It struck me last Saturday at the Regal Meridian 16 that I was probably sitting in a roomful of assholes. We were all—all 18 of us, including me and the three snickering college kids looking for a so-bad-it’s-good experience—waiting for Atlas Shrugged: Part I to begin, and because of how we decided to spend our afternoon, we were pretty much all guaranteed to be jerks. I’m a critic for The Stranger, so my bona fides are established right there, of course. The first one in the theater was the old lady in the American flag T-shirt who was pecking furiously at her Kindle. A parade of assholes followed: the goateed paunchy guy (10 bucks says he works in tech, 20 bucks says he works at Amazon) dragging his sulky girlfriend to the center of the auditorium; the six dour gray-haired men who each came in alone (one, bless his heart, rocking a pleather fanny pack) and frowned at the screen, waiting for the movie to start; the two sloppily dressed mouth breathers (literally; at quiet points during the movie, their gasps—fwhooo, fhwheee—filled the silence like a malfunctioning air-conditioning system) who apparently couldn’t find any friends or family to accompany them; and so on. (I’m sure it goes without saying, but in case you have any doubt: We were all white.)
I‘m not going to debate the points of objectivism anymore. Life’s too short. If you think Ayn Rand is great, we can basically shake hands and part ways right there; we have nothing to offer each other as human beings. Rand offers a childish worldview, intended for people who don’t want to think about the world like grown-ups because thinking like a grown-up is too difficult. Arguing with a libertarian is like arguing the logic of a Dr. Seuss book with a class full of 6-year-olds, only not at all cute. So here’s all I’m going to say about the political perspective of the film: If you’re a sociopath, and you really, really, really hate humanity, and you believe in an absolute good and an absolute evil against all the staggering amount of evidence to the contrary (that is to say, after living in the real world for however long your life has been), you’ll probably agree with this movie’s political philosophy. Also: You are an asshole.
The irony of Atlas Shrugged, Part I, though, is that it’s a movie about how the people who make truly great things are laid low by the mediocrity of people who are jealous of their gifts, and it is an entirely mediocre movie. (Plot summary: A bunch of dicks walk around whining about how hard it is to be a dick. Two dicks ride a train and have an affair, because the guy’s wife is a dick and can’t understand how hard he works at being a dick. All their dick friends keep disappearing. The end. See you for part two, April 15, 2012!) Though the script praises exceptionalism, the script itself is unexceptional, making a monotonous hash from Rand’s soap-operatic blather (“What happened to you, Francisco? Where is the man I used to love?” and “There is so much at stake. We have to make it”). The characters are supposed to be nearly superhuman in their skills and self-confidence, but the actors are incapable of pretending to be even believable human beings.
The ethos that Atlas Shrugged hammers into its audience is that something is either worth doing to the absolute best of your ability or not worth doing at all. Yet a large part of the film is made up of generic stock footage, the cinematographer is more interested in the cheap rental furniture than the human beings uncomfortably sitting on it, and the wardrobe department can’t seem to tie a single necktie into a proper knot. The continuity editor apparently hasn’t found the time to watch the film yet: Every character rides around in the same limousine, and entire scenes consist of people sitting around tables at alleged “dinners” where no food is served, saying good-night to each other over full, untouched glasses of wine.
To call Atlas Shrugged: Part I comically inept would imply that it had a sense of humor, or that it’s an entertaining wreck of a film. It’s not that; it’s a barely watchable conglomeration of incomplete scenes about unformed characters, and it’s boring as hell to watch. It’s more tragically inept, a dyslexic love letter to the first third of a bad book. It doesn’t even deserve a real review, because it’s not a real movie; it’s just a hacked-together fairy tale for assholes. In fact, it’s exactly the movie that that roomful of assholes deserved. 
Sounds pretty faithful to the novel.
Except I bet chain smoking wasn’t featured quite so prominently.
The only thing I learned from reading The Virtue of Selfishness was the realization of the Ayn Rand Paradox: people who believe in their own superiority are complete assholes.
A pretty impartial review.
I guess if you have nothing constructive to bring to the table, namecalling is all you really have left.
so from your review I can safely assume that in a world of unabashed greed and unfettered commerce, art does not exist. that’s all I needed to hear.
and @4, what the hell have you been smoking? since when is it necessary for critics to be impartial? if anything criticism is where the biased live and thrive. go back to your fair and balanced cable news.
Thought the one star Ebert review was pretty darn good, but this is better. Thank you for this, Paul.
In the club of assholes, which has probably the largest membership on earth, this reviewer attempts to take the prize, right up his… well, you get the point.
The Atlas Shrugged movie is excellent. It is a movie about ideas, crucially important and incredibly timely ideas in fact. Most audience members understood this clearly enough, and gave this movie excellent reviews. Most real and pretend “reviewers” pretended to ignore this, and trashed the movie in order to garner approval from their friends, peers and/or bosses.
These reviewers are like morons on the Titantic 2 minutes before it goes keel up, then sinks. They support and justify unlimited government power, abuse and destructive actions… then blame others for the disasterous consequences.
