I first read Atlas in 1961, subscribed to the Objectivist Newsletter and have Branden's lecture series on interminable LPs. Like many fans I slowly turned into a libertarian. Yet I still read Atlas and Fountainhead once every few years. So I'm a fan, not an acolyte. I saw Atlas 1 the day of its premier, sold out for the first showing, crowded the second. I gave it a 7. Saw Atlas 2 to a moderately filled house and gave it a 10. Saw Atlas 3 last night with my wife, the only 2 in the theater. I give it a 6.
I regularly write reviews for IMDb. In doing so I try to separate my personal views from the quality of the film. Basically, does it hold my interest. Do I enjoy it. Does the director and cast succeed in putting the ideas across. Well, I have to say Atlas 3 didn't succeed very well. I'm sure the lack of a budget had a lot to do with it.
I thought the casting was poor. Francisco particularly was anything but the suave, cultured aristocrat of the book and first 2 films. Galt was almost as bad, looking like a street lout rather than a cultured scientist. Dagny has no presence as a strong executive. The minor characters, however, were quite good.
The voice-over was not only unnecessary but stupid. No one is going to see this film who hasn't seen the first 2. Why spend the time bringing us up to date? The interaction of the major characters is missing. How long would it take for Dagny to tell Francisco and Rearden that she had found her true love? Those revelations had a lot to do with the motivation of the characters.
The big action scenes in the book are entirely missing, victims of the minuscule budget. Francisco saving Rearden Steel from the looters and particularly, the saving of Galt. The latter action in the book was a stirring climax with each major character taking part individually, if only for a few moments. And the torture device was attached to Galt with alligator clips! Reminded me of the spaghetti strainer on Tor Johnson's head in Bride of the Monster. There was simply no tension in this scene. Without the action the film was simply a talk fest. Such a film can be absorbing and interesting if well written. But Atlas 3 substituted a sledge hammer for subtlety. Now Rand was never one to pull punches but her dialog was the result of action not the action itself.
So the question is, after all these complaints, was I bored? No. That's why I give the film a 6. But I suspect that if I didn't know the book and walked in cold my rating would be much lower.
From a personal standpoint I believe the producers did a disservice to the film and the philosophy by giving Glen Beck a cameo. Beck's calling himself a libertarian is like Hitler calling himself a humanitarian. But as a film and rail fan I appreciated the Bronson Canyon mine location and the destruction of the Forth Railway bridge.
Let's hope, like Dune, the film is the impetus for a better quality miniseries
I regularly write reviews for IMDb. In doing so I try to separate my personal views from the quality of the film. Basically, does it hold my interest. Do I enjoy it. Does the director and cast succeed in putting the ideas across. Well, I have to say Atlas 3 didn't succeed very well. I'm sure the lack of a budget had a lot to do with it.
I thought the casting was poor. Francisco particularly was anything but the suave, cultured aristocrat of the book and first 2 films. Galt was almost as bad, looking like a street lout rather than a cultured scientist. Dagny has no presence as a strong executive. The minor characters, however, were quite good.
The voice-over was not only unnecessary but stupid. No one is going to see this film who hasn't seen the first 2. Why spend the time bringing us up to date? The interaction of the major characters is missing. How long would it take for Dagny to tell Francisco and Rearden that she had found her true love? Those revelations had a lot to do with the motivation of the characters.
The big action scenes in the book are entirely missing, victims of the minuscule budget. Francisco saving Rearden Steel from the looters and particularly, the saving of Galt. The latter action in the book was a stirring climax with each major character taking part individually, if only for a few moments. And the torture device was attached to Galt with alligator clips! Reminded me of the spaghetti strainer on Tor Johnson's head in Bride of the Monster. There was simply no tension in this scene. Without the action the film was simply a talk fest. Such a film can be absorbing and interesting if well written. But Atlas 3 substituted a sledge hammer for subtlety. Now Rand was never one to pull punches but her dialog was the result of action not the action itself.
So the question is, after all these complaints, was I bored? No. That's why I give the film a 6. But I suspect that if I didn't know the book and walked in cold my rating would be much lower.
From a personal standpoint I believe the producers did a disservice to the film and the philosophy by giving Glen Beck a cameo. Beck's calling himself a libertarian is like Hitler calling himself a humanitarian. But as a film and rail fan I appreciated the Bronson Canyon mine location and the destruction of the Forth Railway bridge.
Let's hope, like Dune, the film is the impetus for a better quality miniseries