I'm one of the few people who loved the book but didn't love this movie. I liked it, though. The most annoying part of it was Jsu Garcia's hair, which doesn't seem like it should have been a big deal... but you'll see if you haven't yet. I saw it today with my wife, who never read the book and is also a loyal Democrat (go figure). She said she liked it, which tells me there wasn't too much of Rand's philosophy in the movie forced upon the audience.
It was true to Rand's vision, though. But what makes it tolerable for a non-objectivist is it was Part 1 of the novel crammed into an hour and 42 minutes, which wouldn't give Rand enough time to convey her message to anyone, much less a progressive. This made it hard to follow for those who haven't read the book, and annoying for me because the more meaningless flicks playing in theaters (that would be all of them) are longer. This one could have used an extra half-hour, but I guess it wasn't in the budget.
POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE: How can you spoil a 50-year-old critically-acclaimed story? The producers of this movie may have done that more than I am now. As in the novel, Part 1 ends with Wyatt's Torch (as mentioned in other reviews). What I didn't appreciate was the off-screen announcements made by John Galt and Ellis Wyatt at the end because it revealed too much, in my opinion. In other words, Part 1 may have spoiled Parts 2 & Three. The movie would have been much better without that because it would have left the mystery for those who don't know it.
Overall, I'd say it's good enough for us Randroids and safe enough for a moderate progressive. I suspect Part 3 will be neither because of the John Galt speech. (How are they gonna pull that off?) It's too low budget a flick to be appreciated much as it should be and the story has too much of a cult following for the movie to be reasonably criticized. Nevertheless, I recommended it for any educated movie fan. I'll be in the theater for the sequels if, for no other reason, to support a story worth making into a movie.
It was true to Rand's vision, though. But what makes it tolerable for a non-objectivist is it was Part 1 of the novel crammed into an hour and 42 minutes, which wouldn't give Rand enough time to convey her message to anyone, much less a progressive. This made it hard to follow for those who haven't read the book, and annoying for me because the more meaningless flicks playing in theaters (that would be all of them) are longer. This one could have used an extra half-hour, but I guess it wasn't in the budget.
POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE: How can you spoil a 50-year-old critically-acclaimed story? The producers of this movie may have done that more than I am now. As in the novel, Part 1 ends with Wyatt's Torch (as mentioned in other reviews). What I didn't appreciate was the off-screen announcements made by John Galt and Ellis Wyatt at the end because it revealed too much, in my opinion. In other words, Part 1 may have spoiled Parts 2 & Three. The movie would have been much better without that because it would have left the mystery for those who don't know it.
Overall, I'd say it's good enough for us Randroids and safe enough for a moderate progressive. I suspect Part 3 will be neither because of the John Galt speech. (How are they gonna pull that off?) It's too low budget a flick to be appreciated much as it should be and the story has too much of a cult following for the movie to be reasonably criticized. Nevertheless, I recommended it for any educated movie fan. I'll be in the theater for the sequels if, for no other reason, to support a story worth making into a movie.