, but I would swear the budget increased here. There are a good number of recognisable actors spotted throughout, and the effects are decent (though the scale of the location of an explosion looks way off at one point).

Politics always lead to havoc, but hey, this is Part 2. If you didn't like what the band played in Philly, there's no reason to have followed them to Baltimore.

[Noetic Hatter]

I thought the first one was better than it had a right to be, given Rand's clunky dialogue and the no-name cast (and non-existent budget). Not good, particularly, but watchable enough to get me to see Part II once it came out on video.

Now I see the sequel is out on disk this week. I am going to swing by Blockbuster here in a bit and grab it. (Yes, some of us still use Blockbuster ) Mathis is usually watchable, so it has that going for it.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

Personally, I hope they manage to get the third one made, if only for my personal curiosity about how they plan to handle Gault's 3 hour

[Show spoiler](not exaggerating)

speech.

They should shoot that in real time with one uninterrupted take.

[mormovies]

Nobody mentioned it but Teller has a cameo and speaks! He supposedly owns original manuscript pages from the ATLAS novel.

[Noetic Hatter]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

They should shoot that in real time with one uninterrupted take.

IIRC, it's 50 pages in the novel.

Originally Posted by mormovies

Nobody mentioned it but Teller has a cameo and speaks! He supposedly owns original manuscript pages from the ATLAS novel.

I didn't recognize him. Who was he?

[Brown]

Originally Posted by mormovies

Nobody mentioned it but Teller has a cameo and speaks! He supposedly owns original manuscript pages from the ATLAS novel.

I saw him, too, but I didn't believe it was he when he spoke.

[mormovies]

Teller has a featured cameo as a security guard in the lobby and warns Dagney about the hostile crowds outside.

Overall, I thought the film played better on the small screen with the dynamic sound design.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

Personally, I hope they manage to get the third one made, if only for my personal curiosity about how they plan to handle Gault's 3 hour

[Show spoiler](not exaggerating)

speech.

I'm hoping they add a boat chase.

Admittedly, I skipped over much of the speech in the book because it felt redundant, heavy-handed and superfluous. Politics aside, the book has its merits. Although, it could've been trimmed in many parts.

[Brown]

Originally Posted by jetthead

Regarding Part II, I really missed Taylor Schilling and especially Grant Bowler from the original movie. I thought Jason Beghe was just terrible as Hank Reardon in Part II.

As I mentioned earlier, I think Mathis brought a warmth to the film that was needed. I agree about Beghe, but I think they were looking to make Reardon seem less aristocratic and more down-to-earth. One of the sequel's few mistakes considering the overall improvements.

[rock, stone]

Thing is, all partisan posturing aside, is the movie any good "as a movie"?

I have only seen Part 1 to date

[Show spoiler](having read the book back in the day)

. But if the first movie is anything to go by, I can easily see the review being accurate as to the simplistic and trite rhetoric that was practically the hallmark of the first film.

Someone compared the government to the fascist state in Judge Dredd, but the villains in AS have more in common, in both nuance and vitriol, with a Japanese soldier from a WW2 Bugs Bunny cartoon.

I'll admit that I would be much more interested to see a daring and capable adaptation of this material, but as it stands these movies are feeding my fondness for clumsy, hamfisted filmmaking. These are like Syfy original movies with less Sharktopi and more ideological raaaaaaage.

[jetthead]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

Thing is, all partisan posturing aside, is the movie any good "as a movie"?

I have only seen Part 1 to date

[Show spoiler](having read the book back in the day)

. But if the first movie is anything to go by, I can easily see the review being accurate as to the simplistic and trite rhetoric that was practically the hallmark of the first film.

Someone compared the government to the fascist state in Judge Dredd, but the villains in AS have more in common, in both nuance and vitriol, with a Japanese soldier from a WW2 Bugs Bunny cartoon.

I'll admit that I would be much more interested to see a daring and capable adaptation of this material, but as it stands these movies are feeding my fondness for clumsy, hamfisted filmmaking. These are like Syfy original movies with less Sharktopi and more ideological raaaaaaage.

Looking at both films objectively (tee hee ), I'd say they're decidedly average at best. Much of the message of the films is presented pretty heavy-handedly but, having never read the book, I can't say if that is the way the novel was. They are competently made low-budget films and I am looking forward to Part III.