Atlas Shrugged: The Movie

Scenes from the 38-year struggle to film Ayn Rand's famous novel

Hank Rearden, metal magnate, faces a bureaucrat from the State Science Institute across his desk of burnished steel. The bureaucrat tells Rearden that he would be wise to sell his amazing new amalgam, Rearden metal, to the government. Rearden refuses. The bureaucrat presses him: Why can't he see the benefit of selling to a government that can and will condemn the metal as unsafe if he refuses? Rearden replies with cool contempt: "Because it's mine."

Mine: rhymes with Ayn. So goes an old joke about the adopted name of Ayn Rand, the Russian-born novelist who invented Hank Rearden and his fictional metal.

I am in the anteroom of Rearden's office, watching one of the last shooting days of the film version of Atlas Shrugged, a project Rand's fans have both wanted and feared for decades. Who gets to call this movie "mine"?

In one sense, the picture belongs to Rand. It would not exist without her novel and its millions of readers who the filmmakers hope will form their core audience. But the 38-year history of attempts to film Atlas Shrugged shows that the project never could have happened while Ayn Rand lived. Her need for control did not mesh well with the collaborative, compromise-riddled art of filmmaking.

The film's direct father is, like many of Rand's heroes, a highly successful businessman: John Aglialoro, a private equity whiz and CEO of the Cybex exercise equipment company. Aglialoro was named by Fortune magazine in 2007 as the 10th richest small business executive in the country. He has never made a movie before. He is not in the movie business to make movies per se, or to make money, though he hopes to. Aglialoro is in the movie business to make Atlas Shrugged, a book whose message—that individuals do not owe their lives to the collective—"zapped him," he says, when he first read it in the late 1970s.

In 1992 Aglialoro gave Leonard Peikoff—Rand's heir and a disciple of her Objectivist philosophy—more than $1 million for the rights to make a movie of Rand's enormous novel, in which the world's most brilliant and accomplished men and women go on strike against a system choking itself to death on statism and altruism. Very much not in the spirit of Rand, Peikoff relinquished control over any movie Aglialoro chose to make. Nearly two decades later, in a tense race against time that Aglialoro's production partner Harmon Kaslow compares to their protagonists' desperate attempts to finish their railroad on schedule—"and we didn't even have Rearden metal to help"—Atlas was filmed in 27 days during the summer of 2010. (More precisely, the filmmakers completed photography on Atlas Shrugged Part I. The novel is divided into three parts, and this picture ends where Part 1 of the book ends.)

It's eerie watching actor Grant Bowler bring Rearden to life as I sit, out of camera range, in the anteroom of "his" office in a sleek industrial space in Santa Monica, California. I've been a fan of Rand's work since my late teens. I wrote a book (Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement) that is partly a biography of Rand. Her characters and ideas occupy a special place in my mind, and in the minds of millions of other Rand lovers—and haters. The Atlas Shrugged movie will likely stand or fall in Rand's beloved marketplace on the question of whether people who found Atlas a life-changing experience can embrace the movie as emotionally theirs.

The Many Failures of Filming Atlas Shrugged

Atlas Shrugged was a battlefield on which many of Hollywood's mightiest forces fought and died. The first man to win Rand's trust enough for her to sell him the movie rights was Godfather producer Albert Ruddy. Ruddy and Rand appeared together at a press conference at New York's chic 21 restaurant in 1972 to announce the deal. Ruddy had agreed to the condition of flying Rand out to Hollywood for any necessary meetings in a private jet, lest the Soviets hijack any commercial airliner she was on.

Rand was under the impression that Ruddy agreed to give her complete control and approval of the final cut. Ruddy had to disabuse her of that notion, and thus he did not make a movie of Atlas Shrugged.

Rand then went into business with screenwriter Stirling Silliphant (whose work on In the Heat of the Night she had adored) and producer Michael Jaffe for what became a planned TV miniseries on NBC. When Fred Silverman took over NBC in the late 1970s, he added to the cultural crime of Pink Lady and Jeff the murder of an Atlas Shrugged miniseries that Rand herself had worked on and approved. 

When Rand died in 1982, she was still working on a script for an Atlas miniseries she had considered financing herself. Before Aglialoro bought the rights from Peikoff in 1992, Philadelphia Flyers owner and Objectivist businessman Ed Snider also tried and failed to film the book. 

I first talk to Aglialoro on the campus of the University of Southern California, about 20 yards from where his cast and crew are filming the opening run of the John Galt Line. That's the railroad built using Rearden metal while the rest of the innovation-fearing world is busy trying to crush enterprise. There is no railroad to be seen, just a green screen in front of which Rearden and the passionate, brilliant railroad boss Dagny Taggart, played by Taylor Schilling, conduct a press conference. Like much of the visual flash of the film, the train will be added later through computer imaging.

Aglialoro lacks the arrogant bearing, flashy romanticism, or steel-hard gaze of his hero's heroes. But when he tells me his kids made a custom Monopoly game for him and his wife in which all the properties were real-life properties the couple had bought and sold, a similarity in spirit begins to emerge.

Aglialoro brags about the production values in scenes like the Reardens' anniversary party, shot at L.A.'s famous Biltmore Hotel ballroom. He is eager to let me know that serious money and effort are being expended on the film, in the wake of rumors that Atlas is going to be a low-budget joke. While Aglialoro had started off talking about a $5 million project, in the end Aglialoro told the Randian website Atlasphere that production costs were more like $10 million just to make the movie, before marketing expenses.

Still, everything about Atlas Shrugged Part I had to happen fast. For years Aglialoro was allied with Lion's Gate Pictures, whose vice chairman, Michael Burns, was so into Rand that he attended her funeral as a kid, Aglialoro says. In 2007 the two were tantalizingly close to a deal for a feature film written by Randall Wallace (Braveheart), directed by Vadim Perelman (House of Sand and Fog), and starring as Dagny Taggart none other than Angelina Jolie.

That, like most Hollywood projects, never happened. Lion's Gate then reconceived Atlas as a miniseries for its fledgling Epix cable channel, with Charlize Theron discussed for the Dagny role. That fizzled too, and in mid-February of last year, Aglialoro's deal with Lion's Gate came to a close. At that point the phantom film was just Aglialoro, an option, and a ticking clock. His right to make a movie of Atlas Shrugged (plus one remake) would expire if he was not in production by June 15, 2010. 

At this point Aglialoro was ready to give up. He had never wanted to be the guy actually making this movie; he was more interested in hooking up with a professional studio and letting the professionals do what they were qualified to do. That, Peikoff had told Aglialoro, was something Rand had always told him.

