Atlas Shrugged - The Movie (88's Review)

[Bizzarofelice]

You never read the book, so how would you know what I'm talking about?

[Truman]

You never read the book, so how would you know what I'm talking about?

I've read lots of books, Biz, but trust me: Nobody ever knows what the hell you're talking about. For God's sake, Z, you read like BBQ Jones tonite.

[LTS TRN 2]

So..anyone actually read the essays, screeds and "novels" of Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum?

Reading the tedious attempts here at offering an opinion on this curious barracuda bitch, I'd say no.

Thus it's futile to offer any actual insight to her bizarre attraction, her slimy attachment to current rapacious capitalist crooks, or her utterly fatuous claim to being a "philosopher."

As to her status as one of the greatest frauds in the history of modern pop culture, you're the evidence of "things not seen"--i.e, any credibility of any aspect of her shallow harping rants being verified.

Anyone can decry the grotesque crimes of the Stalinist purges, but.....?...her FAVORITE U.S. president--the only one who could pass her steel-edged muster..?


"I'm not a Lincoln..I'm just a Ford"

[Terry in Crapchester]

Or I might rent..... To Kill a Mockingbird (book was much better than the movie, imho) instead.

True, but the movie was pretty damn good too.

Hollywood, at the time, was really concerned about getting too racy, and as a result, the storyline in the movie had a pretty big gap in it.

In the book, at Tom Robinson's trial, Atticus Finch laid out some pretty convincing evidence that Mayella Ewell had in fact been raped by her father. That was left out of the movie entirely.

If you saw the movie but didn't read the book, you wouldn't completely understand why Bob Ewell had enough contempt for Atticus Finch to try to murder his children.

[Terry in Crapchester]

maybe not. If you like Jesus as a fashion icon or Broadway singer, the you can still like Rand.

if you like the philosophies he espouses, including religion itself, then you and Rand will be a difficult match.

Yeah, that "love one another" shit pisses me off.

Rand preached selfishness as the ultimate virtue. Jesus . . . not so much, to put it VERRRRAHHH mildly. In fact, Jesus was pretty much the polar opposite of that.

Rand has become far more famous and influential in death than she ever was in life, and that's probably not a coincidence. If she were still alive today, the right would be finding it very difficult to whitewash her to the point they have.

Rand was an atheist. That point alone would turn off a significant portion of the right's base, even among those who list her as one of the most inspirational figures of their lives. She had a small but tight inner circle whom she ruled with an iron fist, castigating any who dared disagree with her on anything. She was convinced that government studies showing a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer were a communist conspiracy, and therefore, not only did she smoke two packs a day, but she required everyone in her inner circle to smoke as well. Years later, when she found herself (not surprisingly) dying of lung cancer, and unable to pay her medical bills, Rand (who never became a U.S. citizen AFAIK) went on her husband's Medicare policy after having spent years denouncing Medicare as the impending death of the U.S.

As for Communists, Rand stated on more than one occasion that she despised their ideals but admired their methods. Speaking just for myself, that would make her pretty much the polar opposite of me in that regard (although we all know that in the final analysis, the Communists have never even tried to live up to their ideals, merely to replace the ruling and elite classes).

Rand was, simply put, a despicable human being. About the only redeeming quality I can find in her is that she was a major-league horndog. But given her political ideas, the images I've seen of her, and the two pack a day cigarette habit, I highly doubt that I ever could have brought myself to hit that, even with enough mind-altering substances in my system to kill two elephants.

[Screw_Michigan]

Rand was an atheist. That point alone would turn off a significant portion of the right's base, even among those who list her as one of the most inspirational figures of their lives. She had a small but tight inner circle whom she ruled with an iron fist, castigating any who dared disagree with her on anything. She was convinced that government studies showing a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer were a communist conspiracy, and therefore, not only did she smoke two packs a day, but she required everyone in her inner circle to smoke as well. Years later, when she found herself (not surprisingly) dying of lung cancer, and unable to pay her medical bills, Rand (who never became a U.S. citizen AFAIK) went on her husband's Medicare policy after having spent years denouncing Medicare as the impending death of the U.S.

Bwah. Typical conservative hypocrite.

[Goober McTuber]

Has there ever been a movie that outdid the book?

The Godfather.

[R-Jack]

Has there ever been a movie that outdid the book?

The Godfather.

This. Possibly the first time that editing out parts of the book made for a better film.

[mvscal]

after having spent years denouncing Medicare as the impending death of the U.S.

She is, of course, entirely correct on that score. Medicare is devouring the Federal budget and, unless it's fixed, it will entirely consume that budget to the exclusion of all else. That isn't an opinion. It's a stone cold fact.

[Terry in Crapchester]

after having spent years denouncing Medicare as the impending death of the U.S.

She is, of course, entirely correct on that score. Medicare is devouring the Federal budget and, unless it's fixed, it will entirely consume that budget to the exclusion of all else. That isn't an opinion. It's a stone cold fact.

Moving the goalposts just a tad, aren't we?