Forget what reviewers say. Go watch Atlas Shrugged for yourself, maybe 2 or 3 times to assure you actually understand the message, then think about it for awhile. What do YOU think about the ideas, actions and consequences in the film? Think for yourself.
What a disingenuous hatchet job! At least the reviewer doesn’t pretend to be objective about the philosophy. Of course, the reviewer probably doesn’t know what objective means, or why the concept is important.
Atlas Shrugged is a movie about ideas, not a visual spectacle or fawning over grossly over-hyped and over-paid celebrity actors. Most audience members understand this, and review this movie very highly. Most, supposed “professional reviewers” understand this too, but pretend they don’t so they can disingenuously trash the movie to garner brownie points from their peers and/or bosses.
Atlas Shrugged is an excellent movie about crucially important and utterly timely ideas. Go see it three or four times, then decide for yourself whether a movie should be savaged for preaching ethics, productivity and individualism.
Atlas Shrugged is a adolescent wet dream. Fine job Paul–obviously I won’t be seeing this steaming turd of a movie.
You could say this movie was a train-wreck!
(see what I did there?)
Ebert’s review is great:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs…
I hear there is a lot of scenery of Colorado though. Yay Colorado!
Bootstrap seems like a genuine person who has real thoughts and ideas to get across! What a breath of fresh air!
O, but if I could subscribe to his twitter feed!
Ironically, only an @sshole could have written such a review.
It’s fine that he didn’t like it, but his approach only calls attention to himself.
It’s kinda like how only a mean person would say “mean people suck.”
This guy will always be bottom fishing writing garbage for a free rag.
“a movie about ideas, not a visual spectacle”
I thought an awful lot of Rand’s plots were about great people being held back from making great art (architects) or great infrastructure (engineers). Wouldn’t you want your movie to be, you know, great? In respect to its art form? In respect to being appealing to a broader audience? I mean, maybe you’re right, and the producers set out to make a boring flop. Seems a bit contradictory. Although I do love the concept of the Tea Party seizing on the philosophy of a woman who would likely despise the majority of them on a personal basis (rural, middle class, blue collar).
“or fawning over grossly over-hyped and over-paid celebrity actors”
I’m pretty sure you mean talented people maximizing their profit and fame, while acting predominantly out of ego and self-interest. Who better to play your selfish, rapey, hatey leads? If celebrities don’t embody your Randian ideal, who does? Hell, I’m pretty sure Charlie Sheen is your superman.
spoiler alert: she loves getting raped
Wow. I really thought The Stranger was going to like this one.
“A hacked-together fairy tale for assholes.” I love it. An apt description for most movies out there. At least Mudede didn’t review it.
Being into politics and liking this movie is like being into comics and liking the Wolverine movie.
bootstrap believes that, if I don’t like this fictional movie, that means I support and justify unlimited government power, abuse and destructive actions.
And this is a typical Randian thought process. They’re like crazy ass cult members.
Hey guys, what’s it called when a person gets paid to post contrary comments on blogs in order to make people think that real people actually disagree with the blogger? You know, like what bootstrap is doing?
Cuz his writing and grammar are far too good for anyone who actually thinks this book/movie is about anything worthwhile.
@23,
Did you notice how bootstrap posted basically the same thing twice in @8 & @9, but reworded it so it doesn’t technically count as a repost? They’re totally going to bill the producers/promoters/whoever double for that.
“The Atlas Shrugged movie is excellent. It is a movie about ideas, crucially important and incredibly timely ideas in fact.”
Psst. Being a “movie about ideas” doesn’t make a movie excellent; being a fun way to blow $25 and a few hours is what makes a movie excellent.
You were the leather fannypack guy, weren’t you?
@8/9- I like the part where you forgot to log into another account to post your sock puppet comment.
@9: Nice try, Atlas Shrugged: Part I movie executive.
@23 Good call!
bootstrap knows a hell of a lot about the production cost and time constraints in this comment below a different reveiw:
Arguing with libertarians on the internet is like pissing in the wind. They are all white, male overgrown teenage dorks, and they tend to come out of the woodwork when anything about libertarianism is mentioned online. Of course, their frenzied attacks on anyone that critiques libertarianism always devolves into bickering amongst themselves. Just wait, arguments about “l” vs. “L” and Rand vs. Rothbard will commence in 3, 2, 1…
@23, 28: One hopes that he is, in fact, a shill; if he’s not, it says the guy has bigger problems than being inept at sockpuppetry.
Over/under on last time he got some?
Face it Constant, you’re just jealous.
Ha! Just kidding. Seriously though, you have piqued my curiosity. Now I want to see it.
#9: What a nearly FLAWLESS parody of culty Randian speak. The “bootstraps” handle tips your hand, though.
These Randians need a bootstrap upside the head.
This is “Part I”? Meaning additional steaming turds to follow?
What a hack job of a review. The entire first paragraph consists of picking on weirdos (in a movie theater of all places!). And OMG, white people in Seattle! Shocking! A better example of self hatred being projected outwardly could not be found. This article is laughably bad.
@35: The weirdos started this fight by wrapping themselves in sanctimony. “Atlas Shrugged” is deeply misanthropic, a perfect reflection of Rand’s inner demons channeled as contempt for the hoi polloi.
