Watch Atlas Shrugged: Part I For Free

Very disappointing...

hyped garbage

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

After almost 50 years, this great 20th century novel has at last been turned into a film - in three parts of altogether 4½ hours. The film is naturally not as impressive and complex as the book, but it's still an eye-opener, and its messages get through. Having completed the enterprise of seeing all three films, and having read the book as well, I will try to give the whole thing as objective an evaluation as possible. First of all, it was a great joy to see this great novel filmed at last, especially after almost 50 years and since it's a very difficult and complex story to squeeze into a film at all. The effort on the whole is successful, and I think Ayn Rand (really Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum from Petersburg, Russia,) would have been pleased with it, even in spite of the bathos in the end - but for that I would have given it a 9. The actors are all splendid, the story is made comprehensible, the arguments get through, and the filming leaves nothing to complain of, with a special applause for the train and flight sequences - the accidents (together with the great trial and TV speeches) provide the highlights of the films, and there are quite a number of them in the novel, one more sensational than the other. Also the music is perfectly suited for the story, which is kept in style all the way, with a sigh of relief for at last a great film without any brutality - until the last degrading torture scenes, which fall out. The only irritating detail was for me that the actors are not the same all the way but are switched for every new part. It's not very pleasing to find different persons under the same names for every new part However, no one falls short, and all the three girls playing Dagny, the heroine and center of the story, do her well enough justice. The novel is worth reading and re-reading, while the films don't call for the same desired repetition, at least not for a year or two, but they give a very good introduction and overview of one of the greatest novels of the 20th century - all utopia and speculation, but philosophically very pertinent and relevant, and more so than ever today. It was written (published) in 1957 long before the great hippie movements of the 60s and thus, like everything Ayn Rand wrote, far ahead of its time. It's an additional asset that the films have succeeded in updating the story to the 21st century.

Current times seem to be approaching the state outlined in the novel Atlas Shrugged, and I've been wondering when someone would tackle this as a cinematic project.The movie is credible, but not awesome. I think there are several reasons: 1) Rand's novel is very complex and full of detail and "inner dialog" that is tough to convey in a concise film. Given the tabloid attention span we've developed, that means it is hard to build back- story without losing viewers' attention. 2) The message of individual excellence is not aligned with the current mainstream view that "we're all in this for the greater good." That means it won't be mass media popular, which limits the potential for traditional funding. 3) The adaptation seems to assume that viewers will have read the novel, which probably isn't the case for much of the public. I loved the novel, so my brain filled in the blanks on the missing context - that won't happen for the average movie goer.I'm not sure if any of these are contributing factors, but the acting felt wooden in many scenes and there were a lot of dialog segments missing that would have contributed to the underlying "feel" of the novel - namely that crushing the motivation of individual success is bad for progress and posterity.I will still watch the whole series, and hope that one day there will be another made by one of John Galt's artisans.

The film is really praise-worthy, as, despite its low budget, it manages to capture the spirit of the book. In addition, the leading actors really personify well Rand's characters from the book. The plot (as opposed to the second film) does not miss much from the book, although I'd add another 20-30 minutes to include some more extended dialogues/monologues from the book (especially from Rearden's anniversary party). The film gives a spoiler by showing that it's John Galt who is taking away the people who are missing, although I can understand it from scope of the economy of the film series. Overall, as someone who enjoyed the book and was preparing for a B-movie, I was really positively surprised from the film, connected with the heroes and attached their faces to the book's character (I watched Part 1 without having finished the book). This is why I was so much disappointed from Part 2 and the change in the cast. In any case, the book is so exciting, that no film adaptation can be good enough...however, Part 1 makes a decent effort.

Though not an objectivist, I have an interest in the philosophy or belief system. Since seeing the 1940s movie "The Fountainhead" some years ago I have been waiting for the movie adaptation of "Atlas Shrugged". Well, my wait was rewarded with the issuance of Part I, but I noticed that this movie did not receive much publicity. Well, Hollywood is full of dreamers and socialists who cannot or will not face reality so I figured that was the reason. It wasn't. This movie goes to such lengths to show the Objectivist philosophy that it, ironically, actually breaks completely with reality. This should never have been filmed.The movie starts by showing the conditions of the American economy of 2016 and the problems faced in this economy. It is a somewhat unrealistic in how grim the economy of 2016 is portrayed but that does not go beyond the bounds of belief. The situation develops into a crisis where a railroad firm that needs to replace some very old track in Colorado. The movie implies that this old track is a century old. I doubt that any rails that old are left in place in real life but that is not the primary problem with this movie. What is the primary problem is that we have a railroad executive and deciding to use a new metal that is advertised as lighter and stronger than the metal used up to that time for rails. This metal is untested and unproved yet the executive goes with her (yes, the executive is a woman and strong willed women are found in Ayn Ryn's works; as can be expected due to the author) hunch. If she is right there is a tremendous improvement in the rail business; if she is wrong the railroad will go out of business. The manufacturer of this metal has a full factory dedicated to its production.This whole situation is insane!! We are asked to suspend disbelief and assume that somebody is using an untried metal in an endeavor with public safety concerns?! That would not even be allowed due to issues of it affecting the good of the people. By even using the objectivist criteria this concept is still insane. A company would go out of business if this metal fails, so would it not be in the self-interest of the owner of the railroad to have it tested before he/she commits to it? Of course it would! Metal or metallurgical testing is a very developed science. To use an untested metal (this is the first commercial use of the metal no less) on a major project that involves public safety is not the decision of a self-interested person with vision but rather that of a deluded individual who probably has visions due to hallucinations! I know of the qualification requirements for use of new materials and everybody (objectivist or socialist) agrees the process should be very thorough. This movie is so far off that there is no way it could be viewed as realistic. There is a limit to suspension of disbelief and this movie goes beyond that limit. Objectivism or socialism or any other philosophy is not proved or disproven by this movie as it is just too unrealistic. Sad.