Tweet
Before posting, I went back and read my mini-review for Atlas Shrugged Part I. Almost all of what I wrote for Part I also EXACTLY applies for Part II, so I'll repost it here:
So, the way Part II starts, I was pretty worried. It begins with some mediocre CGI in a lightly dramatic setting, and over-the-top acting from the new actress that plays the lead heroine, Dagny Taggart. It does get better, but not a very strong start for the movie. The movie and its actors aren't B-level, like a late night cable movie, but not quite A-level either. More like A-. Just as I said about Part I, as a stand-alone film, if it were made purely for a 1.5-2 hour entertainment piece, it would fail pretty big. But there is NO mistaking this film as being purposed for anything close to just superficial fluff. I try to take it for what it is intended to be, not for what most reviewers look at movies to be, just that 2 hour occupation of time and brain cells.
I think every actor has been replaced in Part 2, which doesn't detract from the film too terribly. Most of the casting and acting is so-so, particularly the lead Dagny Taggart, who overacts at many parts of the film. The lead Henry Rearden is also so-so, although both of them do live up to the inner convictions that Ayn Rand's characters espouse. I did get a kick out of the appearance of several actors woven into the story, such as Teller (i.e. from Penn & Teller), and Sean Hannity. The best actor I thought was James Taggart, Dagny's brother, who I thought was perfectly cast in his role as someone admired by almost everyone, attractive and from appearances seems to be generous, accomplished, and powerful. But it's amazing how Rand sets up characters that are leaders and heroes to the world to be hollow underneath in character and conviction. I particularly am fascinated with the character of Cherryl. She is so taken with the hero figure of James Taggart, and sells her entire self and devotion to him. Then gradually, (only starting at the end of part II in this film) begins to truly see what James is as a man, and his true character.
The strength of the film, just like Part I, is Rand's story. Just like the book, it is quite heavy-handed, especially like Hank Reardon's semi-monologue during his "trial". But it is ASTOUNDING how prophetic Rand's story is. Lots of the entertainment industry and establishment complain that this film is made specifically to bash today's administration and industry practices in the United States and elsewhere in the world. But I couldn't find a single message or principle that has been changed from Rand's books, written decades and decades ago. It's amazing how the more time goes on, the more Rand's prophecies are becoming fulfilled.
Again, I'm NOT a subscriber of Rand's philosophies, and I have big problems with many of her perspectives. But her stories are very deep and introspective, and so dead-on about many things.
I think I liked Part I just a little better. It would be amazing if they could produce Part III with even better actors to truly make it an A movie and bring the series home strong. As just a film, :2: Much better as a story and social-economic piece. Overall, I'm going to go with :35: out of :5:. I think this probably will be a purchase for me as a series once it's complete.
Who is John Galt?
So, the way Part II starts, I was pretty worried. It begins with some mediocre CGI in a lightly dramatic setting, and over-the-top acting from the new actress that plays the lead heroine, Dagny Taggart. It does get better, but not a very strong start for the movie. The movie and its actors aren't B-level, like a late night cable movie, but not quite A-level either. More like A-. Just as I said about Part I, as a stand-alone film, if it were made purely for a 1.5-2 hour entertainment piece, it would fail pretty big. But there is NO mistaking this film as being purposed for anything close to just superficial fluff. I try to take it for what it is intended to be, not for what most reviewers look at movies to be, just that 2 hour occupation of time and brain cells.
I think every actor has been replaced in Part 2, which doesn't detract from the film too terribly. Most of the casting and acting is so-so, particularly the lead Dagny Taggart, who overacts at many parts of the film. The lead Henry Rearden is also so-so, although both of them do live up to the inner convictions that Ayn Rand's characters espouse. I did get a kick out of the appearance of several actors woven into the story, such as Teller (i.e. from Penn & Teller), and Sean Hannity. The best actor I thought was James Taggart, Dagny's brother, who I thought was perfectly cast in his role as someone admired by almost everyone, attractive and from appearances seems to be generous, accomplished, and powerful. But it's amazing how Rand sets up characters that are leaders and heroes to the world to be hollow underneath in character and conviction. I particularly am fascinated with the character of Cherryl. She is so taken with the hero figure of James Taggart, and sells her entire self and devotion to him. Then gradually, (only starting at the end of part II in this film) begins to truly see what James is as a man, and his true character.
The strength of the film, just like Part I, is Rand's story. Just like the book, it is quite heavy-handed, especially like Hank Reardon's semi-monologue during his "trial". But it is ASTOUNDING how prophetic Rand's story is. Lots of the entertainment industry and establishment complain that this film is made specifically to bash today's administration and industry practices in the United States and elsewhere in the world. But I couldn't find a single message or principle that has been changed from Rand's books, written decades and decades ago. It's amazing how the more time goes on, the more Rand's prophecies are becoming fulfilled.
Again, I'm NOT a subscriber of Rand's philosophies, and I have big problems with many of her perspectives. But her stories are very deep and introspective, and so dead-on about many things.
I think I liked Part I just a little better. It would be amazing if they could produce Part III with even better actors to truly make it an A movie and bring the series home strong. As just a film, :2: Much better as a story and social-economic piece. Overall, I'm going to go with :35: out of :5:. I think this probably will be a purchase for me as a series once it's complete.
Who is John Galt?
Comment