Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? (2014) User Reviews

Not great but ties up the story well

[grantss · 5/10 · 2 December 2021]

Following on from Part II of the series, Dagny Taggart has at last has met John Galt. He and all the missing entrepreneurs, academics etc are living in a secret location. Dagny now has to make a choice: remain with the intellectuals or head back into the world where the government is oppressing its own people and stifling innovation and entrepreneurship.

After the first two films in the series I wasn't expecting much from this but wanted to see how the story ends. The film lived up to my expectations.

As before, the story is quite clumsy, character engagement is close to non-existent and the performances aren't the greatest but the themes are interesting, relatable and supportable. Continuity from the previous film is also a bit suspect

On that note, once again, the entire cast has been changed, diminishing any character familiarity or engagement. Why do that - a three film-series with common characters but entirely different casts for each film? Would it have been more expensive to sign actors to three-film deals? Makes for some weird character (non-) continuity, e.g. Dagny Taggart was played by 27-year-old Taylor Schilling in Part I, 42-year-old Samantha Mathis in Part II and now 37-year-old Laura Regan in Part III. So how old is her character?

In some ways the cast change is a positive as the actors are better than those in Part II but that wasn't difficult to achieve.

There are some broader positives though. Part III does tie up reasonably well, though with some degree of deliberate open-endedness. The anti-government, pro-capitalism themes of the first two films are now even stronger here and are well illustrated.

As was also the case with the first two films, the themes and broad storyline are very good, just a pity the execution is so mediocre.

Rush job, with lots of recycling

[temp-544-612798 · 5/10 · 13 September 2014]

It was a bad omen when *four* of the trailers were for religious movies.

Normally I see the AS films twice in one day. This one... I was ready to walk out halfway through. THERE IS NO HANK REARDEN.

Damn. Easily the weakest of the three films... they didn't put much effort into part three. Much of it's expository narration, they spend WAY too much time in the gulch, and the New York scenes are rushed and claustrophobic. It's almost as if they were rushing to get it done so they could claim they finished the trilogy.

THERE IS NO HANK REARDEN--even though arguably the best scene in this section of the book is his rejection of the Steel Unification Plan. His departure is the keystone setting off the penultimate collapse. They covered it by narration instead of portrayal.

Lots of recycled footage from the first film. Elia Cmiral is back for the score, but they also reused parts of the original score as well--not just the themes, but the 2011 recordings themselves.

The actors aren't even phoning it in, they're just reciting lines like they're in a rehearsal. Poor casting for Francisco, since he looks about 50 to Dagny's 20, and they're supposed to have been childhood friends. They completely neglected Ragnar, turning him into some half-wit thug instead of the raging terror he is in the book. THERE IS NO HANK REARDEN.

Galt's speech... wasn't. It's as if they took the start and finish, then filled about four minutes of space with the current TEA Party bromides instead of the positive, demonstrative statements about the right of free minds. They skipped the dinner party and went straight into Project F; no mention of Project X. Read the book for a better sense of what happens after Galt's speech.

...and THERE IS NO HANK REARDEN.

Imagine a profoundly great book made into a movie by high school kids.

[nateman-2 · 5/10 · 1 October 2014]

"Atlas Shrugged" has been a best seller for over 50 years. Its amazing prophecy about the current Obamanation has driven its sales to new heights. One would think it was a no-brainier for movie makers to make it. There is , however , one big catch: "Atlas Shrugged" boldly stands in opposition to the leftist culture infesting Hollywood. The Hollywood-Socialist alliance has tried to crush this movie from the beginning and up till now has succeeded in killing all such attempts. The bad guys of Hollywood did succeed in one respect : it was made without the seasoned talent of movie professionals. This tortured movie is the mangled victim of their relentless efforts of idealogical suppression.

I read the reviews. The usual enemies of liberty chimed in but it was the thumbs down from the free market folks that got my attention. "Atlas Shrugged" was a life changing book for me so I felt compelled to see the film anyways. If nothing else I wanted to reward the brave souls who finally made this important book into a movie. I was the only one in the theater that afternoon.

"Atlas Shrugged" is a long book filled with complicated philosophical ideas. It would have required minds as ingenious to film it as the mind which wrote it. No such talent was willing to touch it given the hostile environment of Commiewood . They would have become Hollywood poison , like former communist turned patriot Elia Kazan. This movie ended up being made by well meaning amateurs and it shows.

It's amazing this Hollywood thought crime was pursued to the end. All three parts have been commercial failures. You could see the production values decline as each one in turn was produced. The actors kept changing from movie to movie. They had to reintroduce characters with on screen titles. In this last movie key events were reduced to voiced over narrations done as simple lifeless news broadcasts. Like the movie "Dune" it tries to cram everything in from the book . Unless you read the book chances are you'd be totally lost by all the names and things happening.

The ideas still managed to come through but without any sparkle. They sounded more like the high school essays some kids would write. The actor they had for John Galt was not anything like I'd imagined him to be. Knowing how good the book was , watching this movie was more like attending a funeral. I'm still in mourning for this fading light that could have been great. Perhaps it will be remembered by future generations as a dying last gasp of American reason while the former nation of the enlightenment rapidly descends into the nightmare of collectivism and its inevitable tyranny.