But Aglialoro's wife told him that he'd regret it all his life if he didn't do everything possible to make this movie, and he decided she was right. Indie producers Howard and Karen Baldwin, who had originally brought the project to Lion's Gate, introduced Aglialoro to producer Harmon Kaslow, who had worked on more than a dozen films, mostly on the legal and financial end. Kaslow didn't know much about Rand, but he did know something about how a movie gets made.

They now had just weeks to get a film into production. Kaslow and Aglialoro hired director Stephen Polk but then fired him less than two weeks before shooting had to begin for reasons neither side will publicly discuss. Polk, in an email interview, refers merely to "complications," adding that he was impressed with Aglialoro's willingness to spend whatever it took to make the movie's production values fit the subject. "It's always been John's movie," Polk said, adding "I hope it is all he hopes it will be and inspires people to read more Rand."

Prominent casting agencies refused to deal with the project, partly because many assumed Aglialoro was deliberately shooting any old thing to retain the rights, as opposed to making a movie he intended to release. While Kaslow had suggested they essentially shoot a 90-minute demo that would help bigger studios wrap their heads around and hopefully agree to fund a more lavish version of Rand's famously huge and daunting property, Aglialoro stood firm on making the movie he'd been planning for decades.

Kaslow brought in Brian O'Toole, a screenwriter whose official credits are mostly horror films but who had a reputation as a wiz at fixing up book adaptations. Kaslow describes the script they started with—he declines to name the writer—as "more a reimagination of the book than a direct adaptation." But "then John said, ‘Let's just go by the book, a direct adaptation, use her words when we can use her words.' We really don't have time to test the logic if we decide to go outside the boundaries of the story."

Racing frantically against the clock, the team was still scouting for locations with only three days left before shooting ended. Some locations were found only the day before they were used; some actors were cast just two days before they went on camera.

Director vs. Producer

Another contender for the "mine" in Atlas Shrugged Part I is its last-minute director, Paul Johansson. Kaslow brought Johansson on via mutual friends just 10 days before shooting. His most prominent experience before that was acting in and directing episodes of the TV teen drama One Tree Hill and writing and directing a Daytime Emmy–winning movie, The Incredible Mrs. Ritchie.

Johansson is brash and charming, very much a dude's dude, alternately serious and funny. Soon after I first speak to him at length, on a shooting day at a ranch in Piru, California, where Rearden and Dagny are tracking down clues to the inventor of a mysterious motor, he makes sure I understand both that he sees his bookshelf as defining his life and that he once cold-approached Cindy Crawford for a date and got it. He tells me he gained extra respect for Grant Bowler, his Rearden—"a Daniel Craig type, not a George Clooney"—when he learned Bowler had been in a scrap or two in his native Australia.

Johansson immediately starts grilling me about libertarianism during our first conversation, testing the limits of Rand's, and my, antipathy toward government. Schools? Police? Johansson doesn't instantly embrace the radical answers I offer, but he doesn't argue against them much either. He talks about his disdain for most modern journalism and the compromises it makes—"a word Ayn Rand despised, compromise."

Johansson keeps a hardback of Atlas on his monitor board as he films. We bond as Rand fans when he comes back from giving some direction to Bowler during the scene where the bureaucrat is trying to buy his metal. "Did you tell him to not say ‘please' to the guy when instructing him to have a seat?" I ask him. "Yes!" Johansson says with a you-got-it gesture. Johansson claims he is reworking O'Toole and Aglialoro's script daily. O'Toole alludes to problems with the headstrong director but gives no specifics.

The movie is "not about a woman and a railroad and a man and metal," Johansson insists. "It's about human achievement and the nobility of the human spirit." While he is aware of the rabid Rand fan community waiting to dissect his work, "I can't make a movie for this imagined group out there, whether Rand lovers or haters. That would be like art by committee."

It's an attitude reminiscent of Rand's Fountainhead hero Howard Roark, her clearest representation of the ideal of a romantic creative artist. Roark, like Rand, insists on having ultimate control over his creative work.

Johansson has some Roark in him. Filming Rearden's office scenes, he confronts Kaslow about plans to recut the movie after Johansson is done. Johansson is shooting a scene at Rearden's desk. A statue of Atlas holding up the world is centered between Rearden and his computer monitor. Kaslow doesn't like how it looks. "Why are you bothering to tell me this now?" Johansson snaps at Kaslow, in front of Kaslow's young son. "Aren't you just going to take the film from me and do whatever you want to it afterward anyway?" The director makes things so uncomfortable for Kaslow and his son that they leave the set.

After they leave, Johansson talks, frustrated, about philosophically minded businessmen who have never made a movie trying to impress their friends at think tanks and presuming they can do better than the man they hired for the job. When I sit in on a session months after the shooting is done, where actors were re-recording some of their lines over finished video, Johansson is not around. A man involved in post-production work alludes to irreconcilable differences between Aglialoro and his director. Johansson tells me, in the spirit of Roark, that "if I was to go out and cheer for something and take credit for something I didn't complete—I have a son coming. I want him to know his father is someone who doesn't do that. I can't take that credit" for the finished film. "That film is John Aglialoro's film."

‘All the Objectivists Are Going to Fucking Hate Me'

Aglialoro and company have a big advantage: the vivid hold that the novel has on the imaginations of millions of readers. That is also a big disadvantage. The filmmakers can't compete with a passionate fan's dream vision of what his favorite book should look and feel like on screen, Kaslow says—or with fans who decide to take on the dead Rand's mantle of control and disapproval.

In the novel, Dagny is a brunette. Would Rand tolerate a blonde woman in the role, as many griping on the Internet cannot? Well, she did once imagine Farrah Fawcett-Majors in the role. Could she tolerate a black Eddie Willers (Dagny's assistant), as again many fans apparently cannot? She never thought of skin color as essential, condemning racism as "the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism."

Screenwriter O'Toole has been grappling with possessive Rand lovers daily on the movie's Facebook page. He will give out his phone number and personally win over people who are down on the movie before they've seen anything other than stills.

It would be unreasonable to expect Atlas Shrugged's actors to be Rand mavens. Bowler and Schilling are not much interested in discussing whether they are prepared to face Rand's philosophical enemies in the press as the embodiments of her heroes. Bowler tells me that dealing with the ideas of someone "so much loved, and so much challenged—that's an argument worth having." But he follows it up with the very un-Randian observation that "when you make ideas a certainty, you have the danger where you wind up wearing jackboots."

