Atlas Shrugged Part I

Year:2011
Genre: Political Satire
Directed: Paul Johansson
Stars: Taylor Schilling, Grant Bowler, Matthew Marsden, Edi Gathegi, Jsu Garcia, Graham Beckel
Production: Atlas Productions

The film concerns itself with business entrepreneurs Dagny Taggart (Schilling) and Henry Rearden (Bowler) as they fight entrenched bureaucracy, greedy unions and human empathy to create a more efficient rail line (because in this alternative future, trains are all the rage; that and steel…lots and lots of steel). This film is meant to be part of a trilogy transcribing Ayn Rand's thick diatribe against collectivism to the screen. I do not plan on seeing the other movies; an exception to a rule I gave myself years ago: once I start a movie series I must finish it. Personally I find this singular movie so baffling if I could go back in time I'd recommend the production company rethink it's ambitions.

Watching Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 was like watching C-SPAN inter-spliced with infomercials of "Trains, Trains, Trains" for two hours. To say that watching this glacially paced dreck was boring would be an insult to boredom. A vast array of terrible actors populate faux business boardrooms and banquet halls speaking in economic jargon while occasionally asking, "who is John Galt?" While attempting to make things look pristine, the cinematography cannot hide the film's inherent shoddiness or the director's incompetence.

Admittedly, Atlas Shrugged is an interesting read and the film is surprisingly faithful to the book. But by actually transposing the characters onto the screen, Ayn Rand's myopic philosophy of objectivism seems even more misguided than before. As to be expected the two principle leads are stoic, one-dimensional automatons who swagger across the screen asserting their own genius while disdaining all the unwashed masses who should feel privileged to be in their presence. But while in the book Dagny and Henry are somewhat sympathetic, in the film they are seen for what they truly are; psychopaths. Think about it: lack of empathy, absence of remorse or shame, delusions of grandeur, egocentricity, its all pretty much there.

But perhaps I've said too much. If I pepper in the word "psychopath" people might think the film is worth a watch, which it is not. Not unless you read the Financial Times for emotional satisfaction and have a "Who is John Galt?" bumper sticker on your Lexus. Otherwise don't waste your time.

Final Grade: F