• PG-13, 1 hr. 52 min.
  • Drama
  • Directed By:
    John Putch
    In Theaters:
    Oct 12, 2012 Wide
    On DVD:
    Feb 19, 2013
  • Atlas Distribution

Critic Review - Washington Post

Rather than refresh the cast with new actors, the producers would have done better to just digitally reanimate Patricia Neal and Gary Cooper, the stars of the 1949 adaptation of Rand's The Fountainhead.

October 11, 2012 Full Review Source: Washington Post | Comments (39)
Washington Post
Top Critic IconTop Critic

Comments

AJ S.

AJ Specia

Butthurt teabaggers incoming.

Oct 11 - 08:55 PM

Jonathan Edward O.

Jon Owens

Not every republican supports, or is apart of the Tea Party.... That's like saying every Democrat is apart of Occupy Wallstreet.... Hope the Kool-aid tastes good.

Oct 11 - 09:37 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Every true Democrat DOES support OWS, because it stands as a protest to big business fucking regular people over, and buying the law and politicians to limit our avenues of recourse against them.

Oct 11 - 10:21 PM

Jonathan Edward O.

Jon Owens

Ok?? I don't know who gave you the right to define what makes up a "true democrat"..... I was just saying its pretty ignorant to try to stereotype a whole political party for believing in or following certain ideals. It may be news to some people but not everyone has the same beliefs.

Oct 12 - 12:21 AM

Natascha Naaasty

Natascha Naaasty

Objective laws and honest politicians cannot be boughtâ??and last time I checked, it is the "regular people" who vote politicians into power.

Oct 12 - 12:35 AM

Natascha Naaasty

Natascha Naaasty

Objective laws and honest politicians cannot be bought---and last time I checked, it is the "regular people" who vote politicians into power.

Oct 12 - 03:51 AM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

A politician's only reason for existence is to stay in power, therefore, that politicians will take whatever advantage is available to achieve that purpose, and that means accepting donations. If they aren't any laws in place which limit the amount of contributions an election cycle can accrue, then it's a money race to see who can end up on top.

A politician in today's climate that is not corrupt will almost never win an election. Corporations will simply pour money into the other candidate's bank account and end up outspending him/her by a large margin. Money buys ads buys votes.

Oct 12 - 11:27 AM

Nathan Nall

Nathan Nall

Just keep in mind that the biggest business in the world is the U.S. Government.

Oct 13 - 02:31 AM

AJ S.

AJ Specia

If you aren't a teabagger, there's no reason for you to be offended by my statement. Getting a little defensive, are we now?

Oct 12 - 10:11 AM

Jeremy Mange

Jeremy Mange

I never comment on these type of things, but honestly, people need to stop with the term "teabagger". It is a joke that has been repeated a thousand times that wasn't all that funny the first time. It makes you come off as an 8-year-old who won't stop playing with a Whoopie Cushion because he thinks it is funny over and over and over and over.

This has nothing to do with politics, it just seems like the people who use that term don't realize how utterly laughable they sound. "Teehee, see they say Tea Party, but I made it about balls!"

Oct 12 - 11:48 AM

Jonathan Edward O.

Jon Owens

No I'm just a conservative that is tired of being labeled one because idiots like you have been listening to MSNBC too much.. Honestly I don't want to even be in the same category as those people.

Oct 12 - 06:31 PM

Nathan Nall

Nathan Nall

I assume you are referring to people associated with the Tea Party movement when you say "teabaggers".... but you might be taken with a little more seriousness if you stopped referring to them as such; that would be like a conservative calling occupiers "fudge packers" because of their propensity for anal intercourse.

Maybe you can just tell your parents what it is you want to say and have them put it in their words. Just a suggestion, little buddy. So what are you going to be for halloween?

Oct 13 - 02:37 AM

Angela R.

