Next installment planned for Atlas Shrugged

Last Updated: April 14, 2014By Tags:

The mysterious and tentacular power of the Ayn Rand-inspired movie “Atlas Shrugged: Part I” is again on display. As reported by Rebecca Kegan of The L.A. Times, “Atlas” will not only be released as DVD in the Fall but production on the next part of the trilogy will go on according to the film’s producer, fitness equipment executive John Aglialoro (he’s the CEO of Cybex International) – read the full article here.

See Arthur Tiersky’s REVIEW.


  1. Arthur T. July 5, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Hi…Just wanted to respond to the most recent comment I just noticed on my review, since it doesn’t look like comments can be posted there anymore. Okay, “James Scott”, let’s chat…

    >>Look, who among the intelligentsia would waste time debating the movie with one who admits he didn’t understand it, couldn’t follow it, and therefore didn’t like it?

    Sorry, no, I didn’t say that. I named a number of reasons I didn’t like it, among which was that it was confusing and impenetrable to those who hadn’t read the book. Which your argument confirms about a billion times over and accomplishes little else, but what the hell, onward…

    >>Your review is poorly written, you employ invective to no end, and from all appearances, your motivation for seeing the movie at all was to write this “review.” It appears you decided before you saw the movie that you didn’t like it.

    Sorry, no. I’ll happily concede that I SUSPECTED that I would not like the movie, mainly because the trailers and clips I’d seen made it appear to take dullness to new, unexplored levels, but I never go in intending to write a bad review. It just kinda worked out that way, you know?

    >>You freely admit you’re unqualified to review the movie; didn’t pay attention, don’t really understand what the movie is about, or anything about the underlying subject.

    Sorry, no, I never said I was “unqualified” to review the movie. I said the movie was not aimed at me, it was aimed at fans of Rand and the book, of which I am not one, so those who are should keep in mind that I’m speaking as a non-member of your little club.

    And I want to reiterate here: If one needs to be a fan of, or even merely have read, the book that the movie is based on in order to understand and appreciate it, then the movie is shit. It’s not even a movie, it’s just a companion piece. It is not MY shortcoming for not having read it, it’s the MOVIE’S shortcoming for demanding that I do.

    >>You reviewed it anyway. And your review reads as follows: “I dint get it, so I dint like it. It was real…complicated and stuff, with lots of people, and too much talking and stuff. I got bored, so I thought about what color to paint my nails when I get home.”

    I don’t know what review you’re reading, but that’s not mine. My review was “This is an incredibly boring and confusing movie to anyone who hasn’t read the book.” And more, of course, but if one has to boil it down, there you go.

    >>I added the part about painting your nails, just to continue the analogy, you know. You didn’t mention painting your nails in the review.

    Uh, right. Zing!

    >>You don’t have to re-read it. I don’t want to be the cause of anyone having to read that a second time.

    This is a very long comment you’ve posted, and as with all the other comments, I’m STILL waiting for one substantive defense of the movie, as opposed to just zingers. Might help your case that the movie didn’t suck, you know? (That IS your case, right? Cause you really don’t say ANYTHING about the movie in this whole screed. Nothing! It’s kind of incredible.)

    >>If you had never seen a game, and all you knew of baseball was someone told you that a guy throws a ball at you at a hundred miles an hour, you have to hit the ball, and run around in a circle, and it’s no fun and no good, then would a movie about baseball be easy to understand; easy to follow? Do you think one would then be able to debate the merits of baseball or of the movie? Do you think a review of that movie by someone who doesn’t understand baseball could have much value?

    Crappy analogy. A sport isn’t a work of art. A sport is a game. You know the rules of the game, you can watch and understand the game. Nothing wrong with that.

    But a movie (like any work of art) should stand on its own. Once again: If you need to have read a book before having seen the movie, the movie is a failure. Once again: I could effortlessly name hundreds of adaptations of books that stand on their own as great pieces of art and entertainment. Why in the world should THIS MOVIE be the exception and demand that its audience have read the book first? And now that it’s out on video…Is the guy who picks up the movie at Blockbuster never having heard of Ayn Rand or this book screwed? And is that his fault? If he doesn’t “get it” because he was completely unfamiliar with the source material, you’ll tell him the same thing, that he should have read the book first? Cause that’s fair.

    >>You’re in much the same situation. You’ve been told some things about Rand and Objectivism, and you accept them as Gospel. You could actually read some of her work and make a qualified judgement.