Complete let down

[profff-01020 · 1/10 · 10 September 2015]

This movie is terrible. I've read the book and this is not a representation of it. This movie is a let down on every front. The story line is scabbed together. The cinematography is terrible. Acting is less than second rate. Cohesion sucks. There is less climax in this movie than there is in a retirement home. What's with the music in the movie? Every transition scene has this grandiose symphony playing, making it seem like there is a plot point or twist coming up.

I suffered through this junk because I had a fast forward button. Which is sad since I thought the first movie in this series was pretty well done. Then the second movie sucked. The third movie (this one) was so exponentially terrible compared to the first two that scientists are still trying to come up with a logarithmic formula to accurately represent the decaying quality from the first to third movies.

Watch the first movie and accept that it never goes anywhere. Don't watch this.

It gets worse

[Mr-Fusion · 2/10 · 4 August 2015]

It's the curiosity more than anything. I've already seen the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies; can't really leave the trilogy unfinished, right? This is what drove me to finish an unsatisfactory series of movies. And the final entry finishes things off in the worst possible fashion.

I'm not even concerned with Ayn Rand's philosophy, only with Part III's complete mishandling of it. This is a cartoon with robotic performances, non-existent production values and haphazard direction. The dialogue's stilted, none of these TV actors have any breathing room, and the story rolls out in a hurried low-standards manner. It's so cheap and so cut-rate that any message (even one delivered with a smug sledgehammer) is smothered in the execution. At a certain point, it just becomes unintentionally funny. Just not funny enough to be entertaining.

Is this at all like the book? I have no idea, but once was more than enough with this movie. What a sad end.

why am i doing this to myself?

[dragokin · 2/10 · 15 November 2015]

When i thought that Part II was worse than Part I, Part III went one step further. With another change in the cast, it's been difficult again to follow what's been going on.

With the ideas of Ayn Rand diluted in sub-par writing and below average acting, Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? became a perfect background for an afternoon nap. No pun intended.

Once again, i'm not sure why the producers insisted on making three movies instead of opting for a TV show. Nowadays this seems to be a gateway to a broader audience. Besides, the book Atlas Shrugged had enough contents and ideas for eight to ten one-hour episodes.

Inconceivably bad, yet it exists!

[Smarmelade · 2/10 · 27 January 2015]

Usually I don't reward a movie with something like 2/10 but boy, this one is just, oh man. I thought the second movie was bad. I actually thought second movie was bad and this one will be the same level of badness. I was wrong.

Cast changed.. again, budget was probably about 100$, skill and effort put into it.. well, OK, maybe not 0, but flimsy 2/10.

This time, casting went even lower, into below-C-category of TV actors, somewhere along letter H or something like that. I'm amazed that every movie from this "trilogy" was worse than the previous one. And the first one was plainly OK. Second one was cheap and rubbish(y) kinda looking all around, but this one is just bad all across the board.

Acting was just not giving a f#$%. Sets were two, three mid sized badly dressed rooms, one or two cabins in the woods, a lot of stock footage, etc. Now, I know I shouldn't judge the movie by how little resources they had to work with, but here that is just so much obvious and worse and counterproductive. Maybe someone would have done it better with those same resources, not the case here.

Script is awful, rushed, pure cheese, nonsensical and bad acting does not help it, at all. Editing is just random, confusing and poorly done. There's a bunch of random scenes for a few seconds and then back to main plot. For example, the scene where we find out about Jim Taggert's wife and her death, and flashbacks that follow it, it's just cringe and laugh inducing.

It's beyond me why this movie exists in this poor form and execution in the first place. I guess they had to make some kind of a closure to the project. Now I wish that rumor/joke few years back, about third movie being a musical, were true.

This is an absolute waste of time. Don't watch it. It's not good, it's not good-bad, it's just straight bad. Blandly bad. If you want to see your favorite G list TV stars fumble around, reciting some dumb script that is supposed to be a movie adaptation of Ayn Rand socio-emo-economic manifesto, don't. Read a book instead, even if you read it already.

poorly written story

[SnoopyStyle · 2/10 · 20 February 2016]

A car company changes its pay structure to one based on the workers' needs. John Galt (Kristoffer Polaha) refuses to go along and vows to stop the motor of the world. He convinces other industry leaders to go on strike and disappear to his hideaway. He has also invented a revolutionary engine to power the world. Dagny Taggart (Laura Regan) goes in search for the mysterious John Galt. Her plane is brought down by an electrical shield and Galt carries her out of the wreckage. She decides to return to the world to fight for her railroad business against the dictatorial Head of State Thompson and her incompetent brother James Taggart (Greg Germann). Meanwhile the world is collapsing without the captains of industrial and under attack from the pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld.