Angela Roberts

Apparently some people here don't realize or refuse to accept that the term "teabagger" was one of the original, self-appointed names of the Tea Party individuals? Sure, it has often been used derisively since but that doesn't mean every use of it is that or is meant to allude to something "immature." In fact, assuming as much could be an indication of immaturity on the part of the individual doing so. So no - it's not automatically "a joke" nor is it like "calling occupiers 'fudge packers.'" If some individuals here were a bit more informed about the Tea Party itself, they might be aware of these things and understand that the use of the term itself is not insulting. In context, even from someone who disagrees with the Tea Party or is being rude otherwise, it is not automatically a misused term. Some even prefer that term as it is associated with the roots of the movement as opposed to what it later became.

Oct 13 - 04:32 AM

BCENS

B Cens

Since the term 'Liberal' has been perverted into a dirty word, it's only fair to label right-wingers in kind. If you are worried about being labeled, don't align yourself politically with those who would cause you shame.

Oct 13 - 02:46 PM

Jonathan Edward O.

Jon Owens

@BCens uhm... No..because the word Liberal still means the Liberal party..... The Tea Party is not the Conservative party it is a movement started seprete that has a certin set of ideals. And since I do not believe in some of those I feel it's my fucking right to not be labeled one...

Oct 13 - 04:51 PM

BCENS

B Cens

Umm... No. Liberal is a blanket term used to degrade anyone who disagrees with the right wing agenda.

Oct 13 - 05:01 PM

BCENS

B Cens

It's the polarization of politics, Owens. Black or white, there is no gray area. Consequences of a two-party system. Choose your allies wisely.

Oct 13 - 05:09 PM

Truman F.

Truman F

You called it. Mommy mommy the liberals are being mean, calling our piece-of-crap movie a piece of crap!

Oct 13 - 12:50 PM

Kevin McNamee

Kevin McNamee

It surprises nobody that the movie review trashes the film almost entirely for not being an accurate representation (authors opinion) of modern America. By those standards Gone With The Wind sucks. As is usually the case on Rotten Tomatoes any film from the right is trashed by all "professional" reviewers while any film from the left is absolutely drooled over. This is part of the reason why the opinion of film critics means nothing to movie goers, and all of the reason why rotten tomatoes does. Being able to see the opinion of other movie goers is actually relevant, whereas self important film critics are not.

Oct 12 - 01:56 AM

Matthew Sherrard

Matthew Sherrard

Alas, many people (if not most) have really terrible taste. Take action blockbusters and the like. Among the audience, 76% liked Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and it was absolutely abysmal. It deserves the 21% aggregate critic score it got.

To then say that these same folk are in the right when it comes to right-wing film, rather than those who are (usually) paid specifically to address the artistic merit and skill of the film, is a little silly. The problem is that you're offended that the film itself was declared to be not very good. It's HARD to make a good film. It's even harder to make a good film while you're preaching. If they failed, they would be among good company, as many good directors have failed in the past.

If you look to television these days, a large part of it is pablum. Reality TV has no storytelling at all, and its humongous success is analogous to a good audience rating. That says to me that all the audience rating gives us is a sign of how entertaining a film was. Were people diverted from their regular lives well enough? Sometimes that diversion comes from storytelling, captivating characters, and good cinematography. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen shows us that sometimes that diversion comes from giant robots and explosions, regardless of the quality of the story.

I think that film review deserves better, and that's what critics bring to the table. Thankfully RT showcases the critics. Otherwise, the site would suggest that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is ALMOST as good as Spartacus (1960).

Oct 12 - 02:27 AM

Kevin McNamee

Kevin McNamee

I think someone who is interested in a movie would find the opinions of other people interested in that movie considerably more relevant than the opinions of people who have no interest in the movie at all. Your Transformers reference is a perfect example, to people who are predisposed to see that kind of movie the opinion of other people who wanted to see that movie is actually more relevant. If those same people who wanted to see the movie like you found it lacking that would be a much more valuable opinion than someone who watched the movie but don't necessarily like that kind of movie.