Even the two people doing most of the front-end promotion, Kaslow and O'Toole, walk the line between wanting Rand fans to be enthusiastically on board and downplaying the weight of the movie's message. "If you are asking, ‘Am I going to have to defend the philosophy?' " Kaslow says, "from my perspective in Part 1 there isn't very much that's really radical." Both men seem more comfortable selling Atlas as a corking tale of feminist empowerment—Dagny is one of the strongest, most complicated female leads in modern literature—than as a story of how the morality of the welfare and regulatory state is damning us all to hell.

Rand is a curious cultural and intellectual phenomenon, loved by millions but in essence telling the world that its dominant values are hideous moral evils, and that if you compromise with them (that is, if you try to live anything like a "normal" life), you are hideously evil yourself. It's not a feel-good Hollywood message, nor is it the typical Hollywood feel-bad message.

The actors are aware that Ayn Rand is a controversial figure of some sort, although Jsu Garcia—playing Francisco d'Anconia, the formerly brilliant business mind, now dissolute playboy—says he can't believe Rand was an atheist, as he finds so much spirituality in her work. Matthew Marsden, somewhat of a Hollywood right-winger with a honed contempt for politicians, does a subtle, cool job with Rand's villain, Dagny's brother James. He chuckles to himself after a line reading: "All the Objectivists are going to fucking hate me, aren't they?"

Surely, many of them will, and not just for being the villainous Taggart, but for being part of a public vision of Atlas that isn't theirs. Atlas was shot indie and on the fly, and it will be distributed the same way. The filmmakers plan to place the movie in theaters in 11 big American cities on the official release date of April 15, hoping for a huge per-screen opening weekend and to spread out from there. Kaslow points to the slow-rollout indie success of My Big Fat Greek Wedding as a model, and holds out hope that Atlas can be the "top-grossing indie film ever made."

Aglialoro has kept Rand devotees close from the beginning. He is on the board of the Atlas Society, a group that promotes Objectivist ideas, and has used the society's philosophical chief David Kelley to vet scripts for Objectivist bona fides all through the process. On the other hand, Rand's official heirs at the Ayn Rand Institute (owners of the atlasshrugged.com website) declined to comment on the movie, and if you only knew what they told you about the popular spread of Rand's ideas, you wouldn't know the film was even coming out.

The producers are working closely with various groups interested in Rand's small-government message to get early word out on the film. In mid-February, just as the film's trailer went public, Kaslow said they will be working with the Tea Party–oriented small-government organization FreedomWorks' online "Freedom Connector" program to gin up audience demand for showings of the film in specific cities across the country. Kaslow says they are initially most focused on letting Rand fanatics know that the film is really done and really coming out, "because the whole idea of a film has been in people's mind for a long, long time, with lots of false starts, expectations, and hopes. We want to create noise among that population and from that noise we think that then opens the door at least on a curiosity level to a broader population."

The Finished Film

No message movie has ever shifted the culture. Despite the sense of desperate ideological importance that suffuses Rand's novel, no one involved in the film project is arguing that the movie is going to jump-start a renaissance of reason. O'Toole stresses his hope that the movie gets people to seek out the book.

The finished film succeeds as a professional quality filmed recreation of scenes and themes from that book. Rand fans should love it for that. If you aren't already privy to the material, it (understandably) lacks the emotional and intellectual force of the novel—as well as the resolution of the plot and theme. But if this film succeeds, Aglialoro intends to finish up with two more films over the next two years. 

Rand came to the United States because of her love of Hollywood and the dreams of a rich, romantic, vivid life that American movies inspired during her constrained, deprived youth in Soviet Russia. It was one of her dreams to make an Atlas movie, and Aglialoro imagines himself able to visit Rand's grave with head held high, telling her, "We did it."

"I think it will work as a piece of entertainment first," Aglialoro says. But attentive viewers may "pick up the message that you are not born to serve society, that government should just protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and that we are entitled to the fruits of our labor." 

Senior Editor Brian Doherty (bdoherty@reason.com) is author of Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (Public Affairs).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • johnl||

    Anyone going to watch in Santa Ana? You can get there by train.

  • Achtung Baby||

    The production looks shitty. I wish I could've seen Brad Pitt's long ding-dong and Angelina's tits in the film.

  • ||

    Careful, buddy. If you say it looks shitty, the Randroids will swarm on you. They'll demand you explain why, as if explaining it to someone who can't see why would actually do anything.

  • Achtung Baby||

    I like Rand a lot - the fact that she's a horrible stylist just makes her work feel more special to me - but her work just doesn't work well in visual media.

  • ||

    The Randroids are too cultish to understand the distinction between the aesthetic visual quality of a work and its overall value and interest.

  • Otto||

    ...and don't even bother trying to have a conversation about how the tone of much of what she said (or had characters say) sometimes contradicted the literal meaning of the words.

    Having said that, I think there's a great deal to her work that's of value. But I can only stand to read the apostates - David Kelley, Branden. People who are capable of recognizing that yes, she was capable of being wrong sometimes.

    And if I find $10 burning a hole in my pocket, I might go see Part I.

  • ||

    I will go see it, I think. But from the preview and the quality of the direction and filming, I am going in with a huge cringe. I'd like to be wrong, though.

  • Otto||

    Watch some straight-to-video films from the 1980's; that will make the visuals look great. Microwave Massacre or Fat Guy Goes Nutzoid will make Atlas look like a cinematographic gem.

  • ||

    Well, what I thought when I saw the preview (on TV, not online) was "very early digital video". That's not good.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I've often gotten the feeling that Rand's character's don't live up to their own ideals. John and Dagny's relationship doesn't seem to quite fit in with the Speech.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    In what way?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    It didn't seem to be so much a relationship between equals. It seemed more like Dagny was surrendering to John, rather that coming together fully consensually.

    I think Hank and Dagny's relationship is a better example. It seemed a little too rough to coincide with their beliefs about rejecting pain.

  • ||

    Symbolism by Rand.

    Dagny Taggart (like Dominique Francon, and I believe Rand herself) never thought she would find a man worthy of her "surrender" in a romantic sense.

    I don't know if the conquests in her novels were a result of sexual mores of the time, or if she had a bit of a masochistic streak in her.

  • ||

    oops! forgot to change the joke tag.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    That seems a bit better than how I was interpreting it. I really found Dominique and Roark's first time disturbing, but I think Rand once said that, if rape at all, it was rape by engraved invitation. Interesting imagery there...

