Republican writer P. J. O'Rourke has said that Atlas Shrugged's worst failure is having a plot--like if someone had tried to make The Wealth of Nations into a novel about trains and steel. He then fairly pans the film. The movie is boring and didactic because the book upon which it is based is just a long (okay, verrrrrrrry long) philosophical treatise in narrative form. O'Rourke then goes on to say that the film deserves cred just for existing--an idea I've found among most supporters of the film. I haven't read a single positive review of the film that doesn't extol its ideology in some way. It seems that no one can defend the film on aesthetic grounds, because on those grounds it suuuuucks.

And saying that Atlas Shrugged is considered one of the greatest novels of all time because the National Review spoke highly of it in 1957? Hm. So, it takes quite a set of parameters to make that statement true, huh? It doesn't seem to appear much on mainstream lists:

Time Magazine
Modern Library
Guardian UK

But those lamestream lists are biased, obviously...

Um...dude, did you actually read the National Review article? Obviously not.

O'Rourke also says:

And none of these things make the movie good, which is my main point. Being right for all the world doesn't make you aethetically pleasing. And I could debate with Mr O'Rourke about Ms Rand's 'right-ness', if he would like. But he never calls me back.

It's got an 8% on the RottenTomatoes Tomato-meter of critics (not so good) but a 85% rating from the Audience RT Poll; so the Rand fans (the majority of the attendees this weekend, I'm guessing) appear to like it. I saw it and rated it a 2.5 / 4.0; much like the NY Post review. It wasn't great but it wasn't terrible either.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/rand_old_time_for_ayn_adherents_yK8YmADIKXJ6ARzqRpPotN?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

Um, not exactly living up to your screen name dude.

*Scans thread*

Clearly.

According to Yahoo box office report, it looks like after 2 weekends, Atlas Shrugged has eked out about $3 million so far (800k this past weekend). Not looking too good for the Rand fans...but then this flick wasn't really marketed too heavily and the subject is not everyone's cup o' tea.

There are a number of factors working against it.

1. A philosophy which many find to be objectionable.

2. A story format that is, at best, trying for anybody who isn't already an acolyte.

3. An adaptation that is, by many accounts, lackluster.

4. As you said, poor marketing. I doubt most of the people here even realized it was coming out until this thread was posted, and the people who come here are unusually tuned into the goings-on of the movie biz.

Looks like the free market has spoken.

I'd first heard about it on John Stossel's program on Fox Business Network. Otherwise, only a small print ad in my local newspaper the day it opened that didn't really give the casual reader any idea what it was about.

While the critical reaction was largely negative, I find it interesting that the Yahoo "user meter" on the film has close to 800 ratings averaging to an "A-", and the average rating from the Rotten Tomatoes users is 3.9/5.0 (the official TomatoMeter of "critics" only being 8%).

So the "fans" seem to like the movie anyway.

Pun intended?

Maybe a little.

YES! There is justice in the world after all!

Vex...I find this to be a curious sentiment since I don't think you either read the book or saw the first film.

Maybe not, but the film sounds just awful, and the last thing we need is another franchise that nobody really cares about.

Well...the critics seemed to think that it was "awful"...but then I didn't think you were one for following critics that closely. Speaking as one of the only people on this forum who has seen the movie, I personally do not think it was "awful"....there's certainly worse stuff that has made it to the big screen and made a bunch of cash. I just find your tone to be....provocative...for a movie I didn't think you'd give a crap about one way or the other.

"Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."

Part 2 in production. Due October of this year.

I wonder how in the hell they'll handle Galt's 70-page speech. You can't film it; it'll leave the audience wanting to stab their eyes out (and who would blame them?)

Somebody shoots him in the middle of it.