To the extent Medicare is a problem today, that is entirely because of the strain placed upon the program by the arrival of the baby boomers, and the fact that the numbers will only get bigger in the near future. Rand was complaining about what Medicare did to the country in 1965, not what it would do in 2010.

Rand preached selfishness as the highest human virtue. From that, it logically follows that she didn't give a rat's ass about what happened to the country after she died. And for the record, at the time of her death, the oldest baby boomers were in their mid-30's, still a quarter century or so away from Medicare eligibility. The youngest boomers were still college-age at the time of her death.

Nor does it change the fact that Rand was a major-league hypocrite.

[Smackie Chan]

She had a small but tight inner circle...she was a major-league horndog.

Nice combo.

[Goober McTuber]

She had a small but tight inner circle...she was a major-league horndog.

Nice combo.

Rules....

[LTS TRN 2]

But, SS, why isn't that obvious hypocrisy? Why is it rational? You forgot to say. As for your not adhering to her program, it's because you're a Christer. As far as her real deficiencies, start with the fact that the only philosopher she approved of was Aristotle! Now of course as a scientist Aristotle still has credibility--his classification system, for example. But as a philosopher, he was thoroughly debunked by the time of Lucretius in the 1st century ade. And since then his stock as a philosopher has basically disappeared. And yet the ranting Rand insisted that he was the only philosopher of any worth. Next, consider that Rand was for some curious reason extremely antagonistic towards environmentalism. Oh yeah, drill, baby, drill, and fuck the people downstream. And while she preached racial tolerance, she screamed about "mud people" and "savages" when referring to any culture that wasn't aboard the all-out industrial approach to living on the planet.
And finally, consider that her proposals and agenda for economic policy have in fact been implemented--with catastrophic result. Her prize pupil and most adoring apostle is of course Alan Greenspan, whose level of complete disgrace and failure is still being plumbed. In short, hers was a complete failure of vision and understanding, and her simply ranting obvious truths--i.e., no one like totalitarian dictators--does nothing to justify her pathetic passion.

[smackaholic]

88, you are conservative, therefore, you must be a christer.

[LTS TRN 2]

No, but Climate Change denialists are almost 100% Christers, and the question was Why wasn't Rand's accepting of Medicare NOT hypocrisy--in light of "philosophy"? Guess what? She was a complete hypocrite in virtually every facet of her life. Just as the disciples of her shallow and simplistic paperback "philosophy" have been proven absolute disastrous frauds. And I'm speaking specifically of Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and Ben Bernanke for starters. But another catastrophic ass-clown who loved her message was Phil Gramm. :doh:

So...quit yer goose-stepping around the back yard for a minute and wake the fuck up.

[BSmack]

So a low-budget political drama playing in less than 10% of all US movie houses is supposed to gross revenues like Avatar(d)?



To be fair, Lib efforts don't play so hot either. Think about it: We get bombed with political rhetoric every day. Tough to yell at a newspaper, and Rachel and Rush can't hear your rants. At least here, we can debate the day's topics on relatively even ground. People go to movies to escape...

Nobody is expecting that it should pull in a billion plus at the box office. But it should be able to turn a profit. That is if it is remotely entertaining. Fahrenheit 911 and Bowling for Columbine may not be up your alley, but they made money for the studio that released them. Super Size Me made money for the studio. Food Inc (a shit movie if there ever was one) made money. An Inconvenient Truth made money. Atlas Shrugged is looking like it won't even make back production costs in its theater run.

After checking this week's estimates, I don't think Atlas Shrugged is going to make back 1/4 of productions costs. What an absolutely epic FAIL.

[Terry in Crapchester]

She is, of course, entirely correct on that score. Medicare is devouring the Federal budget and, unless it's fixed, it will entirely consume that budget to the exclusion of all else. That isn't an opinion. It's a stone cold fact.

Moving the goalposts just a tad, aren't we?

To the extent Medicare is a problem today, that is entirely because of the strain placed upon the program by the arrival of the baby boomers, and the fact that the numbers will only get bigger in the near future. Rand was complaining about what Medicare did to the country in 1965, not what it would do in 2010.

Rand preached selfishness as the highest human virtue. From that, it logically follows that she didn't give a rat's ass about what happened to the country after she died. And for the record, at the time of her death, the oldest baby boomers were in their mid-30's, still a quarter century or so away from Medicare eligibility. The youngest boomers were still college-age at the time of her death.

Nor does it change the fact that Rand was a major-league hypocrite.

I don't think you understand Rand's philosophy, Terry. Objectivism is not pure "selfishness" as you suggest. The concept of objectivism requires each individual to rationally assess his or her own talents/abilities/interests, and then pursue the greatest return for the individual utilizing those talents/abilities/interests (see. e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) ).

I never suggested that objectivism = selfishness. I only stated that Rand praised selfishness as a virtue, even as the highest human virtue.