    I can definitely see Rand as being a bit of a masochist. Which in my book is slightly irrational, but I'm sure she would disagree.

  • ||

    As an Objectivist, I understand the distinction perfectly fine, I think it will be lukewarm in its performance, and I would really appreciate it if you would stop propagating false stereotypes about us. Also, Randroids is a term for those that hold a cult of personality for Ayn Rand.

    If you bother to look at any of the main Objectivist websites on the web you will see that such people are quickly ridiculed and dismissed. I am not sure where this constant suggestion that we are mindless Rand-bots is coming from, but it really aggravates me when every time I see something about Objectivism there is, without a doubt, an unnecessarily rude and ignorant comment like yours.

  • ||

    I used the term "Randroid" for a reason. I have been swarmed by Randroids for criticizing the cinematography of what I saw in the previews for the movie. I didn't say "Objectivist", did I?

    If you find it rude, fuck you. But I wasn't addressing Objectivists. Any disparaging comments I make are in regards to the personality cultists. Which is why I use the term "Randroids".

    Learn to read.

  • ||

    So why must the unnecssary hostility continue Episiarch. Was the "fuck you" really necessary?

    Perhaps this is news to you, but many people use Randroids interchangeably with Objectivists. There was not a good way of me knowing that you knew the difference. I was hoping for a clarifying response for my concerns but instead you act like a child once again. There is a way to make your point without being an ass.

    As far as the Randroids, I understand your distaste for them and it is quite unfortunate that either of us is required to deal with them.

    I am sorry for the confusion that led to my original reply to you, and you may have my apologies, at any rate.

  • ||

    I enjoyed the Fountainhead movie.

  • Otto||

    If you can find it (and black-and-white, subtitled films don't scare you away), the Italian version of We the Living (Addio Kira / Noi Vivi) is well worth watching.

    Ironically, it was made under Mussolini's regime - because of the books' anti-Communist critique. Rand herself pointed out that the Nazis were a bit sharper - they recognized it was a criticism of collectivism, and didn't allow the films into Nazi Germany.

  • ||

    We the Living is a great film. But then as far as I concerned, We the Living is Rand's best novel.

  • DDavis||

    For me, and other wise folks.

    But I am looking forward to the Atlas Shrugged. And all this squawk about poor production values - I've seen all the clips out, and they looked good to me.

    Rearden in particular looks good. The character steals the book, IMO, and the Rearden's actor in the movie looks the best. Lilian seemed well cast too.

    And, by the way, I'm seeing a midnight showing on Thursday. Don't think it is available at too many theatres for the midnight showing. Fan boy points for me!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Yeah Hank and Lillian seem really well cast. James Taggart and some of the bad guys look good I'm hopeful for Francisco and Wyatt too. I'm worried Dagny will suck though.

    Also.... RRAANDDRROOIIDDDDDD!!!!!

  • Otto||

    As far as style is concerned, I'd agree. She's at her best as a writer in We the Living. It's too bad that she changed some of the more Nietzschean aspects of the novel from when it was first published - everyone evolves and grows in their life.

  • ||

    As an Objectivist, I could not care less if he says it looks shitty, I think it will be lukewarm in its performance, and I would really appreciate it if you would stop propagating false stereotypes about us. Also, Randroids is a term for those that hold a cult of personality for Ayn Rand.

    If you bother to look at any of the main Objectivist websites on the web you will see that such people are quickly ridiculed and dismissed. I am not sure where this constant suggestion that we are mindless Rand-bots is coming from, but it really aggravates me when every time I see something about Objectivism there is, without a doubt, an unnecessarily rude and ignorant comment like yours.

  • ||

    As an Objectivist, I could not care less if he says it looks shitty, I think it will be lukewarm in its performance, and I would really appreciate it if you would stop propagating false stereotypes about us. Also, Randroids is a term for those that hold a cult of personality for Ayn Rand.

    If you bother to look at any of the main Objectivist websites on the web you will see that such people are quickly ridiculed and dismissed. I am not sure where this constant suggestion that we are mindless Rand-bots is coming from, but it really aggravates me when every time I see something about Objectivism there is, without a doubt, an unnecessarily rude and ignorant comment like yours.

  • Otto||

    He's unnecessarily rude to everyone. It's part of his charm.

    Also, we are talking about the True Believers - whom even you see fit to dismiss. There is a big difference between you essentially saying "I don't care if the movie's visuals aren't that good, that this movie was made is far more important to me." (my paraphrase) and "This is a work of PURE TRUTH, and therefore anyone who questions it IN ANY WAY is a horrible evil statist!" (again, I'm paraphrasing, but that's close to what was said on earlier threads.)

  • ||

    Fair enough, I hate those people as much as anyone else. In fact, probably more so because they give people a bad impression about the people that call themselves Objectivists that aren't completely off their rocker.

  • yonemoto||

    Actually it's the objectivists that aren't completely off their rocker that have always bugged me, IRL, not on internet forums. It could be because I run into them on the dance floor.

    So allow me to sum up: Objectivist social dancers are among the most obnoxious people in the world.

  • ||

    "If you say it looks shitty, the Randroids will swarm on you."

    There's a topical cream for that...

  • Marty Mandolin||

    I guess you haven't seen Pitt's nude pics.

  • Mike E||

    Looks like there will be a theatre carrying it in Minnesota. Regal Cinema in Eagan.

  • Mike E||

    Regal Eagan 16
    2055 Cliff Road, Eagan, MN 55122

  • ||

    WTF? Nothing in the Central Valley south of the Bay area? Motherfuckers could have sold in Fresno and Bakersfield. Well, Bakersfield anyway. Those Okies love their tea parties and Rand's up their alley.

    Fuck. I wanted to take my kids to see it in the theatre. Guess I'll take the train to the Bay. Meh, I can take them to an A's/Tigers game next weekend while we're there.

  • e||

    Surely you're not taking the socialist Amtrak train?

  • R||

    As opposed to the privately-run highway system, you mean?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Flying, obviously. In jetpacks!*

    *Only a secret conspiracy by the military-industrial-congressional complex and the corporatocracy keeps our wings from us. Up with the glorious freedom-crushing sociocommunofascist revolution!

  • e||

    I know, right? And yet there's something more Socialist-y about Amtrak that makes libertarians hate it more than highways.

  • yonemoto||

    could it be that highways are in A1S8?

    congress has the authority to make post roads, and I've definitely seen post trucks on superhighways.

