Atlas Shrugged Part I

And Now…Atlas Back on Again!

|

Wait--nobody told me lemmings were this cute! Also, for an animal with such a bad reputation, it's not so easy to find Google images of more than one together…. Time for a Slate pitch!

It would seem that John Aglialoro is no stranger to the art of ginning up headlines. This time in the Hollywood Reporter:

In fact, said John Aglialoro, the co-producer and financier, it's the monolithic view from critics that say the movie stinks that is motivating him to make Parts 2 and 3, he told The Hollywood Reporter.

And he defended his film Wednesday by accusing professional film reviewers of political bias. How else, he asks, to explain their distaste for a film that is liked by the audience? At Rottentomatoes.com, 7,400 people gave it an average 85% score. […]

"It was a nihilistic craze," Aglialoro said. "Not in the history of Hollywood has 16 reviewers said the same low things about a movie.

"They're lemmings," he said. "What's their fear of Ayn Rand? They hate this woman. They hate individualism." […]

"The critics killed it so badly that agents may tell their clients they shouldn't be associated with this thing," he said. "I've got to give it to the critics. They won this battle, but they will not win the war. The message has been told in Part 1, and it will be told in Parts 2 and 3."

Reason's archive on the subject here. And take a scroll through Reason.tv's playlist!

NEXT: Man vs. the State

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.

  1. Clearly, that is one libertarian lemming in the picture.

    “I drink alone, with nobody else.”

    PS “Libertarian Lemmings” would be an excellent name for a rock band.

  2. Good for him, but:

    Not in the history of Hollywood has 16 reviewers said the same low things about a movie.

    is a retarded statement. I’m pretty sure I can find 16 reviewers panning Battlefield Earth, for instance.

    1. I was thinking the Left Behind series would be a better analogy.

    2. How about Leonard Part 6?

      1. OH MY GOD

      2. And yet they liked Buckaroo Banzi which is essentially the same movie.

    3. http://www.metacritic.com/movi…..ic-reviews

      I was thinking the Left Behind series would be a better analogy.
      reply to this

      I don’t know, I think BFE is a pretty good parallel. A fiction novel written by the nominal leader of a movement made into film. Seems spot on.

      1. Can’t disagree with you, Neu. Thought a more apt parallel would be if Dianetics were made into a film.

        Now that I’d go see, just for the lulz.

      2. The difference is, almost no one disputes the idea that Rand actually wrote Atlas Shrugged.

        1. Hey now. That was uncalled for.

          1. Let me be clear.

            We don’t have time for this silliness.

    4. I liked Battlefield Earth.

      As a cheesy scifi it was certainly better then the Star Wars prequels.

      It was probably better then Return of the Jedi if I had not already fallin in love with the characters in it.

  3. I must say, I saw it yesterday, and although the acting was a little wooden in parts, and some of it was a little too preachy (unlike the book 😉 ), it was actually pretty good. I thought the atmosphere was just right, and some of the villains absolutely nailed their parts. Especially Mouch, who reminded me of Tip O’Neill.

  4. Awww, that little creature is so cute.

    http://www.complete-privacy.edu.tc

    1. So did you give up weed altogether or just joints?

  5. “Not in the history of Hollywood has 16 reviewers said the same low things about a movie.

    I am gonna guess that is inaccurate.
    Showgirls anyone?

    1. I think they said 16 different low things.

    2. Specifically accurate but broadly inaccurate.

      There is no movie based on Rand’s books that you would ever like New Mex and your dislike would have nothing to do with the quality of the film.

      Those 16 reviewers are just like you.

  6. They hate us because of our freedom. Yup.

    1. The movie can’t be bad because it means well. The free market is never wrong unless it is corrupted by all powerful ‘critics’ motivated by their ideological biases.

      Or maybe those same type of biases could cause otherwise sentient folks to relentlessly pimp a bad movie.

      1. oooooh, Buuuuurrrrrnn.

  7. lemming,
    lemming,
    lemming of the BD, lemming of the BD lemming of the BDA!

    lemming, of the British Dental association.

    1. It’s a man’s life in the British Dental Association!

  8. he’s pandering to his base. “the entire culture is against us! buy my dvds!”

  9. Hell it happened just a month ago with Sucker Punch. There is no conspiracy.

    I’d say that the market has spoken, and this crappy movie got bitch-slapped by the invisible hand.

  10. Hell it happened just a month ago with Sucker Punch. There is no conspiracy.

    I’d say that the market has spoken, and this crappy movie got bitch-slapped by the invisible hand.

