As someone who read and loved the book, this movie totally worked for me.
Schilling’s Dagny is intelligent, emotionally expressive, and beautiful. Bowler’s Hank Rearden is equally intelligent and competent, with occasionally bemused, understated humor and equally occasionally understated anger.
And the sexual chemistry between the two — yes, indeed.
Wisocky is tone-perfect as that bitch, Lillian Rearden. The casting of Marsden as James won me over — he could be good-looking, but his inner Jim-Taggart character weasels out and undercuts his potential.
Rand’s original novel is philosophically principled and stylized romantically, so it grates on the nerves of those who are intellectually opposed to a free society and/or who are emotionally cynical or neutered. For the same reasons, the movie will have its automatic opponents.
Also, the movie’s script is a highly essentialized version of the thematically jam-packed original novel, so I sense that the pace of the movie will be a challenge for those who haven’t read the book. (I’ll be curious to hear from those who only see the movie, though.)
Yet the movie is a very satisfying ride for those, like me, who know and resonate with the novel.
Looking forward to Part II.
“Looking forward to Part II.” Me too!
Schilling and Bowler were superb together.
Don’t forget to vote on imdb.com:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/ratings
They did a really good job. I’m amazed that they were able to accomplish this with just two months left before the option expired. Grant Bowler looks as if he was born to play Hank Rearden.
I had only one criticism. In the book, Galt approaches people at the point when they are under the greatest pressure from the government, when they are are at the breaking point. In the movie, Galt goes after Wyatt right after the John Galt line has been completed. But at that point, Wyatt is optimistic. Galt should have paid a visit to Wyatt after the “Equalization of Opportunity Act” is passed, like he did in the book.
Everything else was great.
I saw it twice and liked it even better the second time. I saw more details and was able to focus on the “sexual tension” between Dagny and Rearden because of some criticisms I read, and I disagree, there was tension, it was subtle and realistic and it was there! Also, I went with a group and one member had never read the book but remarked that she loved the movie and now had a burning passion to get the book that day and begin reading it! One old timer Objectivist in our group, who had been waiting 54 years to see the movie remarked: “It was PERFECT!”
Everyone enjoyed it, some noticed minor faults, all faults were different for each person… interesting. I didn’t like the shadowy John Galt fellow with the out of date hat, another thought Dagny’s scream at the end was too emotional, more the scream for the death of a child, everyone else disagreed. We all gathered afterwards for dinner and had a wonderful time discussing the movie!
So far, out of everyone I talked to who saw the movie really liked it!
Saw the first showing possible in the Philadelphia area. Agree on the Dagny Scream being a little off beam. But it is such a small matter in the scope of the movie. I see why they had to move some time lines around. The strike aspect was largely a mystery for a long time in the book. At this point, some 50 years later, that cat is out of the bag. They had to make this aspect visible to the viewer in part 1 or any NON-Rand fan would be scratching their heads.
I’ve seen Atlas twice and highly recommend that for fans of the novel. The first time one focuses on how the story was adapted and how the actors/actresses reflect the characters. One can’t help but being critical. I enjoyed the second experience even more than the first, and why not since that holds true for reading the novel. The meaning of the book is not in stylistic details but in the actions of the characters, and I was truly impressed by how well the story was adapted. The idea of businessmen are heroes, the creative force that makes survival possible, and that the looters are out to take the unearned is thoroughly conveyed. Dagny’s scream is perfect as an expression of horror and despair. It matches the visual picture given on the screen. I’ll be seeing it again.
Professor Shawn Klein’s reaction is here: http://www.philosophyblog.com/2011/04/atlas-more-again.html
While I’m a huge fan of the novel, I agree with the critics and would give it a thumbs down if I were judging it strictly on the basis of whether it succeeds as a compelling movie. I found it emotionally flat with too much going on and too many characters. I got the feeling they were trying to jam in as much as possible. I would have liked to have seen more of less. I think the producers are in over their heads on this very difficult project, and I hope they don’t make parts 2 and 3.