The story and dialog are clunky. This is basically a ninety minute sermon. Nobody in real life speaks like this. It makes the story very unwieldy. The Galt hideaway is a huge disappointment. It's a bunch of ski lodges and cabins with a farmer's market. With all the greatest minds in the world, it needs to be a magical Tomorrowland. I was glad when Dr. Floyd Ferris brings out a Star Trek scanner but that's the only thing. Sure Galt has his motor but they don't let it be amazing. It's a horribly flat and boring first half hour. There is an interesting section where Dagny returns home to battle his idiot brother. However, even that section is messed up by simplistic ideas like Minnesota. Apparently Minnesota is the only wheat growing state. It only adds to the ridiculousness. It makes any theory advanced by this movie sound stupid. Then there is the final battle. I didn't know torture requires a complicated machine. It seems like a car battery and a jumper cable would have done the same job. It's also one of the worst guarded torture site ever imagined. It's an ignominious end to a poorly executed story.

Not so bad

[jcawthon71 · 7/10 · 5 July 2019]

People need to be more reasonable. It's a miracle this third installment even got made. Obviously there was a very strong drive to finish the project even though they've had very little encouragement all along the way. The acting is good and on the budget it has it's much better than I expected. Many low budget projects would kill to look this good. Sure they have to shorten the elements from the Book just like they did with Game of Thrones. This is actually a better writing job than the last season of GOT which was just nuts. This follows the book OK, it get's the main themes across and many people just seem to want to hate Ayn Rand and do what they can to belittle the concepts. These days with the Strong leftist control of most all of mainstream media, you see these ideas coming across on some of the top College Campuses that used to be bastions for Free Speech, now they have been taken over by very totalitarian overseers that do anything to Squelch free speech and brainwash our kids to their insane ideologies. It's very surreal and hard to imagine how we let this happen, but there it is. Movies like this are important and need our support. The books of Terry Goodkind are fantasy books with these concepts too and are very good. It was a good movie overall and better than many new releases on Netflix. Give it a chance and give some slack too for the effort it took to even complete these three films with so much obstruction in Hollywood trying to prevent it.

Just...Terribawful

[jason_wisdom · 1/10 · 30 March 2016]

I am a big fan of the book, and I liked the first movie. That said, this was awful.

The story is rushed, character development is thin to none, and some of the best scenes from the book are missing. Whether or not you agree with Ayn Rand, she understood the beast (in her opinion) very well, and represented the conflict through engaging dialogue in fiction. There is none of that here.

Instead, there is a string of passionate speeches given by the central star but he comes across somewhere between a crazy man on the New York subway, and a poorly edited Anonymous speaker on YouTube. He does not come across as a veritable world leader. There are cameos from various B-list news figureheads, making this appear more a reunion of The Celebrity Apprentice than beautiful fictional story with a timely message.

Like others, I saw it to complete the trilogy, and out of respect for an integrity-based way of doing business that is legitimately threatened today. This movie does not help the cause.

This sums up much of our present condition

[pdband · 9/10 · 22 September 2014]

After seeing the other two parts of the Atlas Shrugged Trilogy, I was anxious to see this one.

Due to severe budgetary limitations, there are a lot of production values missing from a big Hollywood movie, but that doesn't really matter. There are those who are Alinsky socialists who will never see the picture for the ideas presented.

This movie pulls together and solidifies the what the Founding Fathers desired. They had studied the failed societies in the history of the world, and each of them knew about the fallen state of man's nature. They were highly influenced to create a society where the individual would be free to create and succeed without being needlessly held back by government interference and "red tape".

The Pilgrims realized that man's fallen nature was the reason why their experiment in a "common wealth" failed. The industrious had no incentive to work hard when the able bodied and lazy just let his fellow man take care of him. The Founding Fathers created a society where the government was kept in check and out of the way of hard work making one prosperous. Sure, some of the Founders had slaves and were white. That is history and yet we don't have slavery today, EXCEPT for those who have been given handouts and are enslaved to the government for their living. We ought to encourage them join the society of those who do not need the government.

What does this have to do with "Who is John Galt"? EVERYTHING! This is a lesson in what happens when the Government is in control and they only have the interests of a FEW people. They act like they are for ALL people, but they are only all about themselves. Through crooked and shady "deals" the hard work of the average citizen is used to pay for all sorts of things to make these few more powerful. The difference between Dagny Taggart and her brother are startling throughout the trilogy until the brother realizes he has just been a pawn of the power elite. The power elite decides who has food, who lives, who dies. The citizenry are constantly being asked to help their fellow man though another government program. The one that breaks the proverbial camel's back concerns the 20th Century Motor Company. Today our citizens have become so conditioned, they have lost the will to fight.

The issues raised in each of the three movies, but especially in THIS one, make us pause to realize just HOW MUCH liberty, freedom, and responsibility we have lost. The movie talks about a period of 12 years, yet we have seen most of this happen in just the 6 years of Obama. The republican "conservatives" have been bought off by pop culture, the agenda of the liberal media to ruin someone who opposes the agenda of socialism, and by political correctness and corrupt "deals" that have corrupted any opposition in the "conservative" party.

When you hear the chant in the movie "We want Galt!" it brings to mind the 'tea party'--who really only exist to fight for a return to sound government, smaller government, the rule of law and the Constitutional protection of "checks and balances" over unrestrained dictatorial power, and the every increasing despotism of the government in our daily lives.

