Poorly written, clumsily filmed and edited, and hampered by amateurish acting, Atlas Shrugged: Part II does no favors to the ideology it so fervently champions. Read critic reviews
What to know
You might also like
See More
Cesar Chavez
Wendy
Bigger
Rebel in the Rye
Girl Most Likely
Where to watch
Rate And Review
-
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
How did you buy your ticket?
-
Fandango
-
AMCTheatres.com or AMC AppNew
-
Cinemark Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Regal Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Theater box office or somewhere else
Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 Photos
Movie Info
With the world's economy on the brink of collapse, Dagny Taggart discovers a possible solution to the global energy crisis.
-
Rating: PG-13 (Brief Language)
-
Genre: Drama
-
Original Language: English
-
Director: John Putch
-
Producer: John Aglialoro, Jeff Freilich, Harmon Kaslow
-
Writer: Duke Sandefur, Brian Patrick O'Toole, Duncan Scott
-
Release Date (Theaters): wide
-
Release Date (Streaming):
-
Box Office (Gross USA): $3.3M
-
Runtime:
-
Distributor: Atlas Distribution Company
-
Production Co: Cinema Vehicle Services
Cast & Crew
News & Interviews for Atlas Shrugged: Part 2
Critic Reviews for Atlas Shrugged: Part 2
Audience Reviews for Atlas Shrugged: Part 2
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
nathan z Super Reviewer
Verified