Oct 13 - 02:10 AM

Truman F.

Truman F

None of that makes this movie any less a piece of crap.

Oct 14 - 07:02 AM

Matthew Sherrard

Matthew Sherrard

Also, regarding left-drool, you might want to take a look at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1183735-1183735-michael_moore_hates_america/ and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/slacker_uprising/

The critics actually liked "Michael Moore Hates America" more than the audience. You might try reading this, sometime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

Oct 12 - 02:36 AM

Jonathan Edward O.

Jon Owens

The problem is... for every 1 conservitive film that is a made there are 100 more liberal ones... And if that weren't unfair enough most of the Conservitive movies are severely under budgeted because Hollywood is a liberal hive and its hard to find funding.. That also means its hard to find actors which leads to less experienced ones... And that leads to bad reviews.... It's a vicious cycle

Oct 12 - 04:32 AM

Matthew Sherrard

Matthew Sherrard

Perhaps that's the free market baby. If people wanted to see your movies, they'd pay for them, right? :)

Oct 12 - 05:35 AM

David Priest

David Priest

As an aspiring film writer, and as a conservative, I disagree with you here. Basically, conservatives have been absent from Hollywood for quite some time, and it shows in conservative film; most of them are amateurish. (some break the mold, but that's the overwhelming sense I get.) If you watch this film, I'd be willing to bet you would agree it is just a poorly-made film. Especially when compared with some of the greatest filmmakers, regardless of their leanings. For example, Clint Eastwood is more conservative, and his films are brilliant. Sam Mendes is much more liberal, and his films are also brilliant. Tyler Perry is conservative, and his films are mediocre. Bill Mahar is very liberal, and what he has done is mediocre as well. Whether the movie gets made just depends upon whether people will watch it.

Oct 12 - 06:23 AM

AJ S.

AJ Specia

Most movies don't have an agenda. It's called mass culture. Furthermore, you're doing a great disservice to the movies that have an agenda by pigeonholing them into narrow definitions like "conservative" or "liberal". You can't go around expecting everyone or everything in the world to conform to petty party politics. There's a bigger picture out there, and you're missing the forest for the trees.

Oct 12 - 10:22 AM

Jamie Flower

Jamie Flower

Ayn Rand was not a conservative, so why would these Atlas Shrugged movies be conservative?

Oct 18 - 03:54 AM

Kevin McNamee

Kevin McNamee

I think someone who is interested in a movie would find the opinions of other people interested in that movie considerably more relevant than the opinions of people who have no interest in the movie at all. Your Transformers reference is a perfect example, to people who are predisposed to see that kind of movie the opinion of other people who wanted to see that movie is actually more relevant. If those same people who wanted to see the movie like you found it lacking that would be a much more valuable opinion than someone who watched the movie but don't necessarily like that kind of movie. The critics liking a Michael Moore film more than the audience kind of reinforces what I'm saying about the dramatic influence of personal politics in the reviews of professionals.

Oct 13 - 02:14 AM

AJ S.

AJ Specia

Being unrealistic is one thing. A movie completely failing to follow its own internal logic is entirely another thing. If a movie lacks even the slightest degree of believability, then why should I care what it's trying to tell me? That, of course, is a crippling flaw for a movie made for the sole purpose of sending a message.

Oct 12 - 10:18 AM

Joseph Minardi

Joseph Minardi

Yeah, and they also do lousy at the box office. Looks like the Market has spoken. Ooops!

Oct 12 - 03:48 PM

minke p.

minke pants

I loved the part in Gone With The Wind where the servants let the field hands in and they hang Ashley, Melanie, Rhett and Scarlett from the chandelier.

You want to talk biased consensus? How GWTW gets a pass as a great film rather than the despicable tale of spoiled parasitic rapist vermin feeding off the toil and misery of women and children is beyond me.