  • Watoosh||

    Who gives a shit? The Constitution is a spook in the mind: when it constrains the government, great; when it doesn't, fuck it. A "constitutional libertarian" is just an inconsistent libertarian - the Constitution doesn't give you a carte blanche to go wild with the enumerated powers.

    (Public highways are actually a considerable form of corporate welfare, because they allow corporations to disproportionally externalize costs (damage to the roads is almost always done by big trucks) to the taxpayer).

  • ||

    Some studies put the damage from a single 40 ton truck at about the same as from 10,000 cars.

  • ||

    there's something more Socialist-y about Amtrak that makes libertarians hate it more than highways.

    Rail is orders of magnitude less polluting than a highway.
    Caring about the environment is for hippies.
    Hippies are socialists.
    Hippies are pussies.
    Real men drive cars.
    Libertarians are all men. (Real ones.)
    QED...or something.

  • ||

    Rail lets you go where they put tracks. Cars let you go where you want to go.

  • Doyer Fanatik||

    Sloop, if you want to risk your life, you can take in a Dodger game.

  • Gelidus V||

    I don't remember the book specifying that Eddie wasn't black.

    We're getting it in one theater in Vegas...in the nasty, far-away east side of town.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Eddie was specified as being blond (seriously, everyone but Dagny and Francisco were blond, it seems). They could have casted a Melanesian.

  • This Dave||

    It totally changes the entire meaning of the story if certain characters aren't blonde.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    A little diversity among the good guys would be nice. Takes care of the capitalism-is-racist business.

    I found Rand's essay "Racism" particularly enjoyable, both as a breath of fresh air from our diversity-tolerance bend, and as a philosophical rather than essential rhetorical argument against it.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Maybe I should point out that I'm not against tolerance and diversity in general, but you can't tolerate everything and diversity should be voluntary. When it becomes manditory that you have X number of minorities (and why are women considered essentially a moonority?), it's not diversity but quota filling. And diversity of ideas (for the purpose of determining which is best) is more important than diversity of skin color or something like that.

  • ||

    No. It isn't 'nice'. It's a visible capitulation to all sorts of things Rand was against--the collectivism represented by racism, for example.

    Black Eddie is there to entice blacks into seeing the film. It won't work anymore than I, Robot got the brothers all up into Asimov.

    But our society, so quickly devolving into one of Rand's 'People's Democracies', demands such things. So the movie will contain aquiescence to ideas that the dialogue may very well speak against.

  • ||

    Oh, for crying out loud! Who the fuck cares what color the actor playing Eddie is? Did it ever occur to you that maybe that actor is better than the others who auditioned for the role?

  • ||

    If Dr. Dolittle, described in Hugh Lofting's books as an aging, balding, pudgy country English physician/veterinarian could be portrayed as a slim, urban black professional by Eddie Murphy, then Eddie Willers doesn't need to be blond. But even a black actor's hair can be bleached blond. That would have provided some new subtext to the Willers character, I'm sure. :)

  • stossel||

    I plan on going to the Santa Ana venue

  • ||

    Well, it's playing at the Waterfront, so we need to organize a Steel City H&R field trip. waffles, cap-L, MrFIFY, you feelin' me? (I put my real email address in for once)

  • ||

    Let me know if you guys come up with a time. I'm so busy I don't want to suggest a time and not be able to go.

    FoE is sorta local too.

  • ||

    That 10:30 AM showing on Friday for $5 looks pretty tempting, but I'm not sure if I can squeeze it in.

  • Mike in PA||

    I'm there. I got my tickets early for Friday night. Personally, I like Rand's individualistic approach, although I do find that she seems to have a problem with families. I've only read Atlas and the Fountainhead, but in both books, family members seem to be one of the biggest drags on individuality. I guess it's by design because you can't voluntarily enter into your family, but still most of us recognize that a proper family structure can serve as support.

    Anyway, I'm really excited to go to homestead - and those who know, know that's hard to say.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "When Fred Silverman took over NBC in the late 1970s, he added to the cultural crime of Pink Lady and Jeff the murder of an Atlas Shrugged miniseries that Rand herself had worked on and approved."

    I don't understand this sentence. Is there supposed to be another comma somewhere?

  • Dylboz||

    There should have been quotes around "Pink Lady and Jeff," which was a lousy TV series which was made, while the "Atlas Shrugged" mini-series was not.

  • Dylboz||

    Oh, actually, italics is fine (quotes are inferior to italics when indicating the title of some work of art). I thought it was in a comment, not the article. It was fine to begin with, my bad.

  • Spiny Norman||

    Pink Lady and Jeff was awesome. It was the distillation of decades of variety shows into something exquisitely surreal.

  • ||

    Looks like it will be playing at the Regal Meridian in downtown Seattle, which is walking distance for me. When does it open?

  • Gelidus V||

    Tax Day

  • ||

    Actually, tax day is Monday the 18th this year.

  • Gelidus V||

    So it has...I am humbled.

  • ||

    Next Friday, I see. Well, the Regal Meridian is pretty convenient. The only thing more convenient would have been The Big Picture, especially since they serve drinks.

  • ||

    nice. i am *so* there, but *so* ready to be dissapointed based on what i've read thus far. it's not walking distance, but what the heck

  • ||

    You are SPD, you shithead. I knew it.

  • ConfederalRepublicBy2030||

    I honestly hope this movie is good. God, please be good.

  • ||

    I asked God to make the trailer be good. I guess he was busy or something, because it's really forgettable. Total movie-of-the-week vibe.

    With the right music and some over-the-top Rand quotes at the beginning, it could have been soooo cool.
    I'll still see it, though. The filmmakers deserve to break even for at least trying.

  • DAT||

    I saw it at a screening in DC. It's not good. It has about 1000 disjointed scenes. The whole thing is awkward and won't make sense to anyone who hasn't already read the book. And for those of us who have, it just leaves to feeling empty and disappointed.

    The screenplay was just adapted really poorly.

  • ||

    They should have paid Paul Thomas Anderson to make it (if they could afford it).

    'There Will Be Blood' was magnificent. And DDL as Galt?

    It would have been sick good.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But it's in color, right? The pictures make it look like it's in color.

  • DDavis||

    Don't care too much if it won't work for those who haven't read the book. Given the sales of Atlas Shrugged over the years, the readers are a big enough market. Anyone who has read a 1k page book is sure to go to the movie.