Because of all the bad-mouthing of the libs who have excoriated Ayn Rand's thinking through the decades and the media's influence in non-reporting stories contrary to a collectivist nature, I would not expect the message of this movie to be promoted. It's dangerous. The people might just fight for their rights to be left alone by the constant government shake down.

This message should be spread. It is powerful. This movie is a reminder of just how far our society has gone down the wrong road. While written in the 1950's it is a prophetic warning for us all to stand up for our minds, our opinions and our way of life before they are taken completely away from us.

"I'll stop the motor of the world."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 11 April 2018]

It's easy enough to rip the movie for it's less than stellar casting and somewhat disjointed story. But in my view, the film is not about the acting, screen writing, cinematography or special effects. It's about an idea, an idea that's slowly but inexorably being pushed aside in modern America and the rest of the world. That idea is that 'no man belongs to another' and that the success of one's efforts to be better, in whatever way you want to define it, should be rewarded and not punished. When I read Ayn Rand's novel roughly seven years ago, I was astonished to find that it was so eerily prophetic of conditions that have come to exist in this country in the present era. What may be even worse is that the country is so polarized today that competing points of view aren't even accorded any level of regard or respect. This film will unfortunately be either acknowledged or dismissed depending on one's ideology, which is a shame because there are enough thoughtful ideas presented that could prove useful in defining and potentially solving a lot of our present day problems. Nitpicking the film for cinematic elements that fail to impress is somewhat short sighted. Listening to it's voice is a whole other matter.

Who cares who John Gault is?

[surfteach · 1/10 · 19 September 2014]

This review does contain spoilers.

First I want to thank the makers of this third and final installment of Atlas Shrugged for the many hours of entertainment it has provided my friends and I. We have added it to the pantheon of other movies-so-bad-that-they-are-good. One can only surmise that the ghost of Edward D. Wood Jr was channeled for this laugh fest. Look, I admit that I am a progressive, but I am a progressive who has taken the time to read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, listened to her interviews and read her Objectivist newsletter. I have a good understanding of her point of view and take it as seriously as many of her adherents. However as far as film making is concerned I can only conclude that Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave like a turkey in a rotisserie, to coin a Randian style metaphor. This film and Atlas Shrugged parts 1 and 2 are a truly awful presentation of her views.

Can we be honest here, the only people who would be happy with this would be her hard core followers. If the intent is to convert people to her world view then this wont even come close. It provides the Cliff's Notes version of a Cliff's Notes version of her book. Yes, I agree that trying to condense a 60 page speech by John Gault in small typeface is daunting in itself . But to reduce it to a 600 word speech while taking almost all the key elements of her argument absent is a disservice to Ms. Rand and I don't even agree with her! There is not a word about her views about atheism in this speech. In addition, I can't believe anyone would be inspired to do anything after listening to this anemic and pathetic distillation of her speech. Plus, what's with the Christ-like crucification scene where he is is tortured by OMG, Project F. Project F was apparently inspired by Ed Wood"s Bride of the Gorilla where Bela Lugosi tortured a man on a table with a colander attached to electrical leads. So needless to say, I was disappointed when Project F after much discussion by its inventor" I never intended for it to be used this way" turns out to be a box with four knobs and flashing lights with two leads attached to his neck by a cheap dog collar. It was in fact only about one step up from Ed Wood's device.

Throughout this series the happy denizens of Gault's Gulch live in a bucolic valley where apparently little elves and faeries perform the daily drudge work of growing vegetables for Gault and his fellow geniuses meager farmers market in addition to cutting lawns, cleaning toilets and and all the little things that are necessary for the brilliant geniuses who live in this Randian paradise.From the looks of things they must pay union scale or are you suggesting that John Gault cleans his own toilets or smelts his own steel?

To my Randian friends I suggest you watch John Ford's liberal union manifesto The Grapes of Wrath or Rob Reiner's The American President to see how to deliver a message, even if it 's message is is only for the converted. Both movies have a first rate cast, high production values, excellent writing and pacing and wonderful photography. While conservatives will hate the message, but they may be intellectually honest enough to admit it is good storytelling. But they had more money you say, yes they did, so watch John Sayles Matewan which had a largely unknown cast but was compelling and powerful story telling done on a shoestring budget.

My brother-in-law and I watched this movie in Ventura, CA on its opening night.The audience had 25 people, including us. Nobody was under 50. You guys need to tell your message more competently to attract the younger folks to you cause. The total sales for all three movies so far is about 5.5 to 6 million. The free market has spoken and said this movie and Atlas Shrugged Parts 1 and 2 stink.