Oct 20 - 12:53 PM

Walter Foddis

Walter Foddis

That this movie is seen as "conservative" puzzles me. The political orientation is libertarian; that is, socially and economically liberal. Religious-social conservatives would disagree with much of the novel's secular and scientific worldview.

I think it's interesting to note that unlike Paul Ryan, who has recanted that he agreed with Rand's political philosophy (like a "true" politician), Gary Johnson (Libertarian Presidential candidate) is honest and unapologetic about his affinity for Atlas Shrugged and Rand's ideas.

Anyway, plan on seeing it tonight. Saw a trailer in which one of Dagny Taggart's employees repeats what John Galt said when he left the 20th Century Motor Company: "I will stop the motor of the world." Sends chills up my spine.

Note: My motto for responding to trolls: Silence is golden.

Oct 12 - 11:12 AM

Travis Willmann

Travis Willmann

Teabagger was self-imposed. Lesson: don't give yourself a name if you don't want to be known by it.
http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger

Oct 12 - 03:33 PM

Patrick Harnois

Patrick Harnois

For those of you saying that liberal movies are favored over conservative films by critics, look up the reviews for "The Men Who Stare at Goats."

I rest my case.

Oct 12 - 03:47 PM

Kevin McNamee

Kevin McNamee

That film was not overtly and directly political. Also it was a little trippy which can throw an audience.

Oct 13 - 02:16 AM

Noah Abraham G.

Noah Abraham Goucher

You know, it's very possible these movies get negative reviews because they suck? I mean, I *hate*, absolutely *hate* both the novel AND Objectivism, but if "Atlas Shrugged: Part I" was any good, I'd admit it. If it was flawlessly executed, I'd begrudgingly say that too. But no. "Atlas Shrugged: Part I" was shit. And I doubt this movie would be much better. Anybody who defends "Part I" is probably a lot guiltier of bias than the critics are.

Oct 12 - 04:52 PM

Bear Shelton

Bear Shelton

Based upon your obvious liberal biased, you would be hard pressed (it would probably be impossible) to separate from your leftist perspective and give an objective opinion about the film, as do the professional critics. Throughout history, Leftist are the least tolerant in society, they only tolerate people who believe like them.

Oct 12 - 08:14 PM

Bear Shelton

Bear Shelton

Based upon your obvious liberal biased, you would be hard pressed (it would probably be impossible) to separate from your leftist perspective and give an objective opinion about the film, as it is for the professional critics who are leftist. Throughout history, Leftist are the least tolerant in society, they only tolerate people who believe like them.

Oct 12 - 08:15 PM

David Barry

David Barry

Nice stereotyping.

Oct 12 - 10:35 PM

Noah Abraham G.

Noah Abraham Goucher

Alright then. Defend "Atlas Shrugged: Part I." Explain to me how it's a good movie.

Oct 12 - 11:40 PM

Kevin McNamee

Kevin McNamee

It was an entirely unique story, which I hear year after year is something people complain there is not enough of. I would also suggest that the acting and writing were not nearly as bad as people who hated the movie suggest. Given the overt blackballing this movie received I think they should get a little extra credit for actually making it happen.

Oct 13 - 02:22 AM

Anthony R.

Anthony Rubino

"If this were any good, I'd admit it"
"NUH-UH. LEFTIST LEFTIST LEFTIST"
For all her "interesting" outlooks, Rand at least considered herself an intellectual. Exactly what purpose do you serve in the movement beside barking like a rabid dog?

Oct 13 - 07:37 AM

BCENS

B Cens

Nazis were reactionary, and their history is pretty intolerant, IMHO.

Oct 13 - 04:53 PM

BCENS

B Cens

Nazis were reactionary, and they were quite intolerant of outsiders and dissenting voices, IMHO.

Oct 13 - 04:58 PM

Chris Whittaker

Chris Whittaker

Even the libertarians (Reason Magazine) thought Part 1 was excrement.

Oct 13 - 11:12 AM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile