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

Opening

97% Guardians of the Galaxy Aug 01
—— Get On Up Aug 01
93% Calvary Aug 01
—— Behaving Badly Aug 01
50% Child Of God Aug 01

Top Box Office

58% Lucy $43.9M
62% Hercules $29.8M
91% Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes $16.8M
57% The Purge: Anarchy $10.5M
43% Planes: Fire And Rescue $9.5M
18% Sex Tape $6.1M
17% Transformers: Age of Extinction $4.7M
16% And So It Goes $4.6M
23% Tammy $3.5M
90% A Most Wanted Man $2.7M

Coming Soon

—— Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Aug 08
—— Step Up: All In Aug 08
—— Into The Storm Aug 08
—— The Hundred-Foot Journey Aug 08
86% What If Aug 08

New Episodes Tonight

—— The Fosters: Season 2
—— Hit the Floor: Season 2
—— Longmire: Season 3
—— Major Crimes: Season 3
73% Murder in the First: Season 1
—— Switched at Birth: Season 3
67% Teen Wolf: Season 4
62% Under the Dome: Season 2

Discuss Last Night's Shows

—— Agatha Christie's Poirot : Season 12
100% Falling Skies: Season 4
79% Halt and Catch Fire: Season 1
64% The Last Ship: Season 1
100% Last Tango in Halifax: Season 2
69% The Leftovers: Season 1
60% The Lottery: Season 1
91% Manhattan: Season 1
100% Masters of Sex: Season 2
50% The Musketeers: Season 1
78% Ray Donovan: Season 2
46% Reckless: Season 1
87% The Strain: Season 1
50% True Blood: Season 7
—— Unforgettable: Season 2
80% Vicious: Season 1
—— Witches of East End: Season 2

Certified Fresh TV

85% The Bridge (FX): Season 2
83% Extant: Season 1
79% Halt and Catch Fire: Season 1
91% Manhattan: Season 1
100% Masters of Sex: Season 2
73% Murder in the First: Season 1
97% Orange is the New Black: Season 2
97% Orphan Black: Season 2
82% Satisfaction: Season 1
87% The Strain: Season 1
85% Welcome to Sweden: Season 1
77% You're the Worst: Season 1

Atlas Shrugged: Part II Reviews

Page 1 of 31
hunterjt13
hunterjt13

Super Reviewer

June 29, 2013
Ayn Rand's industrialists fight against the Fair Share Act, which further strangles the economy.
First, the most unfortunate thing about this film was the endorsement that the real Sean Hannity gave to the fictional Hank Rearden. Additionally, protesters directly referenced the Occupy Wall Street rhetoric. The one-to-one relationship between the modern day right wing and Rand's objectivists is bullshit, and it's a shame that this film's creators got sucked into Rand's abduction by the right wing. After all the contemporary right wing is in the pocket of conservative Christians, yet Rand was an ardent atheist; the modern day right wing gives welfare to corporate fat cats whom Rand would consider looters. What does this have to do with the film? The iconography of the protesters and Hannity place the film in our historical moment, not Rand's, which takes us out of the film's world.
Second, I was impressed with Samantha Mathis's performance. Her Dagny was given more to human emotion, which played peek-a-boo amid Dagny's characteristic stoicism. But her acting was the best of the cast. I particularly disliked Jason Beghe's gravel-voiced Rearden.
Finally, the film is poorly paced. The speeches by Readen and Francisco belong in the film, but director John Putch should have taken a walking and talking page from Aaron Sorkin's book to give the film some energy, and the montages of poverty do little to add to the plot.
Overall, this is a controversial film not because Rand is a controversial figure (even though she is) but primarily because the film doesn't really get her.
Cynthia S

Super Reviewer

June 26, 2013
What the heck happened here? They changed the actors for almost EVERY role from the part 1 of this saga. Whose bright idea was that?? This could have been an interesting continuing story, but I found the new actors way too distracting....were they all busy? sheesh...
boxman
boxman

Super Reviewer

February 19, 2013
You'd think after the horrible and horribly boring Atlas Shrugged: Part One that a promised Part Two might just disappear into the ether. If only we could have been so fortunate. Ayn Rand's cautionary opus about the evils of big government is given another creaky adaptation that fails to justify its existence. I feel like I could repeat verbatim my faults with the first film. Once again we don't have characters but mouthpieces for ideology, an ideology that celebrates untamed greed. Once again the "best and brightest" (a.k.a. world's richest) are disappearing and the world is grinding to a halt without their necessary genius. Does anyone really think if the world's billionaires left in a huff that the world would cease to function? The assumption that financial wealth equates brilliance seems fatally flawed. Once again it's in a modern setting where America has gone back in time to value railroads. Once again the main thrust of the inert drama is over inconsequential railway economics. Once again people just talk in circles in cheap locations. Once again the government agencies are a bunch of clucking stooges, eager to punish successful business. Once again Rand's Objectivist worldview is treated as gospel and value is only ascribed to the amount of money one can produce. This time we have a slightly better budget, a better director, and some recognizable actors like Samantha Manthis, Esai Morales, Ray Wise, Richard T. Jones, and D.B. Sweeney as the mysterious John Gault. The story transitions to a ridiculous government mandate that include such incomprehensible edicts like making sure no one spends more money than another person. Can you imagine the paperwork involved? This woeful sequel will only appeal to Rand's most faithful admirers, and you probably don't want to hang out with those people anyway. There's your clue: if you see someone carrying a copy of Atlas Shrugged: Part Two they either lack taste or are far too generous with movies. If there is indeed a concluding Part Three, it will be further proof that Rand's market-based screeds are not accurate. The market has already rejected two of these dreadful movies.

