MovieChat Forums > Atlas Shrugged: Part III (2014) Discussion > A hopeless end to a hopeless trilogy (sp...

A hopeless end to a hopeless trilogy (spoilers)

posted 10 years ago by jdennist
10 replies | jump to latest

Shredding the story to ribbons so the last 175 pages of the novel are rendered practically incoherent.

Making this film on a fraction of the budget it needed to succeed.

Laughably miscasting the central role (if you think Kristoffer Polaha is remotely believable as John Galt, you might be John Aglialoro).

Also, laughably miscasting Francisco D'Anconia (Joaquim de Almeida is a good 20 years too old, and nothing like the dashing playboy of the book).

Throwing in a swelling, bombastic score, because reasons.

Losing vital plot points, like the nationwide insurrection, the death of Robert Stadler, James Taggart's mental breakdown, and the final scene with Galt tracing the sign of the dollar in the sky.

Oh, and an amusingly fetishy torture scene.

Oh, AND a ridiculously corny final credit: THE END...NO...IT'S JUST THE BEGINNING.

This film is a humiliating disaster, plain and simple. It should not be defended because of Rand's message. Anyone who wants Rand's message can read the book. The films are not--I repeat, NOT--an adequate substitute.

Watching these films to get Rand's message instead of reading the book is like eating flour instead of bread.

[–] BlackJAC 10 years ago

Honey, not even a Guardians of the Galaxy-sized budget would've saved this pet project.

Your replies will be graded and possibly used as material in future projects.

[–] Capt-Cupcake 10 years ago

Honey, not even a Guardians of the Galaxy-sized budget would've saved this pet project.

That doesn't even make sense.

[–] BlackJAC 10 years ago

That's because, like all gops and Randroids, you're ignorant of how the entertainment industry works. Pet projects invariably fail regardless of how much money is spent on them, and that's all before we get into how this only had niche-market appeal and therefore was never going to put any meaningful amount of hindquarters in the seats. The movie-going public in general tends to see more of themselves in Mark Zuckerberg than in the filthy Winklevii you gops and Randroids venerate.

Your replies will be graded & possibly used as material in future projects.

[–] Capt-Cupcake 10 years ago

Anyone who wants Rand's message can read the book. The films are not--I repeat, NOT--an adequate substitute.

You are 1/3 correct. This movie was weak, but Parts I and II were great.

[–] jdennist 10 years ago

I saw Parts I and II.

And...no.

I'm re-reading my 2011 review of Part I, and there too I note:

But the script...is a convoluted mess, hurtling from meeting to meeting with little opportunity given for the story to breathe, while saddling the actors with clunky dialogue that emphasizes exposition over any real characterization.

I granted that Part I was at least decently cast, but even there the actors were shortchanged by the writing and the weak direction.

All these films have been poorly directed (and decent, or at least imaginative, direction would've compensated to some degree for the cheapness), badly written, and focused on the message, rather than the story. And the reason the novel is still read is because Rand tells a good story that gets her message across, rather than taking a message and putting a thin coat of narrative on it.

Thus, the film fails on the most fundamental level.

[–] Capt-Cupcake 10 years ago

This film is pretty weak, but Parts I and Ii were really good.

[–] phantom2-2 10 years ago

if you keep repeating this enough it'll become true!

[–] gabby_bm 10 years ago

I think the entire series is weak in nearly every area of cinema. Blocking, acting, casting, direction, writing, lighting... even the timing and the overestimating of audience appeal were faulty.

But they are not unwatchable and I enjoy them for what they are.

I think it was a fine effort that demonstrated that making a film on "Atlas Shrugged" CAN be accomplished. Its faults are evident, so if there ever was an effort to do it again, it serves as a great learning experience on what to do and not do to make the next effort better.

This was quite an expensive dress rehearsal. But it's better than dumping $100 million into such a project and getting something horrible as we see Hollywood doing time and time again.

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

[–] jdennist 10 years ago

I think it was a fine effort that demonstrated that making a film on "Atlas Shrugged" CAN be accomplished. Its faults are evident, so if there ever was an effort to do it again, it serves as a great learning experience on what to do and not do to make the next effort better.

All too much so.

Technically, yes, these are films of Atlas Shrugged. But I think they fall so far short of being GOOD films of the book that, if anything, they prove that making a film of Atlas Shrugged is bloody difficult, and requires more time, more screentime, and more money than these films had to spare.

This was quite an expensive dress rehearsal. But it's better than dumping $100 million into such a project and getting something horrible as we see Hollywood doing time and time again.

I can almost guarantee that a good team of craftsmen and a well-chosen cast would have produced something far more non-ironically entertaining than this set of films. Obviously, Hollywood churns out a lot of crap, but they do great work too.

Basically, if you can film Lord of the Rings and make it work, you can probably make Atlas Shrugged work.

[–] gabby_bm 10 years ago

I find them to be more a curiosity than anything because i was intrigued in how they were going to condense the film into six hours, keep the meat and not turn it into a preach-a-thon. I think they did fairly well in moving the story forward without stopping every ten minutes to reiterate points the way Rand did. The film did a pretty decent job of avoiding the repetition that permeates the book.

I think such a venture is done. I must admit I got pretty excited when the early rumors had Jolie and Pitt in the main roles. But even then, that would only mean that it had financial backing and there's no guarantee that it would be written well. It's a tough book to sell. As a movie, it's nearly impossible as its entertainment value and "feel good" equity is pretty much nil.

I think using Atlas Shrugged's points in an original work would be much more feasible. Rand wrote great prose and essays. Her fiction, on the other hand, isn't great storytelling.

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