MovieChat Forums > Atlas Shrugged: Part III (2014) Discussion > Just saw this

Just saw this

posted 10 years ago by kerprice
17 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this and was very disappointed. I did like the first two, liked part 2 the best, followed by part 1, then this one.

Morrow (as Henry Reardon), didn't even have any lines, they severely cut the part, and he had some great scenes in the book.

Also, the Francisco character (played so wonderfully by Esai Morales) in the 2nd part, was miscast and played by someone who looked old enough to be Dagny's father. There is no way he could have been Galt's classmate. There is a scene of the two of them together and they don't look they were born in the same century.

The music was overwhelming and Lifetime televsion like. In fact, the whole John Galt-Dagny thing was Lifetime TV like.

The whole film lacked the energy of the first two, and the writing wasn't very good either.

I hope this book eventually gets made my someone into a miniseries, which could do it justice

[–] Capt-Cupcake 10 years ago

Agreed. The first two films were well done, but this one felt very rushed.

[–] darkskyknight 10 years ago

This was just bad and felt like a high school tribute.

You could tell resources ran out and that they rushed to get everything else into the picture without regard to any real explanation. Anyone without a familiarity with the book will just come away going wtf?

It would be better if it hadn't been made

[–] Getalis 10 years ago

They spent way too much time in the first half with the "We're in Galt's Gulch Nao zOMG!!!" scenes. It almost felt like LOTR:ROTK's endless endings, only at the beginning...

The omnipresent narration also got a bit tedious, but at least they got the same actor to play Jeff Allen.

As was previously mentioned, Hank Rearden's character had precious little screentime and almost no lines. His biggest "scene" was a phone conversation with Dagny, and it was somewhat hard to discern if it wasn't just an answering machine message. Towards the end, I kept asking myself who the hell is this third man saving Galt?

Ragnar's character also wasn't done justice. Aside from the universal mispronunciation of his name, his debut was completely botched. Referenced in both of the prior movies, but never actually seen, I was looking forward to his inevitable reveal in Part III. Perhaps they'd use his meeting with Hank Rearden (actually Part II of the book) on the moonlit roadside? No! Instead, they just had Dagny walk up to a random cat burglar at the Farmer's Market and state, "You're Rag-Narr Dann-esk-yold, the pirate!"

The exposition of Cheryl's demise was equally vexing. First, the narrator *tells* us she realized James' true nature, then we're *shown* a silent scene of her having lunch with Eddie Willers (something hinted at in the book, which I was happy to see portrayed onscreen). Then we're shown a newspaper article about her death. Then the guy reading the paper flips it over and sees the article, at which point the camera focuses on the headline *again*. Finally, we're given a few flashback scenes in which Cheryl actually speaks! She argues with Jim, apologizes to Dagny, and that's it.

Wasn't the hypersonic deathtrap named Project X in the book?

James Taggart's "meltdown" at the end could've been blocked-out a LOT better. At first, it almost seems like he's having a queasy reaction to the torture itself.

At least we don't have to wonder about Eddie's fate in the film version!

[–] True_Detective 10 years ago

"His biggest "scene" was a phone conversation with Dagny, and it was somewhat hard to discern if it wasn't just an answering machine message. Towards the end, I kept asking myself who the hell is this third man saving Galt? "

Lol, that is so true, I almost pissed myself laughing

[–] Capt-Cupcake 10 years ago

It would be better if it hadn't been made

On this I totally disagree. It was weak, but it still needed to be made. You can't make Parts I and II and not complete the story.

[–] jlogajan 10 years ago

I agree D'Anconia was miscast (too old) in part III. I would say though that part III had the most philosophical meat of the three. The Galt speech was condensed well (in the book it is three hours in itself.) The Dagny, Galt, Reardon, D'Ancodia, Willers love pentangle was, of course, a main theme in the book, Rand's rational basis for whom to love.

[–] mrklcfantasy 10 years ago

I looked at it as a totally missed opportunity. I liked how they did the John Galt speech with the lighting, and the way it was spoken, but that's about it. I thought of the old 1960's Batman episodes when everybody in the room left Galt by himself to be rescued. I agree, way too rushed. Galt was a mystery in the first 2 installments. They should have cut the village scenes to one third of the time they did, and kept him that way.

[–] kerprice 10 years ago

I forgot to end that the ending was a total miss. They could have shown the novel's ending where Eddie looks on in horror as the guy comes with the horse and carriage to ferry the train's passengers.

And the second ending when they are in the Gulch for awhile and decide that it's time to return after some time had passed.