Watching this will kill more brain cells than huffing paint thinner

[jaredrbowcutt · 1/10 · 17 December 2015]

I grew up a minor fan of Ayn Rand. I loved Anthem and enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged as a youth. Based on this, I went into viewing this hopeful and excited to see if they could translate the movie to current societal and economic realities. What a letdown. This series was dismal. There is not way to call this a success unless you force yourself to like it because it is associated to Rand's ideology. I will not go into depth in this review. This movie does not deserve it. Here is a quick synopsis of some of the sillier moments: 1) Dagny and Hank travel to Wisconsin to find an engine that runs on Ozone (no idea how Hank got the plans for the engine or why he thought it would still be in a long shut down factory). They scenery choice the director chose for this trip is the famous deserts of Wisconsin? Of course, the engine (that Galt is extremely protective of) is hanging out in a hidden back room. Ugh 2) I laughed out loud in several places despite comedy not being the aim. At the end a security guard, at gun point, refuses to move from the door (and is shot) because he says, "I am not supposed to make decisions for myself". Dagny screaming when the coal fields were on fire also elicited chuckles. The dialog is mind numbingly silly. 3) The movie is made up of the following scenes over and over: Limos driving through slums, Railroads and fat cats drinking in what looks like a hotel bar. In the end, this series clearly ended up as a propaganda piece. I have no problem with ideological movies presenting a message. Typically, those kind of movies incorporate the ideology into the movie. This one patches a movie around an ideology. Poorly. Steer clear or acknowledge you were warned.

A properly embarrassing end to an embarrassing trilogy.

[jdennist · 1/10 · 13 September 2014]

I've read Atlas Shrugged. Then and now, I've been convinced that one could make a pretty good film out of it. I still think it's doable. But it has not be done. Three times John Aglialoro (the connecting tissue in this misbegotten series, since each entry has different directors and casts) has delivered a film that delivers Rand's message in a wholly deficient dramatic context.

It's like eating flour and calling it bread.

Part I was bad. Part II was worse. Part III might be worse, but let's give credit where credit is due: the cast actually does a passable job. That doesn't mean they weren't miscast; Kristoffer Polaha is all wrong as John Galt, coming off more like a suburban Everyman than a man with the intelligence and ambition to "stop the motor of the world"; Laura Regan is okay as Dagny, but the butchering of the story denies her the full scope of her character.

It's the script that really sinks it. Admittedly, adapting the third part of the novel with any kind of fidelity would requite quite a long film, but this is just pathetic. Much of the film passes in montage, with a narrator filling in far too many gaps. And the final quarter of the novel (from Galt's arrest to the end) is rendered an unholy mess, with plot threads left unfinished or tossed to the winds entirely. The final scene of the novel isn't even shown!

J. James Manera's direction doesn't help; the staging is usually flat and the pace is nothing special either; the film avoids being boring mostly because so many scenes zip by in a matter of seconds. Gale Tattersall's cinematography, the odd shot or two aside, is at the level of low-budget TV; the production design is fatally underfunded, with Mulligan's Valley (excuse me, it's called GALT'S GULCH) looking like a suburban co-op, and an obvious lack of resources visible from start to finish.

The score is laughably overwrought, the editing is sloppy, and the whole thing just looks rushed and cheap. Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, and Sean Hannity make cameo appearances, but they didn't do much else for the film; it looks cheaper than many indie films made for a fraction of its reputed $5 million budget.

And as for the politics, the film merely proves that successful propaganda requires some level of artistic accomplishment. Could anyone be inspired by this? Could any fan of the novel accept it as even remotely worthy of Rand's narrative, let alone her message? I'm not politically inclined to agree with Galt or Rand, but the film doesn't even make a case.

It is, to put it plainly, an embarrassment to all involved. This whole trilogy should be studied as an example of what can happen when enough people are willing to waste enough money and time, though not enough to result in a worthy product.

On the third try, they've finally achieved "so bad it's good"

[ejonconrad · 15 September 2014]

This isn't going to be a very positive review, so I'll start by saying something nice. Never, in the history of literature, theater, or the cinema has there been a more awesome name for a villain than..."Cuffy Meigs". OK, now down to business.

You can't help but admire the plucky tenacity that saw this thing through in spite of the box office failures,scathing reviews, geometrically shrinking budgets and even the promise of John Aglialoro to stop if the first one lost money. Still, like a dancing dog, the novelty eventually wears off.

Let's start by recapping the previous movies...

The first one actually had a lot of promise. The casting and acting were good, the script was OK, and I really loved the sort of "alternate history of the 50s" atmosphere. Unfortunately, not much happens in the first third of the book. It's all set up for the rest, which unfortunately never delivered.

The second covers a more interesting section of the book, but of course that's where production got weird. They completely changed casts, director, and general atmosphere. It now looked more like the near future, but that lost a lot of the charm that the first one had. The new actors were also a big step down.

Still, I was intrigued enough that for the first time I actually paid to see ASIII rather than wait for it to come out on Netflix - where it will be *very* soon. I don't regret doing that - because with this final installment they finally cross into the "so bad it's good" category.

Where to start? At this point, we would have been shocked if they *hadn't* changed casts and directors, but some of the casting is bizarre. For example, Francisco d'Anconia is now clearly old enough to be Dagny's father, making their previous relationship kind of creepy, and quite possibly illegal. I'm sure you were also scratching your head at the choice of Rob Morrow as Hank Rearden, but don't worry, because *he's never actually in the movie*! You see, presumably to save money, large parts of the third movie are narrated over quick cutscenes and even stock footage. He appears briefly in a couple of these, but never appears in any scenes or speaks.

