Review of Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) by Catherine S — 30 Nov 2013

When it comes to book to movie adaptations, the general sin committed is that the movie strays too far from the book to the point that the story is unrecognizable. Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 does not have this problem, but rather the opposite: It stays too close to the original. As a sort of summary on the first third of the book, the movie succeeds, but as an adaptation it fails miserably, giving nothing special to capture the audience's attention and not reaching the depths or nuances of Ayn Rand's philisophical notions in her original 1957 novel.

The film details the events of the novel from our introduction to the main characters to one of the supporting cast going missing after being given a mysterious offer from the equally mysterious John Galt (whose name is a recurring phrase throughout the entirity of the novel). Our main character, Dagny Taggart, is the vice president of Taggart Lines, the largest of the few remaining rail lines in the United States (airplanes do exist in this universe, but have been deemed "too expensive". So yeah, trains are the big thing in 2016.) Throughout the movie, she makes deals with her love interest's steel company, learns about the mysterious John Galt, and struggles to keep her company afloat against the government's opposition.

It's funny, my summary actually makes the movie seem more interesting than it is. In reality, this movie is a terrible bore. Ignoring the many ridiculous notions that the movie expects us to swallow (I know this novel was written in 1957, but it's difficult for the audience of 2013 to believe that by 2016 the United States have devolved into a socialist society with no mentioning of uprisings or riots), the film still suffers from just overall feeling very soulless. The actors (most with mainly TV backgrounds) give mixed performances, most damningly of all is Dagny Taggart's actress, who seemed to mix up being emotionally disconnected yet intelligent for being a horrible bore. Her delivery is flat and sinks any chance the film had with forming a connection with its audience. The visuals are similarly mixed; some scenes such as the shots of Colorado seem nicely done, but then you have the train effects and fire effects, which rival The Hunger Games for cheapest effects. The film really has the feel and look of a made for TV movie, and considering its budget, that's extremely shocking.

But worst of all, the film gives a very black and white description of Ayn Rand's views and perspectives she presents in the novel. Her overall statements, her ideology of Objectivism, is boiled down to "money good, government bad" in this film. Not only is this shocking, but it could be considered insulting to the work and legacy of Ayn Rand. Keep in mind that this film's script was written by an individual who studies Ayn Rand's work for a living. The film is a very shallow depiction of the novel; a very bare bones display that while will let you know what's going on in the novel, it won't help you understand why it's important. I can't recommend this film to anyone unless you're studying Rand for an English class and looking up Cliff Notes on the book seemed too simple to do. Or, you know, actually reading the book.