LouHomey From my favorite movies..

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

jason_wisdom I am a big fan of the book, and I liked the first movie. That said, this was awful.The story is rushed, character development is thin to none, and some of the best scenes from the book are missing. Whether or not you agree with Ayn Rand, she understood the beast (in her opinion) very well, and represented the conflict through engaging dialogue in fiction. There is none of that here. Instead, there is a string of passionate speeches given by the central star but he comes across somewhere between a crazy man on the New York subway, and a poorly edited Anonymous speaker on YouTube. He does not come across as a veritable world leader. There are cameos from various B-list news figureheads, making this appear more a reunion of The Celebrity Apprentice than beautiful fictional story with a timely message.Like others, I saw it to complete the trilogy, and out of respect for an integrity-based way of doing business that is legitimately threatened today. This movie does not help the cause.

atafero This entire series is awful. It is as bland as baloney on white bread without any mayo. The actors are like zombies, the director doesn't have a clue, the storyline is convoluted, and the capitalist philosophy borders on the hilarious. The film also grossly exaggerates the possible impact of socialism in the United States as well. Hello! Bullet Trains in China travel at 300 MPH, why would anyone get excited over trains that travel over 100 MPH?The new engine idea comes from a GM prototype invented in 1974 by Frank Guida, a super-cleaned coal dust which reduced harmful emissions by 600% and increased fuel efficiency by over 400%, but was never used by the company (one of the reasons they are always lagging behind the competition).But this is about the three TV episodes; I really wouldn't classify them as movies. They are box office poison, as evidenced by the minute sales of their showings. The production values are about the only thing to praise in the film, but that is not nearly enough to rescue this string of turkeys. Save your time and money and take out the book from the library.Arthur H Tafero AskMrMovies.comPS This trilogy is going straight into my Turkey Farm on the site

Razvan Preda The mind on strike! What if the world's most talented and hard-working people would go on strike leaving behind the tax collectors and greedy bureaucrats? One should see all three parts of "Atlas Shrugged" for Ayn Rand's message rather than for quality of production, although it's a much better option to read the book. The whole series is based on an over 1000 page book written in 1957, which was a fiction novel at that time. Now it can be moved to the non fiction section, because the future described in the book is becoming reality. It happens at a slow rate, like the pollution and the global warming, therefore public perception is low. The plot of the movie is not about "a revolution made by the rich for the rich" as one reviewer wrote. In the background of the story, which focuses - for dramatic purpose - on a few wealthy people (successful, creative and hard-working), there are engineers, doctors, simple employees who go on strike. John Galt himself, the inventor of the revolutionary engine, is just an employee, not a rich man. Towards the end of the movie, a lineman calls Eddie Willers saying: -"Hey, it's not my place to tell you, but nobody else will. We're about to have a disaster on our hands." This lineman goes on strike too but he certainly doesn't leave his workplace because he is a "greedy, selfish capitalist". Ayn Rand doesn't encourage people to be greedy and selfish but to take care of themselves first so they can be in a better position to help others. One reviewer is concerned about "who does the actual 'work' in Galt's Gulch? Who built the cabins?" Workers like the nameless lineman could have done the actual "work".Some negative reviews imply that real-world economy is bad due to the greed of large corporation owners. But can rich company owners, such as Bill Gates or Christy Walton be blamed for any economic turmoil? I just picked up 2 random names of very rich company owners as examples of real-world equivalents for Henry Rearden (a creator of new technology) and Dagny Taggart (an inheritor of a prosperous business). Responsible for the economic crisis in the real world are the financial institutions, banks, lenders who gave money to people that could never pay back, creating phony assets. Government is bailing them out by printing money, by taxing productive companies and by taxing people who produce and create. The Atlas Shrugged series draws here a clear line, in part II, when it shows how most financial institutions don't lend money to Dagney Taggart for building the Galt line. More than that, there's an emblematic dialog between Dagny and Midas, after Dagny arrives in Galt's Gulch, in this movie (part III): - "How did you get here Midas?" - "Me? I made my fortune lending people money to buy houses and build businesses, and I only loaned to those people I was confident could repay me." - "They called me heartless, which I could live with. But when they forced me to give loans to people who could never pay me back, I got the hell out." Real-world Franklin Raines 'earned' 90 million USD in salary and bonuses while he was head of Fannie Mae and I guess that he's not one of those who would admire or stand for a guy like Midas. I'm curios if he ever gives to charity any of the money he earned producing disaster. Gates gives to charity some of the money he earns producing technology! And this reminds me of another line in the movie: "We honor charity and benevolence, but it must be provided on the givers terms...voluntarily and not by force". How much of the money that governments are forcing people to pay is used wisely?As an impartial observer of USA politics (I am not American), I see that Republicans and Democrats cooperate well to satisfy their greed ( "Paulson financial rescue plan", the meltdown of the Middle East, etc.), regardless of the excuses used later for confusing the electorate. Politicians' interests lead always to cross-party collaborations that are detrimental to peoples' interests. That's part of Ayn Rand's message. "I am offering you Wesley Mouch's Job. Now, there's nothing bigger than that. [...] In Washington, everyone's going to want to be your best friend. You're going to have power!" Thompson says to John Galt. Galt answers: "But that kind of job shouldn't exist. No one should have that kind of power." Despite the budgetary constraints, which had a strong impact on the quality of the movie, the producers made an admirable effort to present Ayn Rand's message, condensing it brilliantly: "This is a strike of our minds. [...] We're not trying to impose our values on the world we left behind. They're free to continue to believe as they want, whatever they want, but they're going to have to do it without our help. [...] We know what it takes to build something and how little recognition you get from the outside world. [...] The people on strike worked for their own vision of what was possible. They rebelled against the quilt you wanted them to feel for their own success. You counted on them to keep producing, to keep thinking. [...] I showed them they were being punished for their own virtues, and I showed them how evil that is. [...] All evil needs to win...is the consent of good people."The missing production values have been pointed out by other reviewers extensively, that's why I'm not mentioning them. It's quite painful to see the ending, for which there was probably no production budget left. However, the movie is worth watching.Considering the production difficulties, it is unreasonable to evaluate this movie based on market response only, like some reviewer suggest. I agree with the comment: "let's hope, like Dune, the film is the impetus for a better quality miniseries".

