Atlas Shrugged III: Who Is John Galt?

Has there ever been a Hollywood adaptation of a major novel as faithful and yet so misguided and downright strange as the three-part version of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged that now comes to a conclusion with the third installment?

It’s hard to imagine anyone, however, having a “Eureka!” experience watching these lame movies, this latest least of all.

We get it, we get it: Capitalism is good, government is bad. But Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? is worse.

“ASIII” feels like the most scattershot entry in the trilogy, despite a relative rally toward competence with the second movie.

Unfortunately, Who Is John Galt? substitutes the most knee-jerk Tea Party beliefs for Rand's far more ambitious and complex philosophy.

The movie's so slipshod and half-assed that I almost feel for Rand, whose ideas have proved enduring enough that they at least deserve a fair representation, if only for the sake of refutation.

It’s a movie where everything, from the sets to the cast and crew, is an unconvincing, low-cost substitute for something else.

Anyone who likes this movie is clearly swayed by Rand's story. Atlas Shrugged is a great book that could have been a good movie. But it is not. It is bad in almost every way. The direction is forced and without any sense of art. The acting is amateurish to the extreme (there is a reason that each of the installments of this trilogy had new actors in every major part - each film was worse than the last). Choosing to make the movie in the current time, while not changing the industries involved was lazy. Trains and resources were far more important in the world Rand lived when she wrote this book than they are now. Ignoring how truly bad this movie is, just because you are moved by the uber conservative politics the film espouses is a complete and utter insult to Ayn Rand's memory and Atlas Shrugged's view of the pursuit of greatness in all things.

I was able to get through 20 minutes before I had to turn it off. I relatively enjoyed the first 2 movies and I get the message. What I want to know is, who directed this POS? Poorly paced, BAD music, and oppressive hit-you-over-the-head message, this movie should be ashamed of itself when you compare it to the first 2 movies. At least those tugged at your heat strings. This was just annoying and had poor taste.

If I read one more review for this movie that says "If you don't like it, you clearly don't *understand* it" - as if Ayn Rand were somehow subtle or complex. Whether or not you agree with Rand's philosophy and politics, this movie is *objectively* awful (pun intended). Once more, they've switched casts, and some of their choices are really strange. Francisco is now clearly old enough to be Dagny's father, making their previous relationship really creepy, and possibly illegal. It struck me as comical miscasting to have Rob Morrow play Hank Rearden, so I was really curious to see how that worked out. Unfortunately, they cut him almost entirely out, having him only appear briefly in some of the narrated montages (more about those in a minute). Most of the new actors do the best with what they've been given. I really liked Mark Moses (Desperate Housewives) as Midas Mulligan, and even though he doesn't look the part, Kristoffer Polaha does a good job with John Galt. In fact, he gives him significantly more personality that the book's character has. Unfortunately, the script is so laughably bad that good acting can't save it. As for the rest, the movie screams low budget at every turn. They try to save money by filming much of it outdoors and in national parks - specifically Sequoia National park! I don't mean that you occasionally catch a glimpse of a sequoia, I mean they rely heavily on them, even driving through the famous tunnel in the fallen tree - twice - just to remind you were it was really filmed. I honestly think Aglialoro might not realize there are no sequoias in Colorado. Don't get me wrong, these parts are beautifully filmed, and definitely the highlight of the movie, but the fact that an Ayn Rand movie relies so heavily on national parts is an irony that can only be lost on her true believers. The parts that aren't in the woods are comically cheap. Large parts are narrated over montages and even stock footage. The sets and props they do use are strictly amateur hour. I literally laughed out loud when they unveiled "Project F". I'm assuming that everyone who sees this movie has read the book, which is good because there are some really glaring plot holes that wouldn't make sense otherwise. Neither of the first movies was very good, but this one finally rises to the level of campy fun that makes it "so bad its good", and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that RiffTrax decides to take it on.

Let's all take a moment to realize that this butt-kissing ode to capitalism is hated by capitalism itself, since it so utterly, utterly, utterly failed to make money. Über Irony! This happens in a world where right wing extremism is at its peak. ReichWing radio makes money hand over fist, but this trilogy, which budget got halfed twice, from $20 million, to 10, to just 4 million for part 3, lost something like 90 (NINETY!!!) percent of budget. It's as harsh a rejected love as is their fictional capitalism itself: it loves capitalism, but capitalism did NOT love it back. The Melancholic Alcoholic. 0 from 10 (the actual mark is negative 23, but hey...)

My score is nil / 0. I can describe this film and the whole trilogy in one word "****". Ayn rand would be turning in her grave. The message is lost , there is no consistency between films and i have held my judgement until the films were completed and my comments are just. As a fan of atlas shrugged and the fountain head, her ideals have played straight into the hands of moochers and thief's, and this is unacceptable. The films have been created when the world was ( if you believe governments) and still is on economic down turn and they have tried to cash in on this when they know that most people have read this book at home or part of a university study and want a better solution to their problems. And may be to say "Ayn Rand was and is right". But Atlas (pun intended) her vision and philosophy is objectively not to be, not in these films. I would like to point out the documentary on Ayn Rand as better, but still slightly misguided in turns of approach. But its better to watch a 90 min documentary about her and and her philosophy, than 6 hours of misguided, misinterpreted, poorly acted and edited crap.