  • ||

    But the 38-year history of attempts to film Atlas Shrugged shows that the project never could have happened while Ayn Rand lived. Her need for control did not mesh well with the collaborative, compromise-riddled art of filmmaking.

    Then how did the Fountainhead get made under her supervision?

  • Tony||

    She demanded the big speech be read verbatim. The movie is criticized for being stuffy and preachy. Go figure.

    One wonders how such a controlling personality could translate onto a philosophy of individualism. As in You Must Be an Individual of Merit or I Will Exterminate You and the Other Parasites! But it's totally different from fascism.

  • ||

    Still a great movie.

    One wonders how such a controlling personality could translate onto a philosophy of individualism. As in You Must Be an Individual of Merit or I Will Exterminate You and the Other Parasites! But it's totally different from fascism.

    *yawn* Don't you have anything somewhat original or intelligent to say anymore Tony?

  • ||

    He's a sockpuppet. What's he going to say?

  • Tony||

    Kinda hard to be fresh when you guys have it all figured out already, and it's conveniently simplistic.

  • ||

    More great arguments from Tony.

    "You guys just can't be right!"

    and

    "It's too simple!"

  • Rock Action ||

    Here’s another easy craft idea, one you can do with the kids. One afternoon, tired of hearing the words “[Why won't you cede control to the mobocracy]?” come out of my five year old (sic) daughter’s mouth, I decided to help her make some sockpuppets. I found two mate-less socks and gathered some random materials; some buttons and pennies for eyes, ribbon, a pink balloon for the tongue, a coffee filter…just stuff I found. My husband used [Philo 101] to make [indignation and annoying righteousness a feature] of one of the puppets, while I turned the other sock into a french (sic) girl. I made her a little hat and used crinkle packaging shred for her hair. I cut a tongue shape from the pink balloon and glued it inside her mouth, letting my daughter help with the project. In about twenty minutes we had two new characters to bring to life, “Tony,” [a medieval literature professor who misspells the word "leech"], and “Danny,” a run of the mill, [tiddly-winked] douchebag. And the best part was it didn’t cost us a dime, [just everyone else's time and enjoyment].

    http://www.decorativepackaging.....ck-puppet/

  • ||

    Where IS the fucking like button?

  • Tone-Tone||

    You are definitely one of the cardboard-cutout moochers from a Rand novel.

  • ||

    heller @ 4.8.11 8:26PM wrote "Don't you have anything somewhat original or intelligent to say anymore Tony?"

    Please point to one original and/or intelligent thought you have contributed here.

  • .||

    As in You Must Be an Individual of Merit or I Will Exterminate You and the Other Parasites!

    Nah, we'll just cut off your blood supply, Mr. Tony-the-Tick. If you aren't an individual of merit, you have no one to blame for it but yourself.

  • ||

    I get so tired of this, honestly. All I here is these constant ad hominems and witty little quips from you types. Look, I am an Objectivist. I have no problem with you, and I am not anything like what you seem to characterize Objectivists to be. However, if you are going to criticize us, at least do it well. If we are so damn stupid then how about you write up a critique of the philosophy and see if it can stand on it's own two feet in an intelligent, thoughtful, polite debate, instead of making childish attacks, like everyone else.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    As pretty much and Objectivist, I get tired of it too. I don't go around calling people communists anymore, I try to debate with them. Name calling is counter-productive when trying to convince someone to change their mind.

  • Otto||

    Tony is a liberal, not a libertarian. Everyone here fights with him, too.

  • Tony||

    I'm sorry you are in a cult. But that's not what upsets me. It's that this cult has gained major influence over American policy.

    We have important legislators who say things like this country's social safety net shouldn't become "a hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency." As if the big problem in this country is that poor people have it too good. Paul Ryan, architect of the Republican budget and GOP poster boy, is a Randian. And what worries me is that he actually believes that it's morally righteous to to punish people for the crime of not being successful, as if money and virtue are the same thing. Rand doesn't exactly say that, but comes close. It never crosses Rand's or Ryan's mind that there might have been some experience and wisdom that went into modern liberal societies. Their vision is utopian (as you'd have to agree in the case of Rand), and therefore pointless, unchained to human reality. That reality is that the technocratic oligarchy that Rand seemed to favor that reasons itself into leaving the poor, elderly, young, and disabled to fend for themselves(though we can conveniently ignore those in this list who are just unlucky--since Rand doesn't mention them in her books) doesn't have to account to democratic will or social or economic reality. They simply don't understand why it's in their all-important self-interest to provide a safety net even to the undeserving. Social stability, mobility, and a lack of misery make for a better economy and a better society, and your moral judgment of people doesn't have to enter into it at all.

    So I call it a cult because that's what I call any belief system that purports to have it all figured out already. Rand's doesn't get bonus points because it claims to be at the end of reason, which is never proved but merely asserted.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    And state worship isn't a cult?

  • Tony||

    Are you referring to me? I don't worship anything.

  • yonemoto||

    your navel begs to differ.

  • ||

    Tony, I have a couple of questions about the whole cult thing.

    First of, and obvious, a cult is a group of people who adhere to the visions of an individual. Objectivists are free of that, as they place nothing above the verdict of their own mind. We deal with fact, not fiction or hocus pocus. So, in light of this, how is a group of independent minded people, following themselves, a cult?

    Secondly, given your post, you can't differentiate between a disabled man, and an able man living on handouts. We don't seek to take from them at all, but reduce the number of those living off the system. So, how is not giving handouts to those unwilling to produce for themselves punishing them? Also, by your rationale, how can you justify taking more from the able? Why punish (which is what it is) those that are able to produce more than their bare sustenance? Can you genuinely not tell the difference between a senior citizen and an able bodied man?

    I do agree that a lack of misery helps society though. I had to work for it, and now I'm being robbed to serve those who aren't willing to do anything but sling rock, rob people, make meth or just sit in their trailer and get a "crazy check".

  • mad the swine||

    Haters gonna hate.

    Atlas Shrugged is about the message, not the medium. If it expresses the truths of Objectivism, it'll be a great movie, no matter what the critics say.

  • John Travolta||

    I agree with this sentiment.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "If it expresses the truths of Objectivism, it'll be a great movie, no matter what the critics say."

    Me too. I don't think it will though. From the few clips I've seen, it already seems like they're trying to leave out the controversial stuff. I predict they will cover up all moral points(altruism vs. egoism), most political points and just play up the "strong woman running a railroad" stuff with just enough tea party patriotism to make people think they don't have to bother reading the book because they "basically get it". But like so many others, I hope I'm wrong. I really hope this movie makes even more people read the book.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I predict they will cover up all moral points(altruism vs. egoism)

    Based on some of Rearden's quotes in the trailer, this doesn't appear to be the case.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Maybe they're covering it up in the trailer (the stronger bits, anyway) so they can get people into the theater. Then they sock them.