Someone suggested on John Stossel's program that Bernie Madoff would have been a perfect Ayn Rand protege because he was a selfish pig. This suggestion was shot down quite effectively by pointing out that breaking the law is not in one's rational self interest. Madoff lived in constant fear of being caught and ultimately ended up being caught and incarcerated. While Madoff was clearly motivated by supreme selfishness, he did not do so in accordance with Rand's philosophy.

As to Madoff, consider William Hickman. William Hickman kidnapped a 12-year-old girl, and after the girl's father complied with his ransom demand, murdered the girl, dismembered her body, and mailed the body parts to the girl's father. Rand was quite taken with Hickman, or at least with her idealized version of Hickman, referring to him as a sort of Nietschean (sp?) "superman."

Another example that sort of refutes what you say here is her attitude about smoking. Understand, I'm not faulting Rand per se for continuing a smoking habit. The first government study on health problems associated with smoking didn't come out until the 50's. Rand would've been in her late 40's or early 50's when that report came out, so at a relatively late point in her life. And I'm well aware of just how addictive a product tobacco is from watching my own parents' multiple attempts to quit. My old man didn't quit, in fact, until he reached the point where ALS had robbed him of his ability to light a match and hold a cigarette, so he basically had no alternative at that point.

But Rand's attitude toward smoking went far beyond that. She denounced the government study as a communist conspiracy, and required the other members of her inner circle (many of whom were considerably younger than she was, and therefore better situated to quit smoking) to continue to smoke. In short, Rand acted as though either she knew the science better than the researchers who had conducted the study, or alternatively, that the study was nothing more than a gigantic scam. That's not enlightened self-interest. That's arrogance, plain and simple.

If you adhere to Rand's philosophy (and I do not), then it would be perfectly rational to oppose Medicare and other forms of wealth redistribution and welfare, while at the same time taking advantage of the benefits of the program for so long as it remained in place. It is the same as being opposed to allowing individuals to deduct the interest paid on mortgages while taking the mortgage interest deduction each year. It is not hypocritical.

Or, on the other side of the political equation, opposing the Bush tax cuts but still availing oneself of available benefits one could find in those tax cuts? Funny, but I remember being called a hypocrite on that point on a number of equations, though perhaps not by you.

I am a devout atheist . . .

Is there even such a thing?

[BSmack]

And now it is official. No wide release and no sequels. Just a sinking bomb of a picture.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/ ... trike.html

[Carson]

What? A classic book that doesn't translate to film?

Sin,

Dune

[mvscal]

And now it is official. No wide release and no sequels. Just a sinking bomb of a picture.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/ ... trike.html

Why do you care?

[BSmack]

And now it is official. No wide release and no sequels. Just a sinking bomb of a picture.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/ ... trike.html

Why do you care?

Because one of these days Truman will show his face in the radio forum. I'm also having fun tormenting Lab Rat out here in the real world.

[Truman]

And now it is official. No wide release and no sequels. Just a sinking bomb of a picture.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/ ... trike.html

Why do you care?

Because one of these days Truman will show his face in the radio forum. I'm also having fun tormenting Lab Rat out here in the real world.

I was so demoralized by the poor box office performance of the most iconoclastice conservative movie ever produced in the history of iconoclastic conservative movies, and so distressed by the mean-spirited vitriol of your bombastic harangue, that I decided to eschew the screening and seek comfort and solace in the arms of a young lady last night while partaking of a come-from-behind win by the Royals at the K last night.

Or something like that.

Which begs mvscals question...

Why do you care? :D

[BSmack]

I was so demoralized by the poor box office performance of the most iconoclastice conservative movie ever produced in the history of iconoclastic conservative movies, and so distressed by the mean-spirited vitriol of your bombastic harangue, that I decided to eschew the screening and seek comfort and solace in the arms of a young lady last night while partaking of a come-from-behind win by the Royals at the K last night.

Or something like that.

Which begs mvscals question...

Why do you care? :D

I hope you and your ewe had a wonderful time.

[LTS TRN 2]

I was so demoralized by the poor box office performance of the most iconoclastice conservative movie ever produced in the history of iconoclastic conservative movies, and so distressed by the mean-spirited vitriol of your bombastic harangue, that I decided to eschew the screening and seek comfort and solace in the arms of a young lady last night while partaking of a come-from-behind win by the Royals at the K last night.

Or something like that.

Which begs mvscals question...

Why do you care? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umKPXd7Pw0o

Long before the inane idea of trolling for newbie Tea Baggers with a fake movie with a fake premise by a total fraud who has incredibly somehow led rather directly to international disaster, this 1953 pure expression of corporate control-- i.e., Rand's heaven on earth--actually made money at the box office, and more, functioned as a leash upon the American people. Imagine a movie theater in 1953--everyone's smoking, eating garbage while being informed by the booming newsreel voice--commies everywhere, duck 'n cover--and here comes the biggest star in America, just home from the war, whoopin' Drill Baby Drill. There's of course a tragic futility in Stewart's earnest determination, a classic dilemma as current as ever. But Rand and her weird swath of devotees could not be expected to approach such a subject. Nor would the Koch brothers see anything here but...sequel!!!