I'm surprised by the reviews I've read stating that Part II was better done than Part I. I saw Part II with four friends, all have read the book and had seen Part I.

We all felt the drop off in acting quality was extreme. Unfortunately, this is magnified by an inferior director as well. The plot is for the most part accurate to the book, though the time-line was slightly altered and curiously skipped certain important details while forcing others less significant details into the screen play.

The new Rearden and D'Anconia are painful. The new Dagny isn't as painful but the actress in Part I I felt was far superior.

Its unfortunate that this trilogy is going to fail to transform into film yet again.

Sure I'm not an Ayn Rand sycophant. Ayn Rand had wanted to write a book where the rich went on strike. Well it seemed like a childish (no childlike) premise from the start. But let's leave all that behind. At it's core, it's an apocalyptic future America. That's every other movie nowadays anyways.

They have recast all the roles. Samantha Mathis is now Dagny Taggart. She's a capable actress who could hold the movie together. The scale of the movie has marginally improved from the first installment. There is still too much talking, too much posturing, and not enough action. It's as if the filmmakers want to explain philosophy rather than make a good story.

And there is too much that screams 1950s. How puritanical do you have to be to sign away your pride and joy to preserve your lover's sexual reputation? This and many other little things demand a rewrite.

And this whole thing of refusing to sell steel to the government. It makes Rearden look petty and silly rather than a Real Capitalist. Isn't capitalism dependent on the philosophy of "Money Rules All"? Capitalism shouldn't be selective. I'd rather have the government jackboot their way into the factory. It would make more sense for the story.

The film suffers from attempting to make a modern adaptation of Ayn Rand's master piece. Part 2 does better than Part 1 as we now see the cell phones and computers in abundance. However, alternative energy seems nonexistent. Indeed with gas at $40.00 a gallon, Volts and Prius would be everywhere. Since plastic comes from petroleum, the use of plastic as a coffee cup lid would have ceased. But the film was made to show us that when all the world's best and brightest are taken away, Sean Hannity would be left behind and no one can fill the void of those wonderful job creators.

No matter which side of the political spectrum you are on the film agrees with both: The poor couldn't exist without the rich. Henry Rearden (Jason Beghe) is quite the despicable character to be the hero of libertarian capitalism. He makes amateur speeches similar to those made by tax protesters I knew in the 1980s...the ones who ended up in jail. His message is simple: Government is evil. Taxes are robbery. Tax money given to help everyone but himself, goes to looters. In this film capitalism has gotten so out of control, they force the hand of government to nationalize all business and created a sudden communistic society by executive order. Can't happen, but try to go with it.

There is a gross exaggeration of the battle between capitalism and socialism, as if the two can not coexist in one society, except it does exist that way in every society to one degree or another. However, they don't exist exclusively without each other. You hear the mantra of the barter system "True value for value." Hand me my barf bag.

The main problem I had with the film was not the exaggerated if not cartoonish view it took on economics, but the stiff cardboard characters who can't act. The directing, editing, and screen adaptation also left much to be desired. And yet, as bad as it was, it was an improvement over the first film.