Most of the "action" takes place in Galt's Gulch - which they only call "Mulligan's Valley". It looks beautiful, but nothing like *I* would have pictured it. If you turned off the sound, you'd be sure you were watching a movie about some sort of hippie commune - with rustic cabins, a charming farmers' market, a general store, LL Bean wardrobe and lots and lots of liquor (it really struck me that everyone was pretty much drinking all the time in this movie). Even though Galt has invented a magic, limitless source of power, everyone still drives around in beat up jalopies, which inexplicably still have Colorado license plates (seriously? the *one* part of the government they kept was the DMV?).

Of course, the license plates are really there to keep reminding you this is Colorado - in spite of all the giant sequoias everywhere! The film spends a lot of time on nature shots, presumably because they couldn't afford sets. Don't get me wrong, it's beautiful, but let's examine the delicious irony and hypocrisy here. They couldn't afford proper sets because their first movies failed on the open market, so they relied on the beauty of *national parks* - places that only exist because the "meddling government" has protected them from exactly the sort of people this story is championing. If they had really wanted to be true to Rand's dream of unbridled capitalism, Galt's Gulch should have been located in an abandoned strip mine, or perhaps nestled among the toxic mountains of tailings in Picher, Oklahoma.

The parts that aren't in Galt's Gulch are almost all in grey, smoke filled board rooms, where grey, smoke filled evil men make grey, smoke filled evil plans. Cuffy Meigs - did I mention how much I love that name? - has a fantastically evil sneer.

I have you admit that Kristoffer Polaha, who played John Galt, was pretty good. He looks more like a front man for a grunge band than the cross between Adonis and John Holmes that I was expecting, but still, his acting was good and he made the role as believable as he could. In an unexpectedly pleasant surprise, "the speech" - which I'd been dreading since the first movie - was significantly shortened, and in its more succinct form it was probably the highlight that Rand intended, rather than the part that all but the die hards skim through.

A lot of the other actors do the best they can, but most of the script is simply godawful, particularly the beginning, where Dagny first arrives and they trip over each other to tell her all the things that were left out by the extended narration you just suffered through.

The low budget really shows when they get to the "Project F" torture device, which is straight out of community theater. I actually laughed out loud when I saw it (which did not endear me to the small handful of other people in the theater).

In the end, the movie leaves unanswered all the same questions which are left unanswered in the book. In particular, who does the actual *work* in Galt's Gulch? Who built the cabins? We catch a brief glimpse of a bartender at that party. Is he there because he's the greatest bartender in the world? What about those two guys we see actually digging in Francisco's mine?

This movie was made by people who believe the free market is the final judge of worth - except when their movies bomb, which they blame on a liberal conspiracy rather than accept the truth that they're pretty lousy.

Ayn Rand would cry, and let the free market take this out to pasture

[chimera388 · 1/10 · 15 September 2014]

Atlas Shrugged Part 3 Full review: Really a shame, since Part 1 was decent and Part 2 was legitimately good. I was excited for 3 to continue the progress and for this to be a trilogy worth showing to people who won't read the 1100 page book. Nope. Bad casting, bad acting, bad music (not alone, but it didn't match what was happening on screen), bad adaptation of the plot, baaaaad dialogue.

First, we had to deal with the re-casting of all the roles from Part 2, just as we did from Part 1 with one glaring difference. Part 2's actors were improvements, Part 3's were not. Francisco D'Anconia is cast as a man too old to be Dagny's sweetheart, rather more of a father figure. Almost every other character is almost comically one-dimensional, as if they are cast for only their one trait. Rearden is saved from this travesty by being completely omitted from the story save for his voice on a phone call. John Galt is acceptable, and even gives a passable speech. Worst was Mr Thompson, who couldn't be bothered to know the first thing about his own philosophy, but more on that later. Hugh Akston had a believable conversation with Dagny which, unfortunately, may be the highlight of the movie. All of this is being distracted from by music that doesn't fit the on-screen action, unnecessary landscape shots of California pretending to be Colorado, and dialogue so badly cut, that the audio track doesn't even match the visual track in some places. And that's just the details.

My biggest complaint is the audience was treated like idiots. The plot was narrated through the whole movie (ever heard of show them, don't tell them? I guess not), and the characters explicitly spelled out their ideals more like they were reading talking points off of Ron Paul's pamphlets, not describing hard decisions they actually had to make in their lives. Additionally, the antagonists in the movie were bumbling idiots. At the point in the book most of the movie covers, the leaders of the People's State of America are supposed to be whole-heartedly dedicated to the way they are running the world., completely convinced of its morality, and well versed in the language used to defend it. Instead, they are obvious fools, unable to defend the most basic premises of their world view, supposedly so that the audience can more easily see that their world view is wrong. Well I didn't need that help, thanks. Almost as offensive is portraying John Galt, Ayn Rand's (a staunch atheist) hero of society, as Jesus complete with torture on the cross and a resurrection scene. It was probably added to make the movie more appealing to Evangelical Republicans who might be sympathetic to a Randian ideology if it weren't for the atheism. And to round out the offensiveness, Dagny Taggart, a powerful woman who runs a railroad empire and is the strongest voice against the socialist elites, is reduced to s starry eyed schoolgirl seemingly struck dumb (literally and figuratively) by her love of John Galt and her admiration of the society he's built. Her character is reduced to a passive window through which we watch the "story" unfold. 0/10 would not see again, and will not be adding the Blu-Ray to my collector's edition Parts 1 and 2.

