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.
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.