    Again: I’m passingly familiar with her work and her views, but again, and more importantly: I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO BE. A movie should stand on its own. Why is that so hard to comprehend? It’s quite possibly the most obvious thing in the world. I really have to explain this to someone on a site named “Screen Comment”?

    >>I suppose it would be too much to expect that you would come prepared for the job you accepted.

    The job I accepted was to review THE MOVIE. That’s it. The movie. No outside reading required or expected. And again I’ll ask: Any substantive comments about THE MOVIE, speaking of? Or just more zingers?

    >>Let me say it again: you didn’t follow the movie, you don’t understand the subject, and your wandering mind didn’t help you learn anything about the subject.

    You didn’t need to say it again. Asked and answered above.

    >>You lack the foundation to understand the movie on a fundamental level. You do not lack the wherewithal to change that; just go to the library and check out any Rand book.

    Again: SHOULDN’T HAVE TO. Again: Any thoughts on THE MOVIE?

    >>The Fountainhead is rather short, with very few big words. You won’t do that. You already know everything you need to know. You don’t want to go cluttering up your mind with facts. Now, you do understand this is what you’ve stated, correct?

    Okay, so just more zingers? Big “no” on the whole “substantive point about the movie” thing?

    And incidentally, the movie of “The Fountainhead”? Perfectly approachable for those who haven’t read the book. See? It CAN be done! And all your comments have succeeded in doing is confirming beyond all argument that THIS movie failed at that basic task. Thank you for making my argument for me.

    >>Your writing…please, just stop. Perhaps if you read your work before you published it you’d do a little better. Five sentences begin with the word “So.” Avoid constructions such as: “Anyway.” That’s not a sentence, and while I know you’re using it to effect, the effect is juvenile.

    Seriously? Not a single substantive point about THE MOVIE in this screed, but you’re expending energy to critique my writing style and grammar? Seriously?

    >>Try being a bit less snide, or, well, maybe not snide at all.

    Oh, okay, Mr. “not a lot of big words” and “thought about painting your nails”. Teach me about not being snide. All ears here.

    >>Finally, if you don’t understand a movie, it is best not to open your mouth and let everyone know, especially in a review of said movie.

    If a movie is not understandable by those who have not read the book (as you indicate repeatedly this was), then it is actually my DUTY to make that clear to those who haven’t read the book and save them their hard-earned money.

    >>Makes one appear stupid. Sorry. I’m not saying you’re stupid, just that the devices you employed in this review, your lack of preparation, and your admission you don’t understand the material make it seem so.

    Defending the notion of a movie requiring “preparation” before viewing it, especially if said “preparation” is reading a thousand-page novel, appears far stupider to me than anything you’re describing.

    >>I’m hopeful you’ll see the distinction, though you missed the one between “I don’t understand it,” and “It’s bad.”

    I’m hopeful that someday, somehow, somewhere, someone will make a point that actually attempts to rebut the points I’ve made about the movie and not just take me to task for not having read the book first and other completely irrelevant crap.

    Dare to dream…

  2. Arthur T. July 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    And just to revisit this, because I kind of gave it short shrift:

    >>If you had never seen a game, and all you knew of baseball was someone told you that a guy throws a ball at you at a hundred miles an hour, you have to hit the ball, and run around in a circle, and it’s no fun and no good, then would a movie about baseball be easy to understand; easy to follow? Do you think one would then be able to debate the merits of baseball or of the movie? Do you think a review of that movie by someone who doesn’t understand baseball could have much value?

    Generally, when a movie is about a subject that not everyone is educated in, it takes it upon ITSELF to find ways to explain the important points. You might not come away from, say, “Searching for Bobby Fischer” completely understanding the game of chess, but the movie knows that it’s ITS job to help you understand the game ENOUGH that you can follow what’s going on. See how that works?

    Whereas, if I had needed to read the book, or any book about chess to appreciate the movie, then yes, it too would have been a failure movie. But I didn’t, so it wasn’t.

    And anyway, it’s a crappy analogy, because no one is saying that I didn’t “get” the movie because I’m not educated in the SUBJECT of it, i.e., train companies or steel companies. They’re saying THE NOVEL ITSELF needs to have been read first.

    And again I say: THAT’S WHAT MAKES IT BAD.

    And thank you for making my point.

Comments are closed.