Yes, but Ayn Rand took both Medicare and Social Security.

If you actually read some real stuff about Capitalism, say the unexpurgated works of Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, you'll hear him rail about the Mercantilists and their ilk who depend on Corporate Welfare and Collusion instead of the sweat of their limbs and their brows.

I hear the Zombie march in DC by one of the corporations forgot to file for their permits. Dang that Government! Zombies want to maximize their Brains intake! Get rid of the Safety Net that keeps people functional - Brains must be harvested!

I have a "friend" who is a walking Republican talking point. I'm excited to see if he liked the movie.

If Americans don't clap at the end of a movie, it must be pretty bad.

I think I'll play Bioshock instead.

hold on a second, Paul...wasn't DB Sweeney in this monstrosity? how did that fair?

@5

you really like talking about taxes when no one else is even bothering, don't you? I'm just gonna assume from now on you're a pro-state income tax satire troll.

I'd rather watch K-9 masturbate

Wow, that's a cast list of has-beens, never weres, and who the fucks.

@3- I haven't been to a movie people clapped at the end of ever, and I've never been to a movie outside of America.

Personally, I found it even more riveting than part one. Now the scene has been set for the final chapter, which will hopefully hit theaters about half way through my first term. Leftist lay-abouts can't possibly understand the vitality and bravado of this fine, fine movie. Three thumbs up!

So glad these movies are being made. Now douchebags can soak up Ayn Rand's terrible philosophy even if they're too lazy to read a fucking book.

For counterbalance to Paul's review, there is a review by a Forbes blogger that is either unintentionally hilarious or the product of a great satirist. Sh!t needs to be seen to be believed. Or, not to be believed, whichever.

The irony is that this movie is exactly what it claims to parody.

The socialist realist school of art was awful because it attempted to politicize everything. By insisting that everything had to have a message, and all art had to have some deeper meaning, it lost all sense of nuance and subtlety- in other words, all sense of art.

This story is exactly that. Heavy handed in its message delivery, it presumes the audience so stupid as to be incapable of making up their own minds. It would be more entertaining if the author simply stood in front of a camera and ranted at the audience.

The books of Ayn Rand appeal to people who need to be ranted at. People who have to be told what to think, who to hate, and what it all means. The uncertainty that the rest of us have all grown used to scares them. While the rest of us find a lack of all the answers to be liberating-as it allows for multiple points of view-that sort of wildness scares the crap out of libertarians. To them, the natural order must be so simple, so easy to understand that there can be no diversity of opinion as to what that might be.

In this sense, they are the very totalists they claim to hate

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

If you are a Randian, get over it.
You wouldn't survive a month without the infrastructure that the "moocher" government provides.

The new actors aren't Libertarians. I saw an interview with the cast on Reason's youtube channel, seemed like from the expression on her face that the movie isn't going to appeal to people under the age of 50. Ha. Cheers good post.

It isn't a problem that the middle part consists of everything getting worse. The middle part always consists of everything getting worse. It's Plot 101.

The middle movie of a trilogy can be dark and wonderful, like The Empire Strikes Back. Or it can be dark and boring, like The Two Towers.

Got nothing to do with in part 2 of yr trilogy being a downer. Of course it's a downer but that doesn't mean it can't be a great movie. Devil is in the details.

There's going to have to be an "Atlas Shrugged: Part IV", not because it's going to be that good, but because John Galt's speech is going to take up pretty much the entirety of Part III.

The reason you didn't like it Paul, is because you need to study it out. Just study it out. You'll see.

I imagine Ayn Rand would be spinning in her grave to know the movie based on her magnum opus was only attracting brain dead pensioners, Christianists, and bemused liberal bloggers.

And that makes me happy.

how about being independently wealthy as a reason why your at a movie at that time?

unlike most people in the GOP Rand was an Atheist.

I see Rand's books all the time at charity book sales... I almost want to buy one just for the irony. Then I remember I'll own a Rand book and I buy something better.

I also always laugh when I see them in a library :).

I really don't get the continuing vitriol for a story that was barely relevant when it was published over half a century ago. This might be my least favorite Slog meme.


Get the fuck over it.