  11. If you want to see a geat libertarian flick with excellent production values, check out Keynes v. Hayek: Fight of the Century. http://econstories.tv/2011/04/…..sic-video/

    1. Crap, link got fugged: http://econstories.tv/2011/04/…..sic-video/

      1. Or better yet, scroll down this here blog!

        1. Whatta blog whore!
          Oh, wait…

  12. It was a great film. Those communist movie critics simply can’t stand a movie with great dialogue.

    My only caveat was the size of the limos, they were too big.

    And that Mooch character, God, he reminds me of Obama telling Joe the Plumber to spread the wealth!

    Capitalists of the world, unite!
    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

    1. GREGGOOOOO…

      Seriously, though, completely agree about the limos. A smaller, nice, black sedan would have been perfect.

      1. Sweet, we agree on something.

    1. Who is Joey Lawrence?

    2. Wasn’t Celebuzz a pokemon?

  13. Since anything said about this movie requires long-form disclosures, here’s mine: I’m a fan of the philosophy, not so much the book. I went to New York Film Academy (!), I despise all Kubric films except FMJ, and I think Chris Nolan is the most promising talent working today.

    Atlas Shrugged: Part One was simply awful. Zero character development. Why does Dagny give a shit about her railroad? Who the fuck is Francisco, and why is he even in this movie? How many different government initiatives were there, and what was the point of (or the difference between) any of them? What was Mouch’s lowly function before he suddenly became the most powerful man in Washington?

    The acting, on the other hand, was decent.

    This movie was a trainwreck from beginning to end, and at 97 minutes, I don’t think they even tried very hard.

    1. Trying to use only the movie and not the book to answer:

      Why does Dagny give a shit about her railroad?

      Because it is hers. It has her name on it. Duh.

      Who the fuck is Francisco, and why is he even in this movie?

      Dagny’s ex. Some playboy who makes lots of money. But, yeah, not well developed.

      How many different government initiatives were there, and what was the point of (or the difference between) any of them?

      A bunch, and the point was to provide favors to cronies. That was very clear, only a moran would have missed that point.

      What was Mouch’s lowly function before he suddenly became the most powerful man in Washington?

      He was Reardon’s lobbyist in DC. Duh, they went out of the way to make that clear.

      The first 2 of your questions have some validity, although I think most people will figure out the first on their own.

      So you score a 1/4.

      1. To me, there was absolutely nothing — nothing — that was made “very clear” in the movie, except that Hank’s wife is a bitch for no reason in particular. Obvisouly you thought differently.

        At 97 minutes, they could have spent 20 minutes focusing on Dagny’s passion for her company, one concise business-killing government initiative, and Mouch’s ascendence to power. We’d still cruise in at a svelte 2 hours and maybe there would have been some coherence to people other than robc.

        Kudos to you for enjoying the Spartan exposition. I think it was the second-worst film I’ve ever seen in a multiplex.

        1. BTW, “obvisouly” is a word I learned in film school (!) that has a similar meaning to “obviously”…

    2. I despise all Kubric films except FMJ

      Stopped reading at this point, Barry Lydon is his best one.

      1. Stopped reading at this point, Barry Lydon is his best one.

        I find it interesting that Finchy singled out Kubric. It does give a bead on whether I would agree with his aesthetic judgment, I guess. But Kubric has done such a wide range of films with varying styles it ends up being a pretty non-specific stance. Throwing Chris Nolan in the mix just makes it more confusing.

      2. See, the disclaimer worked perfectly for you.

        I’d waste a lot less time reading op-eds if they opened with lines like “I think communism is a good idea badly implemented. Now, about this Ground-Zero Mosque…”

    3. I still haven’t seen Atlas Shrugged, but you are right about Chris Nolan. I’ve loved every one of his movies I’ve seen.

  14. As much as I like the idea of word of mouth marketing, it just doesn’t work for products that are around average in quality. People like bragging about having seen/read/heard something great before their friends. It worked for Rand’s books. Noone brags about having seen ‘this really AVERAGE movie that you absolutely HAVE TO go see’.

  15. Steve Sailer liked it, anyway…

    Atlas Shrugged: Part I is the most universally despised movie of 2011, but I liked it. Critics hate this adaptation of Ayn Rand’s 1957 cult novel for predictable ideological reasons, while Randites are embarrassed that their exalted capitalist system failed to pony up the munificent financing necessary to give Rand’s doorstop novel the blockbuster treatment they feel it deserves.

  16. I appreciate the sentiment from Mr. Aglialoro, but he should understand that he will never get a fair shake from the vermin in the so-called mainstream media.

