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.