When I saw it last night several in the theatre burst into laughter when Dagny swept the table clear of papers and such before Galt caught up to her.

It bothers me to see the movie done in real time. No cell phones, no technology other than a dial telephone. Fountainhead was fine just as it is now with Gary Cooper and Patricia O'neal.

I agree with you. I thought it was a very powerful scene.

It started as it did precisely so that it could stand on its own. Remember, many people did not see the first two movies and are going to this one because they want to know who this John Galt is that so many people have been touting for over 50 years. Perhaps some of the intellectually curious will now read the book as a result. I agree that the scene with Dr Akston and Dagny was a clear and concise snapshot of the philosophy that can be expanded upon in a miniseries.

Actually, I rather enjoyed Galt getting into Thompson's face and saying "Get out of our way!" I thought it was quite effective and not anything Thompson could have expected. I really enjoyed Galt saying, "I'm always open to a deal" (always the trader) because it was clear that Thompson didn't know what was coming next.

Posted by kalkalmanek 9 minutes ago
I saw the AS 3 yesterday at 11:30 AM. I was hoping that it would have shown the machine that blow up things from a distance and how the Taggert Bridge was blown up but that was the only disappointment. It is a very short movie but it shows somewhat what the liberal & bureaocrates have done to the once great country. We can take it back now since most democrates have finally seen what damage they.have done to this country by giving a man a fish instead of teaching a man to fish. "Run Ben run

well, Lionel, I *know* that I'll love it when I get the
chance to see it -- because it will be worth the $$.
in severe contrast with the rest of the movies out there.
thanks for your impressions, and I bet that you'll
like it more the second time through. -- j

As a theatrical entertainment, I found it to be severely lacking. I don't think anyone who isn't ALREADY interested in Rand's message will find it engaging.

HOWEVER, I did find that this movie explained the concepts better and illustrated the conflict better. But it was done through narration (which is primarily what the book does too) and not through any action or character portrayals.

Atlas Shrugged is a difficult concept to explain other than through narration. And narration does not translate to the big screen very well.

I agree that some of the choices were quite odd and sometimes irrelevant to the real conflict and drama. Dagney and John's tryst in the train yard was important in the context of the book, but so much of that was edited out of the movie as to render it irrelevant in the development of the story told on the screen.

While I understand there was a limited budget, the story and acting were right out of 50's TV series or B movie. The way the idyllic world of the 'valley' was shown with such a cheesy soundtrack with repeating scenes, to that of the monochrome outside world. They have it all in this utopian world, food, wine, hot and cold water, blissful weather in the Colorado mountains...Shangri-la. I was waiting for the bad guys to show up in black hats!! It was like the movie was made by a bunch of kids ...think "Super 8". The producers should have hung out until they could obtain a larger budget, or at least make the story more believable with the existing budget. I loved the first AS. I liked the second, but this was a huge disappointment!

When does the mini-series start? Was it going to be on A&E Channel?

The love scene was Laughable. Could have done without that. Loved the msg. Would love it if it was redone by a larger budget where it could reach more people. There were a couple of times we all looked at each other and laughed because (although written long ago) these things ARE happening now! Thanks to the folks who brought this forth in a movie so more people COULD be exposed to Ayn Rand!!!!

I saw the first showing at my local theater. Maybe 10 people there.
I give the producers an A for effort especially with the limited budget. But again disappointed with the casting, acting and direction. One key scene that I was especially unhappy with was they way "Get the hell out of my way" was handled.
But I am very happy to see that the trilogy got finished and released. As someone has already said this third part will not be considered any kind of 'great cinema' in the future, But the message is out there now.

Totally agree, especially about Cheryl Taggart. I also would've liked to see more on the night Rearden Steel was attacked, maybe showing Francisco getting Hank to join the Strike. Last on the downside, I thought the movie was a bit "soft" vis-a-vis the destruction of the World. But overall they were true to the work and Ayn Rand's vision, the parts were well played by the actors, and it was a good ending to the trilogy.

Yeah, this was pretty much as terrible as the last two. I'm glad to have supported conservative cinema, but the bad guys were basically two dimensional straw men. The only interesting one was Thompson himself. And really, project F? What's do damn scientific about an electrocution machine? Saddam had one just like it - a car battery + a bed spring. It was ridiculous. The whole idea that a couple guys could break into a Federal installation and get John out too was too much.

Also they got too into the politics. They kept throwing it in our faces. Instead of telling a story I was subjected to a bunch of political crap every scene - from the mother talking about homeschooling, the banker talking about loans, etc. It was too preachy. As always, I am disappointed yet again by this production company but they're the only one out there actually making conservative films. It's unfortunate there isn't enough competition in this space to make something good.

Yes, and the acting seemed particularly bad during the first few minutes. It did get better, but I wish that the finished product would have more appeal to a wider audience. There were only a few people in my showing and they were all older. There needs to be an outreach and a product that appeals to young potential objectivists and gets better coverage.

It started off slowly for those of us who knew the book and had seen ASP1 and ASP2. I think the slow start enabled the movie to stand on its own and to be comprehensible to people who don't know Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged, the book, and who had not seen the first two movies. Now, I'd like to see a remake of The Fountainhead.

Lionel, several people I've talked to agree with your assessment of the best scene of the movie. hope it shows up on Youtube.

Entirely with you on both Akston and the dreadful Project F torture scene. That said, I'm going back to see it again this afternoon. The "New Jim Taggert" was exceptional, but I deeply miss Taylor Schilling.

I applaud the efforts of the producers/director on such a limited budget, but I was disappointed with the end result. (The "torture" scene with "Project F" was horrible joke.) I guess the mistake was taking the book out of the period and trying to update it with private jets and cell phones, but leaving the dialogue and 1950s mores as written. An "A for Effort," and I'm still glad I "kicked in," but this will not stand up in the annals of film-making to the likes of V for Vendetta, a brilliant work with a similar theme.

I'll have more to say, I'm sure, after I have the chance to see it.

I agree it started slow. I was disappointed how they handled Cheryl's death.

Speech was good.

I agree it did start off slow.

The Akston Diner Mugs used by Galt are for sale at the movie site. I have two. Cant decide which to drink my coffee from. Choices too many choices.