The Critics of Atlas Shrugged II
I just joined Galt's Gulch Online. Because the site is concerned with the Atlas Shrugged movie, I wanted to call attention to a review I did of "Atlas Shrugged II" and published on The Atlas Society Web site. Being new, I'm not sure if posting this is "spam," but I am sure I will be told. On the same site is the review I wrote when the first footage from Atlas Shrugged I was aired in New York City. And that seems strangely long ago.
As you say there are many reviews- typically not real reviews but retreats into group-think.
Part 2 was to me both thrilling and a let-down, much as Walter Donway in his comment in your review says. Just an idea but -maybe there is too much action -crashes, fires, explosions, plane chases- without explaining what is happening and why. Showing long speeches is not the answer. Instead of emulating an action computer game, producers should watch a few of the great film classics eg 'Battleship Potemkin' -Russia and "The Island' -Japan.
It could be that liking the book so much I would find any film inadequate but I was disappointed at the downgrading of Eddie Williers and of Dagny - like the petulance in the boardroom.
Anyway - I will be spending more time on atlassociety.org.
Thanks and welcome.
It is well known in the film trade that the #1 determinant of box-office success is word-of-mouth advertising, not reviews by professional critics.
It's scarcely objective for Objectivists to assert that professional critics had little influence on the ultimate commercial success of the novel, but lots of influence on the lack of commercial success of the movies. The novel succeeded because word-of-mouth advertising by readers was positive; the movies failed because word-of-mouth advertising by ticket-buyers was negative.
I believe you have given one of only a few objective reviews.
Good job!
Thank you,
O.A.
Perhaps the agent sensed the film would be a dog and had the best interests of his or her client, Taylor Schilling, in mind. Sounds like a good, professional agent to me.
Except that Rearden didn't bang his head against a wall by intentionally repeating the same mistakes he made previously – a strategy quite different from Aglialoro's.
>>>and for the same reasons
Rearden never gave up his metallurgical research because he knew that IF he could succeed in giving his Metal the characteristics he wanted, it would be useful to lots of people and thus earn him a fat profit. Aglialoro, Kelley, et al., appear to be completely disconnected from what the public finds useful (i.e., entertaining, compelling, etc.) in a movie. Their goal is not to make a great film, but to transcribe the novel in a way that is "consistent" with Objectivism. And to that end, Kelley's function is to act as an ideological compliance officer. The entire production team is so concerned that the story not deviate one iota from Kelley's interpretation of the novel and the philosophy of Objectivism, and they were so concerned to rush Part I out for Tax Day and Part II out for the election, that there's just no time (and perhaps no real interest) in the "little details" that make a movie successful with the public: e.g., compelling screenwriting, sparkling dialogue, appropriate casting, and imaginative directing.
And instead of being intellectually honest by saying, "Gee, I wonder if the failure of the two films was our fault", the producers blame everything and everyone except themselves: the budget wasn't big enough; the stars weren't famous enough; the critics weren't rational enough; the public wasn't selfish enough.
I believe this is called **denial.**