[img]http://filmpopper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Atlas-Shrugged-Movie-Poster1.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/[/url]
That's right folks, the movie version of Ayn Rand's masterpiece of selfishness has arrived in a stale burst of hubris!
If you don't know what Atlas Shrugged is, it's a novel that is basically the libertarian bible. Themes include how poor people are weak and do not deserve to live, how women should be subservient to men, how the government hates people who are good at anything, and how rape is awesome.
It's about industrialists who are trying to invent better train tracks or something. The plot isn't really important, because it's primarily a vehicle for Ayn Rand's ultra-right-wing brand of libertarianism called "objectivism." The book was written in the 1950s, when apparently people cared about trains, but the plot has been moved to the future (apparently in an alternate universe where planes were never invented, otherwise why would they still care about trains). So why was the movie made? Well, apparently they'd bought the rights to the movie and forgotten about them, only to remember at the last minute and shit this film out before they expired. It's incredibly low-budget and nobody who matters had anything to do with it.
Anyway, it's ridiculously boring and incomprehensible, and has an 8% on Rotten Tomatoes. The user rating is much higher because all the Objectivist fanatics who love Ayn Rand think it's the best movie ever, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, have been uprating it feverishly since it released.
The best part, though, is that this movie is ostensibly part one, not of two, but THREE. Will anyone be able to sit through two more of these films? And if so, who is going to pay for it? The bitter irony of this aspiring trilogy is that it will need some kind of movie welfare in order to survive the bitterly hostile forces of the movie market.
Or, it was a conspiracy by the liberal media to undermine Ayn Rand's Ultimate Truth!
Atlas Shrugged? More like The Movie Going Public Shrugged!
I can't take anything you say seriously.
Lots of people seems to like it.
The production values make The Room look like a James Cameron flick.
[QUOTE=Pappi_man;29282610]Lots of people seems to like it.[/QUOTE]
Objectivists like it for the same reason Scientologists like Battlefield Earth.
I little while back I actually bought a couple of her books because I liked Bioshock and her books topped the Modern Library's reader list of the best of the century. I guess I expected cool steampunk cities but instead I got a load of boring. I later found out that the readers poll didn't have a lot of votes anyways so that list was pretty inane. I still have the books anyways because I don't like getting rid of things most of the time. Anyways, the moral of my story is that I'm an idiot.
[QUOTE=pie_is_good;29284380]I little while back I actually bought a couple of her books because I liked Bioshock and her books topped the Modern Library's reader list of the best of the century. I guess I expected cool steampunk cities but instead I got a load of boring. I later found out that the readers poll didn't have a lot of votes anyways so that list was pretty inane. I still have the books anyways because I don't like getting rid of things most of the time. Anyways, the moral of my story is that I'm an idiot.[/QUOTE]
You know Bioshock is supposed to be a refutation of her ideas, yeah?
I don't know much about the movie or the book, but the OP seems like a "oh I really dislike libertarianism and this movie flopped so I'm going to make a humorous thread about it". Based off a few things in the OP, it doesn't seem like you watched the movie or have intentions to do so. You should really talk a bit more about the movie and why it sucks, rather than putting the focus on the political message. I'm expecting some witty reply, but my point is that it is a terrible OP. Not nearly as bad as the House OP though.
[QUOTE=TH89;29284523]You know Bioshock is supposed to be a refutation of her ideas, yeah?[/QUOTE]
I point to that last line in my post again.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29284576]I don't know much about the movie or the book, but the OP seems like a "oh I really dislike libertarianism and this movie flopped so I'm going to make a humorous thread about it". Based off a few things in the OP, it doesn't seem like you watched the movie or have intentions to do so. You should really talk a bit more about the movie and why it sucks, rather than putting the focus on the political message. I'm expecting some witty reply, but my point is that it is a terrible OP. Not nearly as bad as the House OP though.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you about everything except for the part about my OP not being awesome
[QUOTE=Pepin;29284576]I don't know much about the movie or the book, but the OP seems like a "oh I really dislike libertarianism and this movie flopped so I'm going to make a humorous thread about it". Based off a few things in the OP, it doesn't seem like you watched the movie or have intentions to do so. You should really talk a bit more about the movie and why it sucks, rather than putting the focus on the political message. I'm expecting some witty reply, but my point is that it is a terrible OP. Not nearly as bad as the House OP though.[/QUOTE]
It sucks because it's [b]Atlas Shrugged.[/b]
[b][highlight]Atlas Shrugged.[/b][/highlight]
There's your in-depth review.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29284701]It sucks because it's [b]Atlas Shrugged.[/b]
[b][highlight]Atlas Shrugged.[/b][/highlight]
There's your in-depth review.[/QUOTE]
Harlan Ellison doesn't like it, so I consider that [B]objective[/B](hrahhhhhhhhhhhhhh) proof that it's bad.
