Atlas Shrugged getting several movies

From what I've seen of the box office listings, this film didn't even make top ten.

Early projections were also off by over a million (the studio claimed $3 million, the film did just $1.6 million).

That was sarcasm. Though I doubt Ebert's word carries much weight with Randians.

Eberts words shouldn't carry weight with anyone.

Some of my favorite reviews from the site cited on the Critic-Proof page...

The best comment, however, was from our friend sludgemonkey.

edited 18th Apr '11 5:27:33 PM by Scardoll

VERY WELL-MADE MOVIE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SOUND EDITTING IS SO SHODDY YOU CAN'T MAKE OUT DIALOGUE.

And lawl at "not social agenda moronic crap."

Also, I just learned that Ayn Rand collected social security.

edited 18th Apr '11 6:03:07 PM by Pannic

To the person who called New York and Chicago "Lib-tard" cities: so you want to trash people for simply having taste?

The worst for me is the one suggesting that entrepreneurship and money-making should be at the center of one's life.

Uh... Family? What's that?

"If this is as true to the book as many are saying, it will accurately portray the selfish, exploitative, and short sighted greed mongerong philosophy that is causing the great divide in American society today.For all of you that think you can exist in a society without concern for the well being of those that work around you and buy necessities like you. We would be better off without you."

This doesn't sound like a positive review like the others. Though considering John Galt actually did say that he and his clone army didn't need anyone, I'm not surprised you mistook it for one. Unless I misinterpreted your post.

Oopsie daisies. :(

>reads reviews from Rand fanboys

Oh, for the love of Loki. Really? Okay, so you agree with the movie's message. Great. What about everything else? If I scrawled the ultimate proof for the existence or non-existence of God on a piece of paper in all its prosaic, rational glory, scanned it, and spread it across the Internet, would it be a work of poetic art unparalleled by the likes of Shakespeare and Chaucère? No, it would be an argument, nothing more, nothing less. This movie is a piss-poor attempt to make a work of art out of exactly that. Keep that in mind at all times. It's not about the content of the argument itself, or even the thesis of the argument. It's about transcending prose and entering art, which this movie fails at.

I had no idea people could be this dense (I should have). Further proof that mixing art and politics ruins everything. And to top it off, I'm getting an ad for "Right Wing T-Shirts & gear- Tea Party tees to liberal-bashing bumper stickers!"

EDIT: TL;DR- Defending this movie solely because it "makes a good point" is stupid. Just preaching to the choir here, I'm glad everyone else seems to agree with this.

edited 18th Apr '11 9:20:56 PM by BoundByTheMoon

Given the reception it still sounds better than Shakespeare.

Then you will love Anonymous when it comes out in September. The premise is that Shakespeare is a fraud and slapped his name on other people's work.

I'll keep my eye on that one. No love for Chaucère?

The fact that multiple people created such crap seems worse somehow. Like all the Seltzer And Freidberg movies were made independently, rather than stemming from a single source of shit, but worse.

Shakespeare wrote some fucking awesome speeches and inspired some fucking awesome songs.

I looked into the box office figures pretty closely. While it didn't make the top ten, it still managed to make on average somewhere around $5,500 per theater... which is roughly the same as what Scream 4 made while showing in nearly four times as many theaters.

So, man, had this thing actually had Hollywood distribution... well, then I guess it could've been as big as Scream 4.

edited 18th Apr '11 10:35:45 PM by SeanMurrayI

Just so you know, I would rather murder puppies with my bare hands than click those links.

Or it would have done the same with a lower per-theatre average.

Sometimes, I don't get Christian or conservative moviegoers. They shun good films about religion or morals (Amazing Grace, Woman Thou Art Loosed) because they are Hollywood productions or don't fit their point of view but will praise badly made films such as Fireproof, Left Behind or this.

edited 18th Apr '11 10:42:24 PM by Buscemi

[1]◊

Because they're looking for an echo chamber rather than True Art or other shit?

Out of sheer curiosity, how likely is it that the next parts of this actually get made, given how well it is/isn't doing at the box office?

Considering its budget was barely over a million, it shouldn't be hard to break even.

Shakespeare's works had great receptions at the time they were made.

And what do you hate about his(?) work anyway? The lowbrow humor? The overly long play sequences? The somewhat dated slang in parts?

Marlowe?

edited 19th Apr '11 5:41:03 AM by Scardoll

Pretty much the whole thing, the subjects are boring, the characters are only amusing in that they die, but you have to wait, the prose is a pain, and the high level of hype all coagulate to make it one of the damning pieces of art I've ever been exposed to.

Umm.