TheDancingPanda-692-744536 Let me start off by saying, I hate the idea of reviewing a movie without finishing. Especially a move that's only 90 or so long. But then comes a series like atlas shrugged.I loved the first one. Had no interest in the concept but I found it compelling. Hate Taylor schilling, but thought she nailed dagny, and played the best role of her career. I made the mistake of getting invested into the cliffhanger of a series.then part 2 came. The worst sequel of any series ever. Every.single.actor changed. I know why, and I understand it. But every single actor was a downgrade. Suddenly Dagny was a 39 year mother of two and the movie was filled with B-actors. I'm pretty sure I wrote my first IMDb review the night I saw it. Then part 3. Oh god. I've had it sitting here for free for a few days and I just kept finding excuses to avoid the heart break but here we go.Part 3. Immediately the very first thing you'll notice is it's cheap. Not charmingly indie low budget but straight up filmed in someone's freaking house with natural lighting cheap! I was done with the movie in the first scene.it lacks the Hollywood magic entirely. Right now I'm about 20 minutes in and it's so poor, that I've already decided to turn it off when I'm finished with my lengthy review. That's a first. A movie so bad that you have to write a poor review before you can not finish it.Also Dagny isn't as bloody awful of a fit as she was in part 2, but she's not better. She lacks all the elements that schilling brought to the character in the first movie. I noticed another reviewer say she in no way carrys herself in an executive mannor and that couldn't be more spot on. She has no character at all. She's simply a blonde woman that could be standing in line at Starbucks. She missed her calling as a background dancer because she's entirely unnoticeable. Also the childhood bf role choice is almost hilarious. He's clearly 20 years older. No leather jacket will put a band-aid on that reality. And galt. I won't go into the depths of the disappointment of that immediate reveal. He's clearly the lowest budget version of as close to Chris pine/josh duhamel they could find. If you didn't notice that watch it again and tell me I'm wrong. Cus he looks like their love child except near chubby and a lifeless actor.The narrating bits would haven't been so off putting if they weren't spoken by such a terrible, unlikeable, spiritless narrorator. And the editing. The editing is just what puts this movie into the unwatchable category. I'm not being mean to be mean when I tell you I'm subscribed to half a dozen YouTube channels that edit better in daily videos than this entire movie. Sony Vegas guys. It's only like $90. The actors across the board are not simply unknowns. They're bland cut outs in a film chicken winged by its terrible quality. The leads are bad. The supporting actors aren't bad enough to blame, but they're certainly forgettable. I gave the film a 3/10 because there were no boom mics dipping in the shots.its not funny bad or train wreck bad. It's simply poor. It's just the disappoint after the disaster after the tease (the series in reverse order if your poetic sense is lost). Part 2 was a 1 for me. So this isn't as flat out terrible. Part 1 was a 7.5-8.Bonus:Now to reflect that fact that this isn't about the budget but rather how the $5,000,000 was used here is a list of good and great movies that you SHOULD WATCH made for $6,000,000 or lessThe guard, beginners, paranormal activity 1 ($15,000!only $15,000!!!), saw 1, napoleon dynamite ($400,000), Donnie darko, reservoir dogs, super, rocky (even now the film quality is better than atlas shrugged 3),safety not guaranteed, mad max, clerks.So please just avoid atlas shrugged pt 3. It's not funny bad. It's not shaking your head bad. It's just made with the lack of flair and integrity that we watch films to see. There's nothing there for the viewer. It's almost as if a box were checked, finished atlas shrugged- move on.it must've been so hard promoting a movie knowing it offered nothing