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).

What a huge lost of time. The film is bad acted, bad directed, bad written. Everything, photography included, recall of TV-Movies rather than Cine Movies. And in my opinion, a story created on the idea that "All government assistance is depicted as creating moochers by allowing poor people to leech the hard earned wealth of the rich and powerful" is not worth seeing. I understand that the writer of the book lived in Russia in the horrible times. But she should live now, to see what not only the Communism but also the Capitalism and her beloved rational selfishness are not going anywhere. It is a mistake to say that any form of collectivism is wrong. and that any form of state interference in economy is wrong. And the fact that in our society there are few super rich people and lot of super poor, is a proof that till everybody will be free to do hat he wants, everybody will just do what he wants, taking all what he can, and leaving nothing to the others. In this film a character says "the state take everything they want and taxes what is left". That is exactly what capitalist does. They take everything they wants, and leave the others with all the taxes to pay. So, I do not like neither the idea of the writer, nor the realization.

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.

Oh my God you people giving good reviews to this movie are ideologues! I guess that's the type of America we live in now though where anything that mirrors your worldview is a great art. Realistically though, you ought be able to be the world's most Randian libertarian and be able to admit this movie was awful (I bet Facebook Paypal alum Peter Thiel, if you could get him to watch it would think it was total trash and he's such a Rand fan he's literally going to build those islands in the Pacific from the end of the book).It's hard to tell what is the film and filmmakers fault (probably a lot of it) and what you can chalk up to this story being terrible and flat. I read The Fountainhead in high school and truly loved it (could be that it sucked but I was in high school) yet have never gotten through Atlas Shrugged. I've worked in the private sector my entire life, am obsessed with markets, watch more Bloomberg than any other channel etc. and the characters in this book have never seemed anything but cartoonish to me. All the dialogues really seem shocking and along these lines:Hero: "I do everything for money. I want more, nay, all the money possible"Interlocutor: "Hey the government is going to offer you a billion dollar grant"Hero: "I shall not take such government bribes!"ORHero: "I need you produce me this metal/engine/whatever"Interlocutor: "I can but I'm going to charge you exorbitantly for my efforts"Hero: "I wouldn't have it any other way"Wow, I've worked in Securities and IT Buying and these type of exchanges are absurd and throughout the book. Only a writer or a Paul Ryan type of conservative politician with no private sector experience could think businesspeople think this way, (I would imagine though its common sense.)With these kind of essential failings in the book you can't really blame the movie for failing, if it at least its effort to put it to screen was ambitious. This was NOT. I thought the first movie was absolutely terrible but this one was so wretched I'm almost looking back on it fondly. I'll probably see Part III and this one will be in some way redeemed. There's a version of The Fountainhead starring Gary Cooper that I understand is much better if you must get your Ayn Rand fix. Let me close with saying that I am a religious believer in capitalism yet also loved movies like Che and The Motorcycle Diaries because they were good movies and hate movies like this because it is simply garbage. You people who gave this movie more than 3 stars because it affirms your worldview, you are seriously what is wrong with this country and I blame you for nearly all of its problems.