    If he wants to be liked by them, he might want to make a movie based on Das Kapital instead.

  17. Atlas Shrugged (the movie) took a great theme and story and told it poorly. It’s really that simple.

  18. Why did I think all this time that a lemming was a type of flightless bird?

    1. I blame Linux and its lemmings video game clone Pingus.

      http://pingus.seul.org/

      1. I will join you in the blaming.

          1. Here is the shit.

            The whole metaphor of lemmings dumbly following those ahead of them off of cliffs comes from a staged Disney nature show in which film makers shoved lemmings off of cliffs into the arctic Ocean.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDqlZjpSJCc

            I think we never should have strayed from using the metaphor of cattle and following the herd off a cliff. If only because that shit actually happens.

  19. You don’t need to speculate about anyone’s ideological motivations to understand the reviews this film gets. It’s awful. It has the production quality of a Lifetime movie. Every aspect of the movie, from a film-making standpoint, was poorly executed. I love the book, but I’m not going to ignore reality and tell everyone the movie was worth watching. It stinks!

  20. I am going to go out on a limb and say Winter’s Bone was a horrible movie.

    “My meth cooking daddy is dead and the criminal syndicate that runs the area is irrational…now i have to chop off a corpses hands…..whaaaaaa”

    Fucking sucked!

    1. Why the fuck would a criminal syndicate choose to murder a snitch and not tell the one person who may want to go to the police???

      What the fuck!??!

      “Oh yeah here is the stick we will not tell you why we are going to use the stick on you and the obvious carrot of you you keeping your house yeah we are going to completely fucking ignore that…oh yeah and we know your whole family is involved in our syndicate and you have grown up in our family based criminal syndicate but yeah we will treat you like a complete outsider.”

      WTF?!?!?

      “Oh yeah the south and men with beards is creepy”

      Worse fucking movie ever!!!

      1. I loved it.

        I think you are misinterpreting what’s going on with the culture of the local community. It’s not a “criminal syndicate”, it’s a remote rural community with a very conservative culture in certain respects. Notice the manners. People help eachother out, don’t ask too many questions, and are very polite. They keep to themselves and distrust authorities. There’s obviously a kind of honor code going on. The criminal gang is just a small group of people, who are somewhat protected by the communities cultural norms.

        1. But they did not help her until she was forced to assert herself.

          That is not conservative nor was it very smart for criminals. they put her in a place in which she had the choice of ratting on them or losing her home. As conservatives and criminals doing nothing was stupidest thing they could do. Either take her in and fix her problem or kill her….they did neither and instead dicked around.

          Also how is the Mafia not conservative?

          Anyway the Sopranos, Justified, Weeds and Breaking Bad all cover this material and do it realistically. Winter’s Bone on the other hand was simply a pile of shit with unrealistic characters and an obviously biased depiction of the south meant simply to ridicule rather then tell an interesting story.

          Essentially they took the idea of enlightened liberal cosmo women packaged her into a 14 year old body and let her loose in the stereotype of the south.

          Another amusing observation…where the fuck were all the black people??? It is the rural south right?
          Even the fucking public school was Lilly white.

  21. It’s funny reading the conspiracy theories on why this movie bombed. It couldn’t possibly be that it was a bad movie. Nope, the blame wrests on that damned liberal media! LOL

    1. If a group of crows is called a murder is a group of lemmings called a suicide?

  22. I think John Aglialoro killed his audience with his initial whiney comments. Before that, all the fans were saying it was “ok”. Now they are all saying it sucked, the market has spoken, and Aglialero should shut his mouth and deal.

  23. Anyway, the book should be a miniseries on HBO. There’s no way you could do it at movie length.

  24. Starting to wonder if Aglialoro is bipolar:

    “The critics panned it! So fuck them, no AS 2 and 3!”

    A couple of days later:

    “The critics panned it! So, to say fuck them, I’m gonna make AS 2 and 3!”

    1. “It would seem that John Aglialoro is no stranger to the art of ginning up headlines.”

      Maybe he was just trying to keep the movie in the news to increase ticket sales.

  25. Maybe I’m just easier to please than you guys, but I liked it enough to see it a second time, and there was plenty of exposition for me.

  26. Waiting for the part 2 and 3.

  27. Waiting for the part 2 and 3. http://www.fititwell.com/

  28. the movie Atlas was a nihilistic craze and it is motivating the film maker ,financier to make Parts 2 and 3 ,they ‘ve got to give it to the critics. They won this battle

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.