Nobody complains about the all-White crowds at Burning Man or Grateful Dead concert, so this criticism of the audience sounds foolish.
37
Nobody complains about the all-White crowds at Burning Man or Grateful Dead concerts, so this criticism of the audience sounds foolish.
It would be interesting to contrast the skin tone of this crowd with, say, the Seattle premier’s of Soderberg’s movie “Che”
Hey bootstrap: Don’t let the haters get you down. I remember what it was like when I was 15, so I understand. Keep reading books, believe in yourself, and get out of the house every once in a while, okay?
Now run along, ya lil’ scamp.
39 Welcome to The Stranger, Nixxer!
There’s nothing the least bit dubious about your sudden arrival and repetitive posting style. Nothing at all.
Anyway, that bootstrap is a real douche nozzle, don’t you think?
Plot summary: A bunch of dicks walk around whining about how hard it is to be a dick. Review Summary: The reviewer is an asshole whining about people who he thinks are assholes because they have different views than him.
Soooooo … didn’t like it, huh?
If I am reading this right, we should judge every movie by the crowd in it? Should we also dismiss any philosophy we disagree with and use our own bias to trash a movie? I would think that movie reviewers (at least the good ones) would at least look at the film itself and examine the plot and cinematography to come to a rational conclusion to share with thier readers. I guess I expet too much.
Have you ever even read a single Stranger movie review before making this projection of yours that is erroneous at best and patently wrong at worst?
What skewed logic leads you to conclude that the typical pointy-headed liberal Stranger reader, my present company included, regularly eschews the usual over the top big-budget spectacle with overrated celebrity actors in favor of a more nuanced and cerebral cinematic offering, with cast unknown to the general moviegoing public?
If you are going to make a sweeping generalization, try to make sure that you get your generalizations right. Of course, according to your presence on sites reviewing this movie, it appears that you are far too busy defending this film, making excuses for its flaws and shortcomings as well as accusing its critics of not getting it.
So much for taking critique in stride when it happens to be your own purportedly perfect ideology that is the subject of ridicule.
Why are libertarians so thin-skinned?
@46…it’s very scary outside the collective. And they don’t get laid.
I’ve a cousin who’s a bigtime Libertarian. He’s very proud of this and will tell you about how superior Libertarian thought is, ad nauseam. I asked him last year why it is that all the Libertarians I’ve ever known have a tendency to come off as obnoxious assholes and he said “Because we’re right and we know it. Everyone else is wrong.” Oh, well, that would make it okay, I guess.
There are a few things about Libertarianism that I actually agree with, but this underlying Jeremiah-Johnsonism, that people have no obligation to their community, the society, or even to pay attention to who pays for the roads they’re driving on, is at best short-sighted and usually just something for selfish assholes.
Just because Ayn Rand was a sociopath who hypocritically tapped the system for Social Security and Medicare benefits does not make her ideas wrong. It just adds color to the fact that she was a selfish asshole who liked writing what amounts to 15yo-nerdboy-revenge porn. Anyone Ayn Rand’s stuff appeals to as a life philosophy has already failed their human test.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. “
– john rogers
Libertarianism refers to consistently applying Ethical Means in the pursuit of Desirable Ends. Ethical Means are primary because they refer to real actions (“I am stealing this candy bar”, “I am dropping bombs on this village”, “I am hitting this person”) and Desirable Ends are mental concepts, therefore unreal.
The principle of NON-AGGRESSION (excepting the appropriate use of force in self-defense) is the heart and soul of libertarian ethics.
I always though an “asshole” was an initiator of violence and force, not an individual who deeply abhors it. I am honestly curious to know what points are specifically objectionable and how they are off-base. I am a housekeeper and cook for international students and a reflexologist. I want no part of the corporate/banking world’s funny money. I am honestly trying to determine my approach to the world’s problems.
Ben, get a mind of your own. Quotes are lazy.
It’s really telling that libertarians think government regulation consists of a bunch of senators banning awesome, effective products because they’re just a bunch of big ol’ meanies who hate success. What a cartoonish view of the world (even for an antisocial 15-year-old).
Of course, in real life, most government regulation is necessitated by the tendency of private companies to use shitty, dangerously ineffective materials and methods in order to cut costs (as well as their tendency to fuck over their employees).
I can’t tell if libertarians know this but just hate their fellow humans enough to support shitty business methods, or if they’re just stupid enough to accept Rand’s simplistic bullshit.
Be they misanthropes or morons, libertarians should never be taken seriously, and it’s a shame that one of them has managed to slither his way into office in Kentucky.
“it’s a shame that one of them [libertarians] has managed to slither his way into office in Kentucky.”
Oh, no it’s not a shame at all – it’s a laff riot! I love seeing other libertarians attempt to tap dance away from Aqua Buddha as fast as they can.
He’s not exactly what they had in mind, but to us he displays exactly the sort of problems you get when a goofball funneling the ideology of perfect liberty funneled through the mechanisms of government…Dixie-style. Pure comedy gold!
lol @ 49