"Atlas Shrugged--Part I" is a fine film adaptation of Ayn Rand's 1957 magnum opus. Though not a great film, it is certainly a "must-see" movie, at once entertaining and intellectually provocative.
Strong points:
* The best thing here is Rand's compelling plot itself. The film is remarkably faithful to it. It's also faithful to Rand's philosophy. Whether you like Rand's ideas or not, the filmmakers are to be credited with doing no violence to the controversial author's worldview.
* Grant Bowler and Taylor Schilling are well cast in their pivotal lead roles as Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart. Graham Beckel was strong and likable as oil magnate Ellis Wyatt. And Rebecca Wisocky was a standout, deliciously nasty as the manipulative Lillian Rearden; she also made difficult lines of dialogue, which otherwise might have sounded stilted, seem completely unaffected and natural.
* The novel's political themes of individualism vs. statism, of entrepreneurs vs. crony capitalists and government bureaucrats, are rendered potently and explicitly. Rand's ethics of rational selfishness is presented more by implication, but the actions of her heroes are clearly motivated by that ethics.
* The film, like its two lead actors, is easy on the eyes. The wardrobes and sets are good, and the special effects are impressive -- especially convincing during run of the John Galt Line and the climactic Wyatt oil field fire.
* As sheer entertainment, the film was fast-paced and engrossing throughout.
Weak points:
* Too much plot condensation using narration and explication. This film should have run 2 1/2 hours to do more justice to the nuances of plot and characterizations, and to rely more on "showing" rather than "telling."
* Overly quick pacing. Probably a byproduct of the excessive condensation. Little time was taken in key scenes to show the subtleties of character motivations and reactions.
* Occasional miscasting or inappropriate acting. Michael O'Keefe's interpretation of the Hugh Akston character was off, both in look and manner of expression. Jsu Garcia's Francisco came off more as a real playboy pretending to be an aristocrat; instead, he should have played it as a true aristocrat faking that he was a playboy. (There's a difference.)
* Lack of subtlety. The film was at its nuanced best during the scenes where we see the attraction building between Hank and Dagny. Grant Bowler's understated reactions to several emotional blows also were spot on. The movie would have benefited from more of this kind of thing, which the lickety-split pace prevented.
Overall, "Atlas Shrugged--Part I" is a better film than the 1949 production of "The Fountainhead," and certainly a far better film than major reviewers and critics are reporting. Alas, they seem incapable of separating the film's merits as good storytelling from the controversial story itself -- a tale that fundamentally challenges today's reigning intellectual Narrative.
This is an entertaining, thought-provoking adaptation of Ayn Rand's masterpiece. I hope that Parts II and III will benefit from fewer constraints in their budgets and production schedules, and that each film will run at least 45 minutes longer. That would allow for a deeper and richer exploration of the iconic characters and fascinating subplots of Rand's complex and challenging tale.
Strong points:
* The best thing here is Rand's compelling plot itself. The film is remarkably faithful to it. It's also faithful to Rand's philosophy. Whether you like Rand's ideas or not, the filmmakers are to be credited with doing no violence to the controversial author's worldview.
* Grant Bowler and Taylor Schilling are well cast in their pivotal lead roles as Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart. Graham Beckel was strong and likable as oil magnate Ellis Wyatt. And Rebecca Wisocky was a standout, deliciously nasty as the manipulative Lillian Rearden; she also made difficult lines of dialogue, which otherwise might have sounded stilted, seem completely unaffected and natural.
* The novel's political themes of individualism vs. statism, of entrepreneurs vs. crony capitalists and government bureaucrats, are rendered potently and explicitly. Rand's ethics of rational selfishness is presented more by implication, but the actions of her heroes are clearly motivated by that ethics.
* The film, like its two lead actors, is easy on the eyes. The wardrobes and sets are good, and the special effects are impressive -- especially convincing during run of the John Galt Line and the climactic Wyatt oil field fire.
* As sheer entertainment, the film was fast-paced and engrossing throughout.
Weak points:
* Too much plot condensation using narration and explication. This film should have run 2 1/2 hours to do more justice to the nuances of plot and characterizations, and to rely more on "showing" rather than "telling."
* Overly quick pacing. Probably a byproduct of the excessive condensation. Little time was taken in key scenes to show the subtleties of character motivations and reactions.
* Occasional miscasting or inappropriate acting. Michael O'Keefe's interpretation of the Hugh Akston character was off, both in look and manner of expression. Jsu Garcia's Francisco came off more as a real playboy pretending to be an aristocrat; instead, he should have played it as a true aristocrat faking that he was a playboy. (There's a difference.)
* Lack of subtlety. The film was at its nuanced best during the scenes where we see the attraction building between Hank and Dagny. Grant Bowler's understated reactions to several emotional blows also were spot on. The movie would have benefited from more of this kind of thing, which the lickety-split pace prevented.
Overall, "Atlas Shrugged--Part I" is a better film than the 1949 production of "The Fountainhead," and certainly a far better film than major reviewers and critics are reporting. Alas, they seem incapable of separating the film's merits as good storytelling from the controversial story itself -- a tale that fundamentally challenges today's reigning intellectual Narrative.
This is an entertaining, thought-provoking adaptation of Ayn Rand's masterpiece. I hope that Parts II and III will benefit from fewer constraints in their budgets and production schedules, and that each film will run at least 45 minutes longer. That would allow for a deeper and richer exploration of the iconic characters and fascinating subplots of Rand's complex and challenging tale.