laughably awful film rendition of a laughably awful book

[fu446 · 1/10 · 9 January 2015]

Laughably awful film renditions of a laughably awful Ayn Rand book; awful as economic and political philosophy, and even more awful as science fiction. Nothing like a magic, perfect, infinite power source to justify your asinine premises and self satisfied, smug arrogance. One great thing about seeing it in film form is that it really helps to flesh out the oversimplification and write-by-numbers quality of the book in ways that may not be as obvious when reading it, and might even be viewed as literary device. On film, though, every corny statement and plot development is laid out in technicolor, right down to the hilariously smarmy romantic fantasy Rand wrote for her proxy character Dagny and the studly John Galt, from carrying her from the wreckage of her crashed plane -and illusions- against a postcard-perfect landscape of snow capped mountains and sequoia trees where you almost expect an eagle to perch on his shoulder or the Brawny guy to walk by in the background, to their first gauze-filtered, slow-piano'd kiss.

There are some really good conspiracy stories out there, from both the right and left wing, but this is not one of them. The fact that there are people that still hold up this book as meaningful or important would also be laughable if it weren't one of the better indicators of the sad level of humanities education in this country.

Run Away - No Bad Good just Bad Bad Film

[pluslife · 1/10 · 30 January 2015]

I thought I knew what to expect being a Ann Ryand based film and figured if I agreed with it or not it might be a study in that mindset.

All I saw was a bunch of clowns trying to act with so much cheese on top and worse editing mixed with lots of old footage.

If Hitler has seen this piece of sad propaganda he would of shot all who made this film. Heck even the propaganda films I have seen in the past from the 40's had way more merit than this cruddy work.

Do Not waste your money! The people giving such high ratings are those who would give a water closet with Ann Ryands name on it a high rating. They are just you brain dead fan boys who can not think beyond their indoctrinated hate of anything the see as a enemy; which basically everything that is not right of Atilla the Hun is their enemy.

Save you money and save your eyes!!!

Pretty much as expected

[zaywhat · 6/10 · 11 February 2015]

Another reviewer mentioned capturing the philosophical essence and that's why I enjoy the series. There are a few speeches in each of these, the third included that really demonstrate Libertarian thought.

Let me say these are "bad" movies in that none are ever going to win cinema awards but you don't watch this for popcorn thrills or to be amazed at the dramatic performances or directorial excellence or whatever.

Given that you're watching a bad movie, the high points are that they present the point of view well and there are elements which for me were funny. The Utopian "Gulch" where everyone is a high functioning engineer or wizard of some kind, where materials and factories and everything can be done in the blink of an eye, "It's amazing what you can do without the red tape". This was funny. Dagny being paid 3 gold coins as an advance on her job as a maid in the Gulch was hilarious. I've never met a Capitalist so eager to hire, so easy on negotiation and so loose with money with an employee. But then Galt is in love with Dagny so I guess there's an excuse.

The failure of the train trestle is presented in a single photo which looks like sabotage and I expected it to be so yet they say it was Socialism that destroyed the bridge. Very lame moment in the movie.

A lot of narration is a sure sign of a lack of funding and/or screenplay writing.

I wasn't really satisfied at the end as I wanted more conclusion, more closure with the world at large.

Still as an expression of the Libertarian mind espoused by Ayn Rand in her Objectivism philosophy, I think all 3 are right on the money.

Have they even read the book

[gaeshu · 1/10 · 8 February 2015]

Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave.

These people couldn't have possibly have read the book. They've taken a well written and reasoned novel (whether you agree with he philosophy or not) and reduced it to cheer leading the current right wings talking points.

If these people ever read Ayn Rand they would realize that they are exactly the type of people she referred to as takers, users, and looters.....

While the first two installments of this robbery of the mind (as Ayn would put it) showed at least a little self awareness and knowledge of the under pinnings of the novels intent this one completely misses the mark.

education on free market capitalism

[gtjakco · 10/10 · 2 August 2015]

those who enjoy big government would naturally rate this movie low because it is the message they dislike. the production of it is fine and the film delivered the theme loud and clear... "get out of the way".

the hacks that give this film low ratings to kill it may in fact make it a cult film for those of us who treasure freedom over a handout or a check.

go back to watching Idiocracy... this movie is too deep for you.

if you do enjoy a movie that supports free market capitalism then you won't be disappointed with Atlas Shrugged.

