Ayn Rand's monumental 1,168-page, 1957 novel gets the low-budget, no-talent treatment and sits there flapping on screen like a bludgeoned seal.
You know its bad when a critic compares a film to animal abuse. Damn.
Apr 15 - 09:41 AM
Actually, he compares it to an abused animal. The difference is subtle, but important.
Apr 15 - 03:19 PM
You're right. Still...damn.
Apr 15 - 04:17 PM
Yeah, he don't exactly surgarcoat it, do he?
Apr 15 - 09:25 PM
Speaking of animal abuse, I look forward to Parts 2 and 3, where the vision of Rand is realized and all the Randites move to their fantasy island to turn it into a cross between Animal Farm and Lord of the Flies. Go Galt, dingbats.Here is an good take on Shrug from the National Review in 1957 - which the hypocrites are even now still trying to debate.http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback?page=1
May 4 - 11:13 AM
And Peter Travers likes everything, so for him to say this sucks, it must really stink.
Apr 15 - 02:51 PM
It helps that Travers is a progressive himself. It isn't a stretch to go into something you know will go against your political belief and tear it to shreds. Travers knew he would hate it, went into the theater looking to hate it and wrote a review trashing it.Tough job for a weak minded critic that portends to tell the rest of us we need open minds. Travers mind was obviously closed as it usually is.
Apr 16 - 07:58 AM
Just because you had a boner for the book doesn't mean that it was guaranteed to make for a good movie.
Apr 24 - 01:00 PM
You knew what Travers was thinking walking into the theatre? Amazing.
Apr 27 - 06:50 PM
Doesnt take a rocket scientist to see what some people are thinking. In fact, rubbing more than 2 brain cells together would do the trick here.
Nov 27 - 08:57 PM
Never mind that all critics absolutely trashed this. It has an 11% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (putting it on par with such masterpieces as "Freddy Got Fingered") and it completely flopped at the box office which I find very ironic for a film bent on pushing the total free market ideology.
Perhaps it's you that went into seeing it with preconceived notions which is the only reason you liked this disaster.
Sep 27 - 08:17 AM
Wow, Peter Travers, you dooshbag for using a filthy disgusting imagery of animal torture.
Apr 17 - 01:55 PM
You seem to have the easiestovie critic job in the world, Travers. Rolling Stone doesn't care if you actually give reasons for liking or not liking a movie. All you have to do is write a paragraph saying "IT SUCKS!"and you're done. Good job!Why is it that you bash the movie for having a low budget, anyway? Low budget isn't necessarily bad. Some of the lowest budget movies are the best.
Apr 18 - 10:03 AM
Some examples, please?
Apr 24 - 06:18 PM
You could go look them up for yourself, but the first 2 that come to mind are the Blair Witch, and Paranormal. Alot of others Im sure.
Nov 27 - 08:59 PM
Yes, those two movies are masterpieces of cinema. God.
Dec 20 - 09:46 PM
12 angry men
Feb 12 - 08:46 PM
"bludgeoned seal" Lmfao!
Apr 27 - 08:16 PM
Leave it to a dipstick liberal to compare a movie that he doesnt agree with, to what libs think is the biggest travesty in the universe: an abused animal.
Never mind an abused person, or one that has wasted their time reading ANY critics review of a movie.
Just like the rest of the media, critics have a political agenda, and always apply it to their WORTHLESS reviews. I have ten times more respect for a garbage truck driver than a movie critic. They both may smell like crap, but when it comes time to get their paychecks, the garbage man actually earn his for the garbage he dumped.
Nov 27 - 09:04 PM