[QUOTE=TH89;29283518]Objectivists like it for the same reason Scientologists like Battlefield Earth.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well I like it because it's a valid, provable philosphy. Read Fountainhead, Romantic Overture, and Philosophy: Who needs it. I think I just might go see this.
[QUOTE=The Riddler;29284810]Yeah, well I like it because it's a valid, provable philosphy. Read Fountainhead, Romantic Overture, and Philosophy: Who needs it. I think I just might go see this.[/QUOTE]
Yes, genius among men. It is a provable philosphy.
Now as soon as I know what a philosphy is I'll get back to you.
[QUOTE=The Riddler;29284810][QUOTE=TH89;29283518]Objectivists like it for the same reason Scientologists like Battlefield Earth.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well I like it because it's a valid, provable philosphy. Read Fountainhead, Romantic Overture, and Philosophy: Who needs it. I think I just might go see this.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the demonstration.
It is not a book to be read lightly you know.
It should be thrown aside with great force.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;29285064]It is not a book to be read lightly you know.
It should be thrown aside with great force.[/QUOTE]
Things really heat up around page 80 because that's where I held the lighter
Considering I couldn't stand that extremely long and drawn-out book about a philosophy I don't care about, I imagine the movie is just as bad.
Philosophy and Movies just don't work. I guess its just another example of the Hollywood Cash Cow.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;29285256]Philosophy and Movies just don't work. I guess its just another example of the Hollywood Cash Cow.[/QUOTE]
What is the Hollywood Cash Cow? How is this an example of it?
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;29285256]Philosophy and Movies just don't work. I guess its just another example of the Hollywood Cash Cow.[/QUOTE]
wow, you're wrong two times over. Nice combo.
Okay fine, I was mistaken. But either way, philosophy films don't work in my opinion.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;29285494]Okay fine, I was mistaken. But either way, philosophy films don't work in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
ever seen an ingmar bergman film
or a tarkovsky film
or a fritz lang film
If they wanted to make this movie and didn't have a lot of money they should have done it like Clerks:
Dagny and Hank hanging around her railroad offices all day, talking all kinds of objectivist crap. Hank saying witty lines like "Dagny, I'd like to give you my steel rod if you know what I mean". Occasionally characters would come through the office stirring shit up(like Silent Bob and Jay did in Clerks).
Every now and then the catchphrase "who is John Galt" would be said by someone, like "I'm not even supposed to be here today" was in Clerks.
i read the whole thing because i would get me extra points in my philosophy class
the teacher was like "i wasn't serious" and then she burst out into laughter
but the positive side is, i know what the fuck the actual story is
They were playing clips on Stossel, it was pretty funny.
Then again Stossel goes to Native Reservations and blames their hardships on their dependence on aid from the government.
[editline]18th April 2011[/editline]
Also the huge difference between user and critic ratings obviously means that the professional reviewers are just tools of the liberal Hollywood machine man
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29285589]ever seen an ingmar bergman film
or a tarkovsky film
or a fritz lang film[/QUOTE]
I considered those art films. I haven't seen them, but I know of them, (mainly Andrei Tarkovsky) such as Solaris.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;29286446]I considered those art films. I haven't seen them, but I know of them, (mainly Andrei Tarkovsky) such as Solaris.[/QUOTE]
what the hell does that even mean
films are art
art film is a redundant term
Normally, I would say this a biased interpretation, but seeing that 99% of the PROFESSIONALS who have been doing movies their whole lives calling this garbage, this interpretation is spot-on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