The movie made it seem like it was too personal about Galt and Dagny, not about the world stopping.

[–] Seanpdineen 10 years ago

They are considering a mini series.
I am going to put a case for the defense, follow your own mind, as to whether you agree. I liked it. Eddie deserved, to be with his fellows, he had the same commitment to justice, although I understand ms, rand's point about the decent ordinary honest people being left behind, by their own inability to see as clearly I like Francisco being older, although the first two actors did a good job, you see the price he has paid. I liked the montage, it showed people like megis coming to power. Ferris, "Cooperate and this all goes away, showed the twisted paternalism of fascism. I loved all sorts in galts gulch.
I would have show the priest scene something for the dvd. As a wheelchair user, I have busted by tail to live by my own mind, and out of the coercive arms of the state. Very well done.

[–] hmsboston-838-948825 10 years ago

I agree with your comments, but I also must say that except for the horrible miscasting of the superannuated Almeida as Francisco, this movie could have been saved by dramatizing the assault on Rearden's steel mill (casually mentioned in the film) and the collapse of the Taggart Bridge In the book the collapse was not caused by poor maintenance.. By recasting one role and adding two high-budget scenes you would have a very good film. The standout performance was by Larry Cedar as Dr. Ferris.

[–] kerprice 10 years ago

Agree! I was waiting for the Reardon Steel Mill factory takeover and how the government minder switched sides and was trying to help Reardon. Also, Cheryl's death didn't make sense if you didn't read the book.

In retrospect, they could have saved time by nixing the whole Cheryl/James stuff, and concentrating on Reardon Steel Mill. I also really loved the passion Esai Morales brought to the role of Francisco. I'm sure they could have retained some of these actors, most of them they used weren't in heavy demand.

Also, liked the other 2 actresses playing Dagny much better than Laura Regan.

[–] hmsboston-838-948825 10 years ago

Morales's performance was the best in the entire series. A close second was Larry Cedar's Floyd Ferris in Part III. Taylor Schilling and Samantha Mathis both did well after their Atlas Shrugged appearances and would have asked for more money than the producers of the films could pay. As for Cherryl, her character didn't make sense to me even when I did read the book. The scenes (was there more than one?) with Cherryl could have been omitted with nobody noticing. I am reminded of the "Tom Bombadil" character in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings that Peter Jackson wisely omitted from his films.

[–] Seanpdineen 10 years ago

You are correct in my opinion about ferris. I would like to have see the wet nurses passing.

[–] ShawnCollins512 10 years ago

I agree with most of your criticisms, and I was really looking forward to seeing Morrow as Hank. I asked him on Twitter what happened, and he said "No comment".

While there were faults with this production, I didn't think it was really a departure from the first two. They all had some junky effects and stunted dialogue, and the different cast each time made it odd to watch the films all together.

But I enjoyed it for what it was - a low budget interpretation.

[–] ejonconrad 10 years ago

What struck most about the movie is that if you watched it with the sound off, you would see the beauty and grandeur of unspoiled nature (largely national parks, for the record) juxtaposed with ugly dark scenes of sinister board rooms and industrial decay - and walk away with *exactly the opposite* of the message Rand was trying to convey. Galt's Gulch looked more like a hippie commune than any sort of industrial utopia.

[–] gabby_bm 10 years ago

I think having it a "hippie commune" (Capitalist Commune?) makes perfect sense though. It's not like they would have factories, franchise restaurants and Minute-Lubes. They were a start-up civilization. And they really wanted to return to the mainstream society, but only under their rules/laws.

**WARNING: MY POSTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
.

[–] ejonconrad 10 years ago

Except of course that they already had plenty of stuff that they could only have gotten from the outside world. Even if the homes appeared to be built out of logs, they were clearly filled with modern conveniences. Where did those come from? It would also take a steady supply of car parts to keep those jalopies running. Not to mention a lot of the ones I saw would need to be replaced sooner rather than later. Everywhere you looked, there were lots and lots of things that clearly couldn't have been produced independently in that rustic setting, everything from the cellular network they apparently had to the paper cups that Dagny bought her coffee in.

In one striking example, the doctor said he invented that little diagnosis thingy *after* moving there. Building something like that would require custom hi-tech engineering and fabrication, including ASIC development. Not exactly something a guy living in the woods can cobble together out of - as Mr. Spock would say - "stone knives and bear skins".

Maybe we were expected to infer that even if they had cut themselves off from the US, they were still dealing with China.

It's an entertaining idea, but it really doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.