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.

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