    We can hope.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So is all the libertarian panning a case of high (read:unrealistic) expectations not being met, or is this thing truly a remake of Plan 9 from Outer Space?

  • Jim||

    All I know is, that 1) if it does not have a scene including Ninja Turtles and / or Shredder, I'm going to be pissed, and 2) see point 1).

    Or better yet, reimagine it as He-Man. John Galt can be Prince Adam, Dagny is Teela, Reardon can be Man-At-Arms, and the main gov't beaurocrat can be Skeletor. That movie is already running in my mind.

  • ||

    It's a long book. A good movie rendition would have been good to expose the typical, less well-read person to the idea that, liberty is paramount, be you a theist or atheist. God and/or nature created us to be free! Why do our law-makers, or more importantly, our voters, so easily lose sight of this basic fact?!

  • Otto||

    "Check out Rearden's Steel, baby!"

  • ||

    otoh blue horseshoe loves anicott steel

  • Otto||

    WTF? That should have been a reply to Mister DNA, below...

  • ||

    I think I'll wait for the p0rn remake, Atlas Fugged.

  • ||

    Hot Lass Shagged.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    They've already had this thread on the imdb page (I think). It got pretty bad.

    I'll stick to the official version.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    I'm about 20% thru my first re-read since the late 70's, hope I can finish at least Part 1 before I see the movie next weekend.

    As someone mentioned above, I just hope it doesn't suck.

    ... Hobbit

  • A Serious Man||

    Anyone know where it is showing in Orange County, California?

  • DDavis||

    The movie site has a listing by state of all the theaters the movie is opening in.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

  • A Serious Man||

    Thank you. Not sure if I should bring my largely apolitical girlfriend though since it doesn't seem like it will makes sense to those who don't follow Rand.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Maybe try giving her a copy of The Girl Who Owned A City. I haven't read it, but it's supposed to be an attempt to translate Rand's ideas into a child-friendly format. Pretty young reading ability, but it might do the trick.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....ned_a_City

  • ||

    "Ruddy had agreed to the condition of flying Rand out to Hollywood for any necessary meetings in a private jet, lest the Soviets hijack any commercial airliner she was on"

    They had other methods. She and Larry McDonald should have never gotten on board KAL 007.

  • ||

    "Ruddy had agreed to the condition of flying Rand out to Hollywood for any necessary meetings in a private jet, lest the Soviets hijack any commercial airliner she was on"

    They had other methods. She and Larry McDonald should have never gotten on board KAL 007.

  • ||

    A lot of people didn't know that, so I had to say it twice.

  • Appalachian-Australian-America||

    Completely offtopic, has anyone figured out what family planning services have to do with interstate commerce?

    Perhaps conception is taking place in Texarkana in the post office?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    It's probably excused under general welfare when someone asks. I still think it's too controversial for any lawmakers in their right minds to touch.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    Yeah, the power to tax and spend has been held to be even more limitless than the power to regulate interstate commerce. According to the SCOTUS, it is like infinity+1 or something.

  • ||

    Wow, that looks like its gonna be good.

    www.Anonymous-Toolz.tk

  • Han Solo||

    I am going to be pleasantly suprised.

    LOOK. We all knew that if this ever get made it would be pretty much against the wishes of everyone in hollywood. I never expected it to be polished and have any really high quality talent.

    Just the fact that:
    1) ITS ACTUALLY BEING MADE
    2) It's not really terrible

    Will be good enough for me.

  • robc||

    It has Armin Shimmerman, so they knocked that ball out of the park with at least one actor.

  • yonemoto||

    they got the ferengi. Go figure.

  • ||

    Dear god this movie is going to be fucking boring. It'll give you libertarian-tards something to masturbate to. Enjoy, dickheads.

  • Bs Bs||

    Sounds like your getting overly-excited thinking about that masturbation thing.

  • Realist||

    That's got to be Barney The Frank, he's just drooling too much.

  • sevo||

    I'm guessing team blue as the stupid is a bit past the team red threshold.

  • Ventifact||

    Dagny is one of the strongest, most complicated female leads in modern literature

    Ugh.

  • Yes but,||

    Taylor Schilling is hot stuff.

  • Fair enough||

    -VVent

  • Realist||

    Where did all the dumb fuck trolls come from....someone leave a septic take valve open?

  • Ventifact||

    Sorry, I was gonna close that valve, but I was distracted by Doherty's dazzling literary insight.

  • A.G. Pym||

    There was a donation-only showing scheduled here by the local Tea Party organization (at a local library), but it was cancelled after theatre owners protested a "free" showing in advance of the opening date. I'm not really expecting any local theatre to show it, though, and I'm pretty much resigned to waiting for the DVD.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/theaters#

    Maybe you'll get lucky. I'm didn't expect a theater near me, but there is.

  • Adamson||

    Me too. The closest theatre involves a 180-mile round trip, and there's no way I'm driving that far to see a movie. Maybe if John Galt blew me in the back seat while I yelled "YOU are John Galt! YOU are John Galt!" But with gas at $4.40 a gallon, I'll have to wait for the DVD as well.

  • ||

    By the time it comes out on DVD, inflation will make the cost of the DVD more than the 180-mile round trip + ticket price is now.

  • Adamson||

    Wrong.

    180 miles = 9 gallons of gas = $39.60
    Movie ticket = $10
    Total: $49.60 (and that's without popcorn or a drink)

    Something tells me this DVD will be available on Amazon for *far* less than fifty bucks.

  • yonemoto||

    netflix it.

  • Adamson||

    Not a member.

  • An Objectivist||

    I think the TV-movie quality of the effects and look in the Trailer does a good job of lowering expectations.... now when we get to see the book come to life we'll really enjoy it, having already gone into it not expecting much because of the low budget.

    But, by all rights, this movie should have had $50M at least and been made by hollywood within the last decade. That it wasn't is simply a result of the moral bankruptcy of hollywood- namely the narrow mindedness of them.

    Can you name any other novel that has sold as many copies over the last 50 years that hasn't been made into a movie?

    Hollywood is desperate for original works to make, yet they couldn't get it together to make this one in 20 years? There's a reason for that.

  • robc||

    Can you name any other novel that has sold as many copies over the last 50 years that hasn't been made into a movie?

