Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

n-sotirakopoulos 1)Did John Galt take away the cast from Part 1 to Atlantis? The all-new cast was a horrible idea. To begin with, it's unrealistic. Dagny and her brother are suddenly in their mid 40s, whereas in the book and in the first film they are in their mid 30s. Even worse, Francisco D'Anconia is in his 50s and doesn't look anything near like a playboy. 2) The plot has huge gaps. The cigarette with the dollar sign and the frozen trains are important for the plot and yet only someone who had read the book could understand what was happening. Also, where is the Pirate? Apparently he will appear in Part 3, but still, there are huge gaps in the plot. 3)The two most powerful moments in Part 2 in the book was Francisco's 'lecture' on money and Hank Rearden's speech on court.I would add an extra 10 minutes on these scenes on the film, as they are way too short. 4) In conclusion, the film is bearable only by someone who had already read and enjoyed the book. The new cast was not a good fit and generally Part 2 was a let-down after the decent effort in Part 1. Still, the book is so exciting that I'll give a chance to Part 3. PS: A film based on Rand's book where no one is smoking???

Ruth Jewell If the 1% went on strike, would anyone notice? Objectivists think yes, and belched out this overlong, punishing mess of a movie to prove it. Focusing exclusively on a group of privileged CEOs, it then goes on to present these individuals as the most oppressed and misunderstood people in America, hemmed in on every side by vandals and parasites who have the absolute front to suggest that maybe they could stand to be slightly less rich and spend slightly more time thinking about anything other than lining their own pockets.There is the potential for an interesting story to be told in the economically devastated world of 'Atlas Shrugged': this is quite categorically not that story. The movie details heroine Dagny Taggart's valiant struggle to continue living in an opulent, insulated bubble in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. In a world where CEOs are supposedly as instantly recognizable - and idolized likewise - as musicians or movie stars, Dagny and and her fellow one-percenters are presented as heroic, misunderstood outsiders, who are being unfairly deprived of their right to make as much money as they want by a malevolent Government insisting they take other people's rights into account at the same time. The heroes are smug, pompous and unlikable; their Government opponents are straw men who can't open their mouths without sinister music swelling behind every word. A betrayed wife is presented as entirely unreasonable for taking exception to her Objectivist husband cheating on her with the heroine. A government official is lambasted for his dedication to a job that doesn't involve the profit motive. The heroes and heroines of Atlas Shrugged may be good Objectivists, but their colossal and oblivious selfishness makes it very hard for the uninitiated to find them at all sympathetic.Setting aside Objectivist philosophy - which here comes across as self- contradictory where it isn't entirely incoherent - and the obvious failure to update the book's 1950s mores to its modern setting, the movie, quite simply, isn't very good. It's a talky, tedious yawn-fest with an overbearing score, endless talking-head info-dumps delivered via newscast and and over-reliance on cheap and obvious CGI. Scene after scene is taken up by people in suits walking into rooms to exchange clunky, leaden dialog with other people in suits (more music swelling here, this time noble and heroic as our protagonists expound on their greed-is-good philosophy). A scene of a man placing documents on the hero's desk is accompanied by the same ominous chords that would usually accompany a looming spaceship menacing downtown LA. Other scenes are stopped dead in their tracks so that characters can argue about Randian economics in front of roomfuls of stunned party-goers. It's extremely telling that, when the movie attempts to humanize an impending disaster involving hundreds, it focuses on a wealthy, arrogant businessman and his much younger trophy wife rather than anybody a general audience might find more immediately sympathetic.It's impossible to imagine even the film's target audience of Objectivists extracting much enjoyment from Atlas Shrugged: The Strike. Even the choir it's preaching to will be bored by this cheap, turgid mess. If you already like Atlas Shrugged, you're better off rereading the book than sitting through this travesty; if you don't, you'll come away no wiser as to why the book has the following it does. Either way, your time is much better spent elsewhere.

Mark Ifi i feel strongly about the book, so my review is tinted, or biased in that respect. it's worth a watch, and good follow up to part one, which was just interesting enough for me to check out this one.i liked the beautiful visuals, and nice lighting, although the occasional "sci-fi channel sped up shot" ruins a lot of it. not to mention the occasional crooked shot. what's up with that? the rearden steel bracelet looks awesome. esai morales for francisco d'anconia is perfect casting. 20th century motor company appears on a baseball cap. jumpjets are cool.i didn't like the disaster movie elements. dagney shouldn't have crashed the plane. those trains didn't crash. did they? a large part of it is thereby reduced to a common disaster movie, with cheesy jokes. and characterize francisco d'anconia as a proper playboy, will you? wesley mouch is pretty disgusting person in the book, here he's almost handsome, and doesn't come across as an evil character.i also think that this movie is pretty much been made for people who read the book, and are anxious to see an adaptation. without prior knowledge it's probably unwatchable. if your read the book it holds attention, is somewhat faithful, but leaves you wanting for something better to come out down the line. it deserves a five out of ten stars for it.TLDR: if you like the book, watch this. if you don't know the book, stay away from this movie.

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!