Nate's Grade: D
Dann M

Super Reviewer

July 23, 2012
Atlas Shrugged: Part II - The Strike is a compelling and provocative film that brings Ayn Rand's classic novel to life. The saga continues with Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden struggling to hold off a total economic collapse while an oppressive government tightens their control and leading industrialists mysteriously disappear. Part II has recast all of the major roles from Part I, which is rather off putting and doesn't really benefit the film. However, the directing has improved and gives the film more of a cinematic quality. Additionally, the special effects are well done, and are used quite effectively to add energy and excitement to the film. While Atlas Shrugged: Part II - The Strike doesn't capture the epic quality of the material, it still delivers a solid dramatic thriller.
Sylvester K

Super Reviewer

July 7, 2014
Hold on a second critics! Just because you don't agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't mean you need to give it unrealistically low rating. I see so much political bias right here. I do admit that Part II was disappointing, but it does not deserve such a low rating, even the consensus was biased in its tone. Let's talk about the good points, the set design was better, I really liked atmosphere (basically like Chicago or Detroit). james Taggart was better cast compared to Part I, Cheryl Brooks was a good cast too. The editing was great, although some changes were made in terms of the structure of the plot. Now the bad: The script was superficial, only touched on the surface of the dialogues, much of the dialogues from the book were cut short. Acting by some of the less important characters were terrible. Some of the recasting were horrible, e.g. Francisco d'Anconia and Lilian Rearden. There were a lot of irrelevant scenes that could be replaced by more dialogues (the money speech really was destroyed). Despite having these downfalls, I wouldn't say it was badly filmed and consider the low budget, they made this imperfect film perfect.
dbocek2011
February 17, 2014
This film is Ayn Rand's ode to the joy of alternative energy. I thought the acting in this film was not as good as the original, but the plot was filled with more substance. I am not a fan of Rand, & the plot is highly unrealistic in many scenes; but still very entertaining. The film once again does bring up some really good points about government over reaching, but the plot is a stretch for much of the plot. I also found the main characters to be too blaise about the plight of their fellow citizens which is typical in Rand's novels. There is too much focus on "me" rather than the common good. Sometimes I thought are these people living in an intellectual vacuum where everyone is greedy & self-interested?? The movie is almost too smart for itself. I actually thought "The Fountainhead" from the 1950's was a lot better than these. I also thought it was more realistic. This film is worth seeing but not a great intellectual piece. You have to know going in what this is to really like it.
December 14, 2013
Part 2 is visually impressive but less so than Part 1, which unfortunately was practically the only good thing about the first film. The story continues to be thoroughly absurd -- but that is the fault of Ayn Rand, not of the filmmakers. The characters in Part 2 are less cartoonish than they were in Part 1 but they still say stupid lines of unrealistic dialog. The new cast is pretty good but like the cast of Part 1, their performances are limited by the unrealism of the characters and thye bad dialog they have to speak.
June 11, 2013
It is most unfortunate that I cannot tell you that Part II of the Atlas Shrugged trilogy is any better than the first one. It might be slightly better but that is in NO way a ringing endorsement of the film and I still advise ALL to not waste his/her time on the shoddy film. Picking up where the last film left off (who cares) and completely ditching the original's cast of actors (ALL of them), this film is a mess. The film doesn't care if one has watched the first or not and this film unwisely begins at its end which would make it all the more confusing for a first time viewer. I would expect people to watch a series from the beginning; but it should never be that a film cannot stand on its own if it were done well. This film would make no sense (it makes little as is) for a newbie to the series ... and this doesn't bode well. Although, as the film is all about the free market and leaving millions behind who are less fortunate, than this shouldn't really come as a surprise. I have read Ayn Rand's source material here, and the storyline is interesting even though I am repulsed by her political agenda and non-egalitarian beliefs. The problem with these films is that no major studio (or independent director with any talent) has had any input into these disasters. They are low-quality with poorly written scripts. The acting is better in this one -- Samantha Mathis, Jason Beghe, Esai Morales and Patrick Fabian are all decent -- but their characters are paper-thin and mostly enigmatic. With no explanation of why people keep asking "Who is Jon Galt?" (because you have to spend money to watch the first one!) this film will be an utter head-scratcher to most. Instead of asking that, most will ask "who cares?" The book deserves better than it is getting but perhaps this is a karma thing. Sorry Ayn.
emilydardaman
October 22, 2012
I went on a daddy daughter date, and it was cute to see my dad get excited about a movie for the first time in 10+ years. Also, AS is the smartest person I know's favorite book. Normally i'm a big "read the book first or else" type of person, but honestly it looked too long and too Ayn Randy to attempt, so I watched the movies. I'm sincerely hoping the book was better, because this movie was complete and utter garbage. No redeeming features at all. None.
eknappman
October 21, 2012
Not surprising critics don't get it. I haven't heard of this movie before. Just happend to see it. I am an employer of 15 people. There are days I want to throw in the towel (not looking to blow up my business before I leave). I feel taxed and regulated from every angle.
October 18, 2012
But OMG there's a Penn Jilette cameo!

