Atlas Shrugged

The votes are roaring in: Rotten Tomatoes has given Atlas Shrugged, Part I an almost unprecedented zero approval.

What do you expect when the director gets the job less than ten days before filming, the producer is better known for being in a teen soap drama on the CW, and the "stars" are people you wouldn't know if you fell over them in the street?

The only "name" in the cast is Armin Shimmerman, and I bet he did it more for the paycheck than because of the material (he's extremely pro-labor and pro-union).

Rogert Ebert's review was more "I'm too bored out of my skull to eviscerate this dreck" than anything else, but still summed it up nicely:

Quote :

The movie is constructed of a few kinds of scenes: (1) People sipping their drinks in clubby surroundings and exchanging dialogue that sounds like corporate lingo; (2) railroads, and lots of ’em; (3) limousines driving through cities in ruin and arriving at ornate buildings; (4) city skylines; (5) the beauties of Colorado.

Yes. Railroads. Would it have killed the screenwriters to either update the tech or made it a period piece instead?

As of right now, it has a whopping 5% critic approval rating (with one positive review, though), and an 85% audience approval rating. I am loling mightily.

Poor Ayn Rand. I legitamately liked We the Living. Then again what should one expect if Conservatives praise a movie?

Of course it has nothing to do with the fact the source material is a stilted polemic that a great director would have trouble making work, it's all because "Conservatives" praised it.

Ideological considerations aside, the overwhelmingly negative reviews of Atlas make me think I probably made the right choice when I decided not to see that movie. I've never been much into Rand's stuff anyway.

tim gueguen wrote:

Of course it has nothing to do with the fact the source material is a stilted polemic that a great director would have trouble making work, it's all because "Conservatives" praised it.

Just asking, but how can you read "what should one expect if Conservatives praise a movie?" and think they're saying "it's shit because Conservatives praise it"? It's not like CaptainMcNeil ever said it wasn't a stilted polemic a great director would still have trouble making work.

If you must try and counter his/her point, you could say that plenty of "Conservatives" have praised and praise movies society as a whole considers to be masterpieces, so their praise in and of itself is not a true indicator of quality. What you actually said is a non-point. (Why, hello there, Mr. Straw man!)

Adagio wrote:

tim gueguen wrote:

Of course it has nothing to do with the fact the source material is a stilted polemic that a great director would have trouble making work, it's all because "Conservatives" praised it.

Just asking, but how can you read "what should one expect if Conservatives praise a movie?" and think they're saying "it's shit because Conservatives praise it"? It's not like CaptainMcNeil ever said it wasn't a stilted polemic a great director would still have trouble making work.

If you must try and counter his/her point, you could say that plenty of "Conservatives" have praised and praise movies society as a whole considers to be masterpieces, so their praise in and of itself is not a true indicator of quality. What you actually said is a non-point. (Why, hello there, Mr. Straw man!)

You seem to have gotten it backwards. Claiming the poor response is simply because "Conservatives" praised the movie is a straw man argument. Why mention them in the first place other than to imply the negative response are because movie critics are all a bunch of left wingers who will reflexively trash a movie if their ideological opposites like it?

I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book.

It makes an excellent soporific.

Lady Anne wrote:

I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book.

It makes an excellent soporific.

It also levels coffee tables or couches quite nicely.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book.

It makes an excellent soporific.

It also levels coffee tables or couches quite nicely.

I listened to the book on tape while playing Diablo II and senselessly grinding mobs. :| I tend to like a bit of white noise while doing repetitive things.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I haven't seen the movie, but I've read the book.

It makes an excellent soporific.

It also levels coffee tables or couches quite nicely.

And in situations of extreme danger it can be used as a self-defense weapon.

tim gueguen wrote:

You seem to have gotten it backwards. Claiming the poor response is simply because "Conservatives" praised the movie is a straw man argument.

What the hell are you even trying to say here.

I was telling you that your interpretation of McNeil's post was erroneous. And also dumb. And... that hasn't changed!