@27: Republicans still spooge all over this book. I've had people tell me that if you look at, say, IBM, 90+% of its value was created by the CEOs. Not the tens of thousands of workers who devoted their entire professional lives to the company. If one believes that, then everything that Ryan & Co says makes sense. That's why people still fight over this book.

More importantly: fuck, could they have shot Samantha Mathis in any less flattering of a light?!? She looks like Nurse Ratched.

@9 wrote: "Wow, that's a cast list of has-beens, never weres, and who the fucks."

I didn't see any has-beens or never-weres; so far as I could tell, the entire cast consisted of "who-the-fucks."

The lead actor played a gay love interest of a character on the old Melrose Place show. He was in about 4 episodes and in one opening scene he was shown playing basketball in a pair of sweatpants wearing no underwear. He had a huge cock just bouncing all around, it was glorious. I'll never forget that scene.

What, no credit for the first all-straw-man cast? Nobody in shameful strawface like Ray Bolger.

@14 John Tammy again. Last time I saw his name come up, he was saying how Ryan totally slaughtered Biden on Thursday night. He lives in an alternate reality, but somehow manages to blog in ours.

Okay, but just in case you've actually read Atlas Shrugged, and are looking for something--anything--to justify all that wasted time and energy, you'll like this:

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/547…

@10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XSq0PvVx…

@23

Maybe we can hook Rand's grave up to a generator. By the time the finale comes out we'll have enough power to run the entire west coast for at least 20 years.

@4: I played that game before having had any introduction to Ayn Rand. Everything Andrew Ryan spouts over the speakers turns out to be lifted from one of her books (in spirit if not in direct quote), but I went through the whole game thinking 2K was aiming for satire.

@4 at least in Bioshock you had electrified buckshot and the ability to shoot bees at people.

Paul, your Borg Collective called. They want their spokesmodel drone back. When are you returning to the collective? With writing that resembles drivel, and a truly moronic inability to self reflect, it's no small wonder you condemn a movie that challenges you to understand the incestuous relationships that made our country great are in need of a new model and this movie elegantly demonstrates how capitalism breaks down when the good ole boy network refuses to relent to the pressures to not just share the money, but also to share the qualities of life that capitalism provided. AS prices increase and profits increase for the highest paid, those who aren't paid as well see a decrease in the value of their belongings, which invariably lead to a lower quality of life. All this movie does is demonstrate the natural equilibrium that is reinforced when capitalism has refused to share the net benefits that the money as a tool provided. And pretty elegantly as well. It's not anti government, nor is it anti capitalist, it's explicit when it says it's about 'the mind' and sharing the ideas that brought them where they wound up to be.

Rearden's got a great point. You can't force someone to give up something just because you tax it. Why do you pay federal taxes? You never see a dime of it back... They take and dont give. EVER.

And look at the relationships with corporations. They feed eachother. And then, when things get tough, they take from the government. We cant do that as citizens. So when the government tries to take from the corporations, it's clearly not a two way street. So what's the purpose in having separate corporations from government, when they clearly don't function together. Reflective of.. you guessed it.. America today...

Don't get me wrong. Capitalism had a great run. But there are too many secrets being withheld from the public that are in both the private sector elite's arsenal and the government's arsenal, that makes it all but impossible for joe blow consumer to keep up. This movie demonstrates that fact marvelously, and subtly too.. The mind... This is about freeing your mind...

Think about it. Who else is trying to free your mind? The Matrix...

Hmmm...

Can you imagine if God refused to share his plan? Wow. That would make for ... well.. hell....

And yes, i do realize that first sentence was a run on. Fortunately, I'm not paid for writing. You are. Which is a sad commentary on society.

Well, I am about to see "Atlas Shrugged--part 3" in a movie theater downtown Seattle. Inspired by your glowing review, I anticipate a climactic conclusion to the perplexing problems in the first two episodes.

You speak of "Dynasty"; I am not familiar with that (we all have set our standards and apparently yours is low enough to watch such a soap opera) but I admit I did like Dallas (a truly uninhibited ululation, a paean in praise of the limitless licentiousness of uncorrupted capitalism.

I liked the Hannity episode in part two, particularly the daughter of Eric Holder (Et Tu, have you no gratitude for our illustrious incubator of medical cannabis?