Disappoining

[westerfieldalfred · 6/10 · 19 September 2014]

I first read Atlas in 1961, subscribed to the Objectivist Newsletter and have Branden's lecture series on interminable LPs. Like many fans I slowly turned into a libertarian. Yet I still read Atlas and Fountainhead once every few years. So I'm a fan, not an acolyte. I saw Atlas 1 the day of its premier, sold out for the first showing, crowded the second. I gave it a 7. Saw Atlas 2 to a moderately filled house and gave it a 10. Saw Atlas 3 last night with my wife, the only 2 in the theater. I give it a 6.

I regularly write reviews for IMDb. In doing so I try to separate my personal views from the quality of the film. Basically, does it hold my interest. Do I enjoy it. Does the director and cast succeed in putting the ideas across. Well, I have to say Atlas 3 didn't succeed very well. I'm sure the lack of a budget had a lot to do with it.

I thought the casting was poor. Francisco particularly was anything but the suave, cultured aristocrat of the book and first 2 films. Galt was almost as bad, looking like a street lout rather than a cultured scientist. Dagny has no presence as a strong executive. The minor characters, however, were quite good.

The voice-over was not only unnecessary but stupid. No one is going to see this film who hasn't seen the first 2. Why spend the time bringing us up to date? The interaction of the major characters is missing. How long would it take for Dagny to tell Francisco and Rearden that she had found her true love? Those revelations had a lot to do with the motivation of the characters.

The big action scenes in the book are entirely missing, victims of the minuscule budget. Francisco saving Rearden Steel from the looters and particularly, the saving of Galt. The latter action in the book was a stirring climax with each major character taking part individually, if only for a few moments. And the torture device was attached to Galt with alligator clips! Reminded me of the spaghetti strainer on Tor Johnson's head in Bride of the Monster. There was simply no tension in this scene. Without the action the film was simply a talk fest. Such a film can be absorbing and interesting if well written. But Atlas 3 substituted a sledge hammer for subtlety. Now Rand was never one to pull punches but her dialog was the result of action not the action itself.

So the question is, after all these complaints, was I bored? No. That's why I give the film a 6. But I suspect that if I didn't know the book and walked in cold my rating would be much lower.

From a personal standpoint I believe the producers did a disservice to the film and the philosophy by giving Glen Beck a cameo. Beck's calling himself a libertarian is like Hitler calling himself a humanitarian. But as a film and rail fan I appreciated the Bronson Canyon mine location and the destruction of the Forth Railway bridge.

Let's hope, like Dune, the film is the impetus for a better quality miniseries

What the heck was that?

[P-Breitzman · 2/10 · 12 September 2014]

Let me begin by saying I am a tremendous fan of the novel. Further, I did enjoy parts one and two of the Atlas Shrugged film trilogy. I have been anxiously looking forward to seeing part three. That said, if you feel the same way as the above, do yourself a favor and avoid seeing this. Keep your memories of the novel intact.

The direction and screenplay in this film are, simply put, distractingly bad. Daytime television is better done. Scenes added that tie to nothing else in the film: if that was done to remind the watcher of parts of the book, then don't change the story. Seriously, John Galt smirking while the crowd chants his name? A trashed out rover with Colorado plates driving on roads with double yellow line in the Gulch? Project 'F' is an electroshock machine? The Taggart bridge collapses from regulation? Hank Rearden has no speaking part? And, after rescuing Galt they must take off to save Eddie? If part one had been a film of this caliber, parts two and three would never have been made.

Third installment ties up many loose ends.

[TxMike · 8 January 2016]

Ayn Rand famously wrote her book "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950s, it is a cautionary tale. What would become of the world if politicians and governments continued to interfere more and more with technology and commerce? What would happen if innovative people had to contribute more and more to the "have-nots" without have a say in the matter?

At the end of part II, two years ago, we see Dagny Taggart's plane enter some sort of phantom zone and crash. But she survives and sees John Galt. This third installment is set in the present time, we see them drinking wine from the 2012 vintage.

This third installment takes up there, after a very brief review of what led up to it. John Galt carries Dagny to safety and explains that he and the other innovators who "went on strike" have settled in that mountainous valley. Their location is secret and, while it is never explained, we see in the sky that they have invented some sort of cloaking technology so that they can see planes passing overhead, some searching for them, but the hunters can't see them.

Dagny is asked to stay with them for 30 days to see if she wants to pledge to their cause and stay with them. But at the end she decides to return to take care of some railroad issues. Leading politicians want to control the rails and the particular issue is whether they will allow trains to go to Minnesota to transport fresh crops to the East Coast. The politicians are willing to sacrifice a few thousand people for what they think is the greater good.

OK, this isn't a great series of films but all of them, including this last installment, are interesting. Each of the three movies has the same primary characters, but each movie has a different set of actors. The actors chosen here work out just fine and the actress playing Dagny looks enough like the others who played Dagny that it isn't an issue.

We finally meet John Galt face-to-face, played by tall (6-3) actor Kristoffer Polaha. Pretty blond Laura Regan is Dagny Taggart. We don't meet a President but we meet Peter Mackenzie as "Head of State" Thompson. And old reliable Greg Germann, who I enjoyed many years ago in "Ally McBeal", is the hapless James Taggart.

I am glad I took the time to watch it, for the interest in how the famous Ayn Rand portrayed the possible dysfunctional future.