Look, let's see if I can phrase this more simply for you: your condescending little comment about how "oh sure, it's all because the Conservatives praised it" implied that McNeil actually was saying it was a terrible movie because conservatives praised it. That's how language, you know, works. So then I said that that was stupid because McNeil never said anything of the sort.

And I think you may be confused on what exactly a straw man argument actually is. (Hint: it's not just a claim.) For example, if McNeil implied that the fact that conservatives liked a movie was a surefire indicator it wasn't good, and then I tried to make it look like he/she was saying it was bad because conservatives liked it—oh, wait.

Consider yourself lucky it wasn't 'The Fountainhead.' We not only had to read the book in my senior English class, we had to watch the movie that was made in 1949. I just barely managed to squeak by with a C- on it, and this is someone who had to read 'Moby Dick' and 'Silas Marner' while still in junior high.

Quote :

Armin Shimerman

I would make some snide comment about how suitable Quark is as a casting choice for this movie, if my sole exposure to Ayn Rand didn't consist of getting about 100 pages into The Fountainhead and being too annoyed by the false dichotomy between "sellout who is capable of normal human social interactions" and "true artiste who MUST piss everyone else off at all times in every conceivable way, including those that have nothing to do with art, or else his statement is invalid" to continue.

Rabid Badger wrote:

'Silas Marner'

I like that book.

will the soundtrack be Rush

I have an aunt who adores Ayn Rand. She was incensed that people disliked this movie and said they were all just a bunch of liberals who hated Rand for telling the truth. I asked her what she'd liked best about the movie, and she said she hadn't seen it.



Before you complain that people are just being mean for not liking something, maybe you should check it out yourself. And when it comes to movies based on books, it is entirely possible to love a book and then see the movie based on it and go WTF?!

Nihilist wrote:

anangrychocobo wrote:

will the soundtrack be Rush

needs Tom Sawyer

+ The Trees
Freewill
Anthem
2112
Something for Nothing

Can't forget 'Closer To The Heart'.

Quote :

Philosophers and Ploughmen
Each must know his part
To sow a new mentality
Closer to the Heart

e; the original background music in the trailer was planned to be the opening bass riff of Cygnus X-1 but with cash registers IIRC

Well, it added more screens...and lost a boatload of viewers. Box Office Mojo has it not even clearing $1 million over the weekend (by comparison, #1 movie Rio banked $26.3 million). At this rate, it'll be in Redbox kiosks by Memorial Day.

And of course, the Tea Party is blaming liberal film critics for sabotaging such a wonderful movie.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Well, it added more screens...and lost a boatload of viewers. Box Office Mojo has it not even clearing $1 million over the weekend (by comparison, #1 movie Rio banked $26.3 million). At this rate, it'll be in Redbox kiosks by Memorial Day.

And of course, the Tea Party is blaming liberal film critics for sabotaging such a wonderful movie.

Are the Tea Party members aware they're precisely the sort of low-class, 'unworthy' people that Ms. Rand would have looked down her Patrician nose at?

Oh, and Lapin, I liked 'Silas Marner' as well, which surprised me. No amount of money, however, could ever make me like 'Moby Dick.' At least not the novel. The movie wasn't half-bad, but that's because it cut out the extempraneous 200+ pages about the history of whale oil lamps and how you went about rendering whale oil, and cut straight to the chase.

Nihilist wrote:

I heard about Atlas Shrugged. When asked about what I thought of it, I did indeed shrug.

Well, I did watch the South Park episode where they make fun of it, so there you have it. It was probably way more entertaining than the book itself....according to Trey and Matt, anyway.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Well, it added more screens...and lost a boatload of viewers. Box Office Mojo has it not even clearing $1 million over the weekend (by comparison, #1 movie Rio banked $26.3 million). At this rate, it'll be in Redbox kiosks by Memorial Day.

And of course, the Tea Party is blaming liberal film critics for sabotaging such a wonderful movie.

Are the Tea Party members aware they're precisely the sort of low-class, 'unworthy' people that Ms. Rand would have looked down her Patrician nose at?

But that's the sort of people that buy Ayn Rand's shtick the most: under-achieving assholes who are convinced that they aren't bazillionaires because The Government is bringing them down with all those taxes.