Atlas Shrugged Part 1 [Blu-ray] [2011] [US Import]

I have read the book and just seen the movie on DVD, and I have read and watched a few reviews.

Some people have said that the movie looks cheap. That's absurd. Considering the budget it had, the production values are excellent. It looks like a competently-made, middle-budget theatrical film or a high-budget made-for-tv film. The producer, cinematographer, and director did an excellent job.

As an adaptation of the first third of the novel, "Atlas Shrugged", it is very good. I think anyone who has read the novel could fast-forward to any scene at random and immediately recognise what point of the book it's from; likewise, all the main characters are immediately recognisable the moment you see them on screen - even if a few are played by actors who don't really look like how Ayn Rand described them. That made no difference: the main actors were excellent and well cast, and they embodied the spirit of their characters.

I don't give it five stars for the following reasons. A couple of scenes were not really that well adapted from the book, especially Dagny's discovery of Hugh Akston at his diner. In the movie, the scene was abridged to the point of near-irrelevance. Also, the movie did not really make clear enough, I thought, how the design of the John Galt Line's bridge, from an engineering point of view, was only possible due to Rearden Metal's properties - even though the bridge is indeed accurately portrayed in the film. Still, it would have been easy to make that point more clear by having Rearden draw rough drafts of his bridge when he meets Dagny at the old bridge - a scene that would have underlined Rearden's engineering genius. But that's just my opinion - maybe other people would have found that boring.

I confess that I am a bit skeptical that parts 2 and 3 - if they do get made - will maintain the same quality, especially given the producers' (understandable) decision to set the story in the near future rather in the novel's alternate-reality 1950s. For instance, are the exploits of Ragnar Danneskjold's truly plausible in the 21st century - in the North Atlantic? But, let's see.

Anyone who is familiar with the novel will enjoy "part 1", I'm not sure how easy the plot will be to follow by those who haven't read the book.

Having never read Ayn Rand's 1957 epic novel on which this film is based, and for the record I still haven't, I would like to think of myself as a relatively objective (pardon the pun) newcomer to the story. I couldn't have told you a single thing about Rand, her Objectivist philosophy, or 'Atlas Shrugged' before this film came out in 2011, but it was both the visceral reaction against from the liberal-biased film critics (admit it, they are, mostly), and the equally vociferous reaction for from Rand's fanbase in the media and politicos (mainly U.S. conservative and libertarians) that raised my interest in the film, and having read and heard such wide and diverging opinions on the film from right across the political spectrum, I simply couldn't resist ordering the film myself to see how it held up in my own estimation, so here goes;

Considering how well-sold and influential 'Atlas Shrugged' is, it's a wonder it took this long to reach the screen (either television or cinema), and the history of it's cinematic development is certainly a colorful one, it's interesting to note that it was within months of being made in 2009, with Randall Wallace (the screenwriter of 'Braveheart', plus director of 'The Man in the Iron Mask', 'We Were Soldiers', and 'Secretariat') writing the screenplay as well as potentially directing, with no less than Angelina Jolie expressing real interest in the lead role, but alas, the $70m price tag proved too steep and the project faltered. With the film rights due to expire in June 2010, it was in March of that same year John Aglialoro (who had bought the film rights back in August 1992) had to make a choice, whether to start making the first part of the book out of his own pocket (thereby keeping the rights) before the expiration date, or lose them altogether after spending millions of dollars of his own money over the years trying to get it into production, he chose the former option, but was it the right one...?

For the record, I think he chose the right option, and despite having only around three months to get the film put together and before cameras before the rights expired, I think they did a commendable job of adapting the first 330 pages of a dense and weighty tome into a coherent and understandable film. Granted, it could have done with at least two or three more months in pre-production and scripting, and a few more days in production than the 26 days it took to film this one, but considering the very difficult circumstances it was conceived in, the final result is a remarkable achievement, tempered only by the thought of what it could have been if given more time in it's development. Whilst I understood perfectly what was going on onscreen, it was clear what you were watching was merely an outline of what fully transpired in the book, that's not a complaint as I believe they did the right thing by keeping it tight and focused on the central narrative thrust, but the speed in which the film was put together certainly led to some important (at least, thematically) scenes not being included, whilst the overall 97-minute running time is certainly tight, and you're never bored watching it, it perhaps suffers in the same way as the last James Bond film 'Quantum of Solace' in that difficult circumstances leading up to production prevented them from fully fleshing out the final script as well as they would have liked, leaving the pace of the final eventual film(s) at a breakneck rate with little or no time to draw a breath, let the narrative breath a little, and allow for some needed character beats throughout. This a minor but important critique of '...Shrugged' as the production design is fine throughout, the cinematography is often striking, and the performances are generally of a television movie standard, I liked this movie (despite it's flaws) a great deal, it comes across very much as the little engine that could, I would recommend it to others, whilst pointing out the limited budget and resources behind it's making, but it is unlike anything out there at present, is a breath of fresh air, and I very much look forward to Part II released in late 2012...

The movie follows the novel rather closely. In this respect I like it. But compared to the richness, the pathos and the suspence of the novel, the movie falls short. It looks more like a collection of scenes that one can interpret and link together only if s/he has already read the book.