MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Marcelle Labuschagne So they made a movie with a fifth-rate director, no-rate producers, no money and no talent to tell the story of a philosophy of never compromising quality or dropping your standards. Did they not at least read The Fountainhead to understand the Randian stance on never compromising?Why did the conservatives not at least fund this movie?This is such an irony. Such an antithesis. Such a disappointment. The people who run the Ayn Rand foundation who sold the rights to these clowns must be total idiots.These two (so far) movies were even worse than the Steve Jobs movie (produced by a guy who owns an events company making conference AVs in Dallas, and written by one of his employees).

RaiderDuck Acting: Uniformly mediocre, with Jason Beghe's steely Hank Rearden being the only (mildly) bright spot. Teller's blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo is neat, and Robert Picardo, Paul McCrane and Michael Gross all play bureaucrat versions of their famous TV characters. Nobody else registers in the slightest. The cast is completely different from Part I, which is almost unprecedented in a sequel filmed so soon after the original (the similarly cruddy Sting II is the only other example I could think of). The only saving grace was that Part I's cast was so mediocre in itself, I couldn't remember any of the performances, so it didn't seem jarring.Production design and special effects: Some of the most obvious CGI you'll ever see. Also, the occasionally interesting "Bioshock"- influenced architecture of the first film is gone, probably because they halved the budget for this one.Dialogue: As with other Ayn Rand films I've seen (Atlas Shrugged Part I and The Fountainhead), completely inane. I will say that Beghe delivers the standard Rand sound bites with a straight face better than anyone before (even Gary Cooper), because he so earnestly sells what he's saying.Plotting: Once again, Rand's inability to deal with the real world shows itself. Everyone is either a misunderstood saint or an eeeeeeeeevil bureaucratic caricature. The US government in this movie calmly delivers edicts that even Kim il-Sung and Karl Marx would find ridiculous, and anyone thinking of the public good for even an instant is derided as a misguided fool or worse. Meanwhile, Francisco d'Ancona blows up his mines, and we're supposed to admire him for this. Or something. And the revealed origin of the phrase "Who is John Galt?" makes its constant repetition even less plausible. It says a lot when Sean Hannity (!) is arguably this film's moral center.To summarize: Who is John Galt? A complete sociopath, from the looks of it.

abbyleamarr Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book. I read it about once every 3 years. It is a beautiful study on culture, government, society, business, and economy. It's almost elegant how Ayn Rand describes the characters so clearly that you feel like you know them. These actors (if you could call them that)fall very short of the protagonists you picture while reading the book. Henry Rearden comes across as a crooked cop rather than a genius metallurgist. EVERY SINGLE ACTOR is different from Part I. Despite the fact that there are more recognizable actors in this movie, the acting is still record breakingly bad. I seriously performed more convincingly in my HS rendition of "Little Women" when I was 15. This is not a book that should ever have been made into a movie. It's too big for film. Atlas Shrugged, the book, is number two on the Library of Congress' list of most influential books, second only to THE BIBLE. Seriously, THE BIBLE. It's a book that should only be in the imagination of the reader. Otherwise...it's sadly downgraded to a low budget, no name, nothing special film. Ayn Rand would be so ashamed of what has become of her greatest work. Please read the book to fully understand this masterpiece!

Victor Hernandez Usually a movie proposes a story, one that can be connected somehow to reality or tries to resemble an alternate world with a reasonable degree of logic in comparison to our reality. Even where and how different beings and species mirror us in someway.I found this movie to be poorly written in many aspects. Its condescending, instead of proposing a scenario, it accepts some beliefs as true and indisputable. Overall it seems this came from a quite shallow mindset.As a foreigner you grow up believing in the success the U.S. is both as a nation and country. Its might and power is such that it is under a glass veil and is constantly criticized for what it does or doesn't do. Its people and citizens are expected to be just as such successful.It is disappointing to learn that the foremost critics of the U.S. and the ones that appear to hate its institutions are really the U.S. citizens themselves. They strive to perform a more perfect nation, yet they despise their government. They want to be above all else but many are wary of themselves. Many think that there is a hidden agenda somewhere against them. I think this movie supports those ideas. I think it was a horrible product. I can't recommend this movie to anyone. Acting level is par with a midnight television show on a secondary network. The worse part of this movie is that it assumes the viewer has the same opinion as that of the script's writer. This is a like a preaching from a cult. It misses a lot, a whole lot.