Ignore the half-star up there. Were I allowed to by Flixster this turd of a movie wouldn't even have any stars. If you've never read Ayn Rand's 1957 novel (guilty as charged) or seen it's 2011 predecessor (unfortunately I have), you may not know what you're in for. Otherwise if you've at least seen Part I, then you likely know that Atlas Shrugged Part II is as tepid and headache-inducing as the first. It's a stupid person's idea of what a smart movie is. For starters, almost the entire cast has been replaced for some inexplicable reason. There's also a new director (John Putch in for Paul Johansson), but it doesn't matter. The movie is still laughably amateurish, shot in unflattering digital that not even the cheapest of television movies would be caught dead using. It makes King Vidor's heated adaptation of The Fountainhead (which I happen to like) look like a bona fide masterpiece. And like Part I, Atlas Shrugged Part II, with a laughable excuse of a script from Brian Patrick O'Toole, Duncan Scott and Duke Sandefur, isn't a movie looking to present content for interpretation or anything resembling thought, it's only interested in talking at you about the ills and evils of federal regulation. You can get that for free on Fox News. And yet the most laugh-inducing moment doesn't even occur in the movie (despite cameos from blowhards Sean Hannity, Grover Norquist and the aforementioned Jillette) but during it's credits, in which the logo for the I.A.T.S.E. scrawls up. An ironic reminder to the true believers (read: Teabagger and Libertarian rubes) that this production was a unionized one.

But OMG it's got Sean Hannity in it!
cahatch
October 13, 2012
An excellent series! I am amazed at people thinking this is political. Not one political party was mentioned. However it shows the last days of a failing future society that ran too long on socialistic principles. Its just showing the stark difference between providers and looters (hivers and takers if you will) in the last days of a society. If you think this can never happen just look at Europe. Cars burning, 45percent unemployeement in the younger generations, protests and riots. Even the occupy riots here for that matter. It's mild now, but it is the eventual downfall of the "human empire".

The acting and action was better that the first and my wife never read the book but followed exactly what was going in story. I wish they showed unions and the world scene and the "bailouts" to Europe- but you can't do everything in a movie.

Keep it up!!!
schmiegdogg
October 12, 2012
Good movie. The actors were better than in the first movie. While I'd like to believe that the premise of this movie is over the top, it seems far more realistic than not. I felt this movie portrayed the over expansive roll of government in a very correct and alarming manner. Nice to see the other side of the coin in a movie every now and then.
July 14, 2014
The human scrotum is a very delicate body part. Professional torturers are taught to inflict pain on the scrotum either through electrical shocks or hot needles, as it causes a great amount of pain but will not kill the victim. Even with that knowledge in mind, scrotal torture is more appealing to me, than ever watching this film again
Sylvester K

Super Reviewer

July 7, 2014
Hold on a second critics! Just because you don't agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't mean you need to give it unrealistically low rating. I see so much political bias right here. I do admit that Part II was disappointing, but it does not deserve such a low rating, even the consensus was biased in its tone. Let's talk about the good points, the set design was better, I really liked atmosphere (basically like Chicago or Detroit). james Taggart was better cast compared to Part I, Cheryl Brooks was a good cast too. The editing was great, although some changes were made in terms of the structure of the plot. Now the bad: The script was superficial, only touched on the surface of the dialogues, much of the dialogues from the book were cut short. Acting by some of the less important characters were terrible. Some of the recasting were horrible, e.g. Francisco d'Anconia and Lilian Rearden. There were a lot of irrelevant scenes that could be replaced by more dialogues (the money speech really was destroyed). Despite having these downfalls, I wouldn't say it was badly filmed and consider the low budget, they made this imperfect film perfect.
July 3, 2014
Watched it on netflix, even if you like Ayn Rand stay away.
October 14, 2012
Great book...good movie interpretation. The Hollywood crowd will hate it because it shows them that their philosophy of life is wrong.
Jeremy R.
April 28, 2014
I have no idea what the critics were watching. The audience meter is obviously much more appropriate. Hopefully part 3 wont be a letdown.
JESTERKING45
April 25, 2014
Slightly better but still awful.
February 23, 2014
I don't hate Ayn Rand, I feel sorry for her. She worshiped meritocracy so ardently, but was there ever such a pi$$-poor writer? And dramatic films based on hysterical polemics are rarely watchable. Maybe it would work better as a comedy?why don't we let Buck Henry take a crack at Atlas Shrugged?
Page 1 of 31
Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile