Atlas Shrugged: Part I - November 08, 2011 - Review

[Brown]

Is that the same Paul Krugman that believes that the U.S. just needs another three trillion dollars in further stimulis to get its economy on track? I hope some of that goes to a Cash for HD-DVD Clunkers program. Or maybe with some of that money the government can buy back the N.Y. Times building for them.

[Post Prod]

this is why we can't have nice things people.

sheez

[Brown]

For the record, I felt ashamed about my last post and made myself stand in a corner for 15 minutes. Just like in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. But I lived.

[cheld]

Originally Posted by ewsjr

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman

There is no such thing as the "Nobel Prize in economics". The name of the prize is The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The Sveriges Riksbank is the central bank of Sweden - their version of the Federal Reserve. So not surprisingly, the award is presented almost exclusively to Keynesians who favor inflationary monetary policy and endless government spending (even a Monetarist like Milton Friedman favors inflation). The one time the award went to an economist of the Austrian school - Friedrich Hayek - several Keynesians threw a temper tantrum and demanded that the award be abolished.

Krugman for his part suggested that one way to jumpstart the economy would be to have aliens invade the earth (google "krugman aliens").

[TJS_Blu]

BR.com forum rules:

You are only allowed to discuss religion and politics when it is the main topic of a specific movie. Keep in mind that all people are different and have different beliefs, so be respectful to each other. Stay on topic and make sure what you say is directly related to the movie.

[Snicket]

Leaving the political talk at the door, does anybody have anything to say about the film? As a film was it good?

[Brown]

Not to be snarky, but are we strictly equating economics with politics? And journalism? Or simply economics in the journalistic forum?

No, I get it: Stick to the film. I tried. I usually only return fire. My apologies.

And I posted a user review. It's a decently-produced flick with spots of wretchedly clunky dialog, but it is PART 1 and feels a bit like a cheap tease. My review (sorry, I cannot post the link at present) did attempt to avoid politics, but I see how it is difficult for people to do so. Once again, I tried.

And, food for thought, who is John Galt? He might very well be Francis Ford Coppola. Or even George Lucas.

[Wookalar]

This is my favorite guilty pleasure thread.

[Brown]

No, to be honest, I was being snarky about the no politics and religion talk admonition (i.e., economics is NOT strictly politics). Indeed, as evidenced in this forum, economics is more like a religion to money worshippers. I for one do not worship money; I simply pray to God that He will provide some for me. Or the government will.

And, dear moderator, I watched the blu-ray disc and even reviewed it .

Good movies make one think, and the exchange of thought/opinion is good. Especially when people respect one another. And having a decent sense of humor helps. And having seen the movie. That helps, too.

Did I mention that I actually saw the film? I gave it just a middling grade although I think the A/V aspects were good.

I don't really want to keep going back and forth, and I don't want to be boastful, but Matt Damon's economics speech in GOOD WILL HUNTING was based on a beatdown I gave Paul Krugman back in 1989 during a conference in Prague, but I rapped my testimony. I guess that was also the inspiration for 8 MILE. Gotta give the K-Man his props, though; he would have bested Eminem that day.

[SpikesBluBlooded]

Oh, and for those with an aversion to fedoras and other tasty head-toppers:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65776.html

[TwntyOneTwlv]

Is it wrong that even though I know it's probably terrible, I still wanna pick up the blu-ray when it gets down to under ten bucks? I haven't seen the film, but I read the book, and I just want to see how much of a travesty it is.

[Elandyll]

As I said before the previous version of this thread was locked and part of its burning (to a crisp) content was removed, the people disagreeing with the reviewer's opinion might want to realize that it's the reviewing format itself which is in question then.
Either a critic has a personal opinion that is to be expressed, or it's just about "facts" and technical points.
Wether you agree or not with the reviewer's opinion, I do not see how you could ethically cherry pick which films would get their "movie opinion" section published and which would not, and according to which editorial line.

So in the end, it's more a matter of all or nothing (wether you happen to agree or disagree with the author) than anything else, and in fact if you happen to not like what is written, you can probably find another review elsewhere more in line with your own sensitivities to find some comforting?

[Jerrin]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

As I said before the previous version of this thread was locked and part of its burning (to a crisp) content was removed, the people disagreeing with the reviewer's opinion might want to realize that it's the reviewing format itself which is in question then.
Either a critic has a personal opinion that is to be expressed, or it's just about "facts" and technical points.
Wether you agree or not with the reviewer's opinion, I do not see how you could ethically cherry pick which films would get their "movie opinion" section published and which would not, and according to which editorial line.

So in the end, it's more a matter of all or nothing (wether you happen to agree or disagree with the author) than anything else, and in fact if you happen to not like what is written, you can probably find another review elsewhere more in line with your own sensitivities to find some comforting?

I agree and disagree with you. I have no problem with a reviewer blasting a movie if it is a turd (poor acting, poor script, poor sets, whatever). However, I do have a problem with essentially getting up on a soap box and spouting one's personal beliefs, while denegrating those that would disagree.

For instance:

"The loudest voices on the political right—who are also unassailably aligned with religious conservatives—have co-opted Rand's pro-unfettered capitalism views, all the while conveniently dismissing the fact that Rand was a fiercely anti-church atheist who believed, as she put it in her book For the New Intellectual, that all religion amounted to 'a protection racket…making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief.'"

Conservatives have essentially cherry-picked from Rand's novel what they want to hear and already believe—namely, that "job-creators" are the defining beneficial force of society, that government regulation and unions are evils to rally against, and that laissez-faire, totally free-market capitalism is the only economic system capable of protecting and nurturing an individual's rights. Right-leaning Washington Times columnist Scott Galupo even puts it this way: "'Conservatives' embrace of "Atlas Shrugged" today is nothing more than blinkered escapist fantasy—rather like a besieged army turning to Norse mythology or J.R.R. Tolkien to boost morale.'"

Now, if you take out the above you are left with:

"The long-in-the-making Atlas Shrugged: Part I, the film version of the first third of novelist Ayn Rand's politicizing magnum opus, has arrived just in time to coincide with the Tea Party's newfound and sometimes paradoxical obsession with Rand's objectivist, "rational self-interest" philosophy. Yet I strongly doubt anyone's morale will be boosted by Atlas Shrugged: Part I, a depressingly low-rent adaptation that's stilted and poorly scripted and completely devoid of entertainment value. Even the most rabid objectivist should be objective enough to see that this film has to be shrugged off as worthless."

The first sentance is a little close to the line, but I think it's ok. Together these two sentences, give us what we need to know (i.e. the reviewer doesn't think the movie is any good).

However, there is even more of the above sprinked throught the review. I think this is improper in a fair and balanced website. I would say the same if it was conservative propaganda. As one of the earlier posters noted, we should try to avoid discussion of politics. I believe that this is doubly true in reviews, as they are "the face" of this site.

[Another_Dude]

I have no problem with a reviewer trashing a movie if he thinks its that bad. I do have a problem with that reviewer taking swipes at people he disagrees with politically in his review.

Very poor taste for this site.

[Brown]

I have tried to keep things light, but my serious concern with the site review is whether the political views of the writer influenced the TECHNICAL portions. ATLAS SHRUGGED PART 1 does not look like a made-for-TV cheapie as the reviewer states. That kind of slam is sort of the kiss of death for a significant number of this site's users who often look at PQ ratings as the be-all, end-all pronouncement on a blu-ray release, and the reviewer is probably aware of this. In my review I acknowleged that this was not demo material, but it is a professional product.

[Arkadin]

the thread on this film seems to be closed due to people not being able to follow forum rules apparently, or maybe mods are in a cleaning phase.
anyway, came across this article about copies of the new dvd/and or blu-ray release.
looks like early copies will be a bit of a collectable, though probably insignificant as far as possible $ value.
still could be kind of cool to own a copy with such a glaring error of ignorance.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-sacrifice.php

.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

the thread on this film seems to be closed due to people not being able to follow forum rules apparently, or maybe mods are in a cleaning phase.
anyway, came across this article about copies of the new dvd/and or blu-ray release.
looks like early copies will be a bit of a collectable, though probably insignificant as far as possible $ value.
still could be kind of cool to own a copy with such a glaring error of ignorance.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-sacrifice.php

The thread was locked because people were discussing politics with there own personal views.

[Arkadin]

I understand--but it's also the main thread for the bd.
shouldn't it be cleaned up and re-opened so people can discuss the bd?

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

I understand--but it's also the main thread for the bd.
shouldn't it be cleaned up and re-opened so people can discuss the bd?

Probably not because it will just continue. Remember it takes one post in the wrong direction that creates 10 more & then 20.