<p>It opened here, but wasn’t screened in the two closest movie theaters to home or at the complex in the town where I work. When I finally found one which carried it, it was sold out last night, and today’s show (which was full too) was aborted after we had a power hit that damaged the projector, so I never saw the ending to part I. </p>
<p>Needless to say there was no way that the movie could maintain the details of the book; interesting concept was that while the movie followed the plot reasonably well, it was set in the future. Hope they make enough money for parts II and III, and hope the theaters, barring the one that carried it, are not so short-sighted with independent movies.</p>
<p>LOL - tsdad, that is exactly what I was going to say! </p>
<p>I remember my intense boyfriend giving me a copy of Ayn Rand and saying that I had to read it in order to fully understand the greatness that was him … and so I pulled an all-nighter in the library reading it under the flickering fluourescent lights and then I had an epiphany … It was time to dump him, which I promptly did, LOL.</p>
<p>Whether or not you like Rand’s philosophy (and I certainly don’t), the woman couldn’t write her way out of a paper bag. How good could a movie be, based on her cardboard characters?</p>
<p>I was a big Rand fan (it lasted through law school) and my son got on the bandwagon as a high school student. He started a Friday night philosophy group at his boarding school where they debated Rand et al. (It led to some neat college recs mentioning all the varsity athletes in heated philosophical debate…) Not sure if he is over it or not yet.</p>
<p>What Booklady and wuggroe said. It hurts to read some of her descriptive passages. And the cardboard characters - how did an editor let her get away with them? I could never read her long enough to pay much attention to the underlying philosophy. She has her fans, though.</p>
<p>Read the book (and The Fountainhead) a long time ago – HS maybe? Can’t remember many details. H had never read any Rand stuff, but did recently. We went to the movie Sunday evening – theater not even half full. We enjoyed the movie for what it is – a movie! Hope the other 2 parts get made just to finish the story.</p>
<p>Do you honestly think a Super(wo)man like Rand would let some mediocre editor trifle with her great vision? :)</p>
<p>Actually, if you cut out all the pedantic grandstanding in her writing, so-called Objectivism makes sense: The world would be a better place if every individual set out to make it the best place for himself or herself. This doesn’t require trampling people, because for many of us, the best thing for us as individuals is to share with and support others. And anyway, people are going to get trampled in any system, even one purportedly based on selflessness (e.g., communism). Why not just acknowledge that every system tramples people, and then decide not to be the one who gets trampled, and maybe even dedicate oneself to ensuring that others don’t get trampled, either?</p>
<p>[aaaaaaand cue 10,000-post thread that resolves nothing]</p>
<p>“There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.”</p>
<p>Wow, there must be many very accomplished novelists who have really made their marks on the literary world here on this thread . . . so much dripping sarcasm from folks whose literary exploits seem to be . . . posting on CC! </p>
<p>I think I read The Fountainhead a very, very long time ago and read it to the finish and it sort of stayed with me . . . it would not occur to me to be so viciously contemptuous of any writer, certainly not that author. </p>
<p>Oh, and stifling a movie – attempting to cut-off it’s avenues for screening . . . uh . . . that’s just weird and ugly and not what our country is about. </p>
<p>I’m glad for this thread. Did not even know of the film but now I will seek it out – and try another of her books. I really can’t stand suppression and people who use contempt rather than valid arguments to put anything or anyone down.</p>
<p>"Oh, and stifling a movie – attempting to cut-off it’s avenues for screening . . . uh . . . that’s just weird and ugly and not what our country is about. "</p>
<p>Where do you get that? Who on this thread is trying to “stifle” the movie?</p>
<p>Criticizing a book =/= stifling. Attempting to shame people whose viewpoints differ from your own, on the other hand…</p>
<p>The professional critics got there before we mere CCers. </p>
<p>The movie made $1.7 million over its opening weekend. I don’t think any of us who noted Rand’s shortcomings as a novelist can really take credit for the film’s poor showing, even if we were trying to be weird and ugly and … what were we trying to do, exactly? I thought that not liking an author’s work because of his/her writing style was a valid reason. Oh, dear … dripping sarcasm always confuses me.</p>
<p>^^^It only opened in 80 markets or so, and that did not include the one I live in. It is hard to have a big opening weekend if there is no big national roll-out.</p>
<p>I look forward to eventually seeing it. Movies about ideas, even if the book they are based on is not a classic literary gem, are more interesting to me than movies about shlock, no matter how slick the shlock is.</p>
<p>EDIT: ‘slick shlock’ is rather difficult to say, isn’t it? Guess it won’t catch on.</p>
<p>Yes, it would be interesting to know what the marketing strategy was - and why it wound up being such a low-budget production, when it was sought by A-list producers at one time. I read years ago that Angelina Jolie was interested in playing the lead. Not many big names in the cast, though I have loved Michael O’Keefe since “The Great Santini” (and “Caddyshack,” if we want to talk schlock :)). Just noticed on IMDB that this is the director’s first feature film, though he’s a well-established actor and is also playing John Galt.</p>
<p>IMDB also reports that the movie was released on 299 screens in those 80 markets and took in about $5600 per venue. Maybe that’s good for a small release. rottentomatoes gives it 7 percent from the critics but 85 percent from the audience. So they weren’t listening to us here - whew!</p>
<p>Well, the 85 percent from the audience doesn’t surprise me too much, since it is probably a pretty selective audience, and they are probably inclined to think highly of it. I disagree with critics quite a bit, so by itself the 7% doesn’t discourage me.</p>
<p>It has been so long since I read Rand’s better known books that I don’t even trust whatever my opinions were at the time regarding writing style. I read “We the People” a few years ago, when I found it lying around my house (son must have been reading it). I think it was her first book. I didn’t think it was well-written, but I am interested in first-hand accounts of people who experienced the Russian Revolution and escaped it, and from-the-inside accounts of how centralized education systems are used by totalitarian regimes to solidify support. I didn’t approach it as a work of art, so I thought it was worth my time. Once.</p>
<p>My problem with Rand is I have never read a flattering account of her personality. Even those who don’t take great issue with the general flavor of her political philosophy seem to have difficulty liking her.</p>