    Has any novel sold more over the last 50 years?

  • R||

    According to Wikipedia, yes.

    According to this, the best selling book of all time is "A Tale of Two Cities," and the best selling book since 1950 is "Lord of the Rings" - although, presumably, sales figures for all three installments are lumped together.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    A Tale of Two Cities? Really? I could use that as a non-presciption sleep aid.

    Admittedly, the plot was pretty good, though I'm kind of uncomfortable with the way Dickens seems to advocate altruism.

  • Otto||

    "seems to?" IANAO, but Dickens was a dyed-in-the-wool altruist.

    And A. C. Doyle was a mystic, but at least he could writing exciting stories.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I only say "seems to" because it wasn't explicit and I haven't read much of his work.

  • R||

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I really wish it had been made into a mini-series for Showtime or HBO. They would have been able to leave everything in tact

  • ||

    I'm new to Rand and this story, having just read it last year, but a huge fan nonetheless. But it's concerning how this was made so hastily. Kind of like the very worst piece of legislation to pass in the last 25 years.

    My two cents: 1. the actress playing Dagny just doesn't have Dagny's poise or her (smoker's) voice. 2. a train movie set in the modern day is a needless handicap, especially as the train is THE symbol of gov't led boondoggles. Why wasn't this set in the era that it represents?!

    Please, please don't suck.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Well, this is fiction, so maybe the government won't be boondoggling the railways.

    I was given Atlas Shrugged two years ago for my birthday. It has really changed my life.

    I have to say, the way Rand's characters' chain-smoked, they should all have smoker's face, too.

  • ||

    "I was given Atlas Shrugged two years ago for my birthday. It has really changed my life."

    So that makes you 18 years old now?

  • .||

    "Smoker's face"? WTF is that?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I think a movie for each chapter would be about right. That way, they could get everything in.

    On a side note, how would they do those long, expositive passages that weave in and out of the character's timeline. Anti-Life, for instance, and the post-valley chapters where Dagny is dealing with the failures of the railway. Narration of "On the morning of September 2, a copper wire broke in California between two telephone poles by the track of the Pacific branch line of Taggart Transcontinental..."

  • Max Stirner||

    The only thing I'm afraid of is the fact that trains are the last subject you want a movie about capitalism to be about. I thought it might be interesting to make the movie about cars instead. It would be a huge change obviously, but it might be more relevant, plus you could make a subtle jab at the auto-industry bailouts.

  • ||

    "trains are the last subject you want a movie about capitalism to be about."

    How about hybrid trains?

    But seriously, I never understood this fascination with a character who inherited her wealth and whose motivation is to make the trains run on time.

  • One answer is...||

    She's not Paris Hilton.

  • ||

    Has anyone ever seen Dagny Taggart and Paris Hilton together in the same place at the same time?

    And if so, is there video available?

  • Big pony||

    I like it,thanks for your share...

  • evening growns||

    I also wondering Dagny Taggart and Paris Hilton.

  • juicy1234||

    I will go see it, I think. But from the preview and the quality of the direction and filming, I am going in with a huge cringe. I'd like to be wrong, though.

  • juicy||

    I think a movie for each chapter would be about right.

  • ||

    Yeah, it's too bad they never ended up trying the mini-series route. Preferably, you know, HBO or Showtime, and not NBC or Epix, whatever that is.

  • ||

    Slapdash is the best kind of dash.

  • daiti||

    Hello! The burning hot summer arrived, this is the demonstration stature good season,
    the retreat wi nter sincere appearance, lets lithe, the individua lity, the fashion,
    the sex appeal, mature you sta rt from here! Has a good news to tell everybody: R ecently,
    every bought full 200 US dollars in this company, then has the present to see off,
    Vietna m which buys delivers are more, please do not miss this good opportunity!!!
    welcome to : http://www.2kuu.com
    free shipping
    competitive price
    any size available
    accept the paypal

  • CE||

    The trailers I've seen look great. I guess Hollywood would rather not make lots of money, by not making a movie about one of the best-selling books ever written, than to promote a message they don't like. I have a feeling that Aglialoro will make a fortune on this, from DVDs if not from the box office.

  • CE||

    ...attentive viewers may "pick up the message that you are not born to serve society, that government should just protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and that we are entitled to the fruits of our labor."

    Amazing that people still expect an entity that takes more of the fruits of our labors than all criminals combined, and claims first dibs on our children's lives and liberty, to protect us from anything.

  • louboutin 2011||

    Generally I do not post on blogs, - but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so! really nice post.

  • sexy lingerie online||

    Really very amazing successful.

  • Sanity||

    38-years to make the movie and less than 2 weeks to end it.

    "Atlas Shrugged" Producer Scrapping Plans For Pt. 2 & 3, Blames Reviews

    http://t.co/Xc4QizA

  • Sanity||

    The Free Market does Not support Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged movie… http://t.co/wOCLLvM

  • Flights to New York||

    Great post...

  • ||

    Mediocre material, mediocre production; lousy result.

    (or mathematically, 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.09)

  • comwenj||

  • Cure ear infection||

    Your post is really good providing good information. Garlic health benefits I liked it and enjoyed reading it.Keep sharing such important posts.Sinus headache

  • small toy||

    Has anyone ever seen Dagny Taggart and Paris Hilton together in the same place at the same time?

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • aisile||

    ai sile

  • guorizi||

    it is perfect

  • xiingguan||

    This movie has some nike sb skunk dunks for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen...That is, it kobe 7 for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel

  • cheap corsets||

    Although it is not brand name,wholesale lingerie can be very sexy. Most companies offer a variety of lingerie including bridal lingerie, chemise, thongs, bras, garters, corsets, panties, and others. Wholesale lingerie companies generally provide products for resale businesses. Some companies will not sell to you unless you give them proof that you have a business.

  • cheap corsets||

    Although it is not brand name,wholesale lingerie can be very sexy. Most companies offer a variety of lingerie including bridal lingerie, chemise, thongs, bras, garters, corsets, panties, and others. Wholesale lingerie companies generally provide products for resale businesses. Some companies will not sell to you unless you give them proof that you have a business.

  • cheap corsets||

    Although it is not brand name,wholesale lingerie can be very sexy. Most companies offer a variety of lingerie including bridal lingerie, chemise, thongs, bras, garters, corsets, panties, and others. Wholesale lingerie companies generally provide products for resale businesses. Some companies will not sell to you unless you give them proof that you have a business.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement