I was convinced Atlas Shrugged could not be put on film, but this movie proved me wrong. It has a contemporary look and feel, while retaining the Art Deco elegance of Rand's novel. The acting is superb, particularly Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart and Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden. Bowler manages to cram more meaning into a half-cocked eyebrow than most actors in a dozen lines of dialogue, and Shilling captures the sleek, cold elegance of Dagny, while giving just a hint of the passion simmering beneath the surface. Indeed, all the performances are impeccable.

This is a beautiful movie to watch, with sets, locations and costumes that are both gorgeous and convincing. The run of the John Galt Line is thrilling, and when it crossed the bridge made of Rearden Metal, I wanted to stand up and cheer.

Director Paul Johansson (who also plays John Galt) obviously knew exactly what he wanted to put on the screen, and manged to do it. He is faithful to Rand's story, and in particular to the philosophical message that is at the heart of the work, while maintaining the excitement of the plot.

During her lifetime, Rand did not allow the novel to be made into a film, perhaps for fear that the movie would not be faithful to the book. It's too bad that she didn't live to see this movie because, I believe, she would be surprised and pleased by how well it captures the essence of her work. This is clearly a labor of love that will help make Rand's ideas accessible to many who have not yet read her work. And it's exciting and rewarding for those of us who have been Rand fans for many years. Can't wait for Parts 2 and 3.

When I was a college student some forty plus years ago, I was a voracious reader. However there was something about Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' that intimidated me. In all likelihood it was it's thousand plus pages and the unsettling idea that I might not be up to the task of finishing it. So for four decades, Ken Kesey's "Sometimes a Great Notion" has remained my favorite book until last year. That's when I finally got around to Atlas, Rand's seminal work in a prodigious career.

So the characters and events of the novel are still fresh enough for me to recall what happened with some clarity, while at the same time, the epic sweep of the film compresses those events and blends them in a way that transcends the chronology of the book. Though I've read that the installments of the picture were intended to parallel the chapters of the novel, that doesn't seem to be the case. Much of what transpired in the film correspond to events in Rand's second chapter, and take a whirlwind approach in doing so, particularly the mission to find the inventor of the static electricity motor.

Now even though the book was first published in 1957, there's an uneasy sense that it prophesied conditions in this country in the here and now. Government intervention to level the playing field in the name of 'equalization of opportunity' bears a striking similarity to redistribution of wealth. In fact, if you're quick enough, you'll notice a van in the story labeled 'Department of Redistribution' under the aegis of the Ministry of Welfare. That one is strictly a modern day update reminding Joe the Plumbers of the world that leftist ideology exists to replace equality of opportunity with equality of results.

Which is at the crux of "Atlas Shrugged". When people with ambition who achieve success by virtue of their skill and creativity are punished for their effort, strategies will develop to fill the vacuum created by over-regulation and excessive taxation. There's more than a hint of that with John Galt's offer to the captains of industry. Galt is a participant in the film to a greater degree in the early stages of the story here, and I guess one could argue pro or con that the character's appearance could have been withheld for greater mystery and suspense. But so far it's working, and I'll be back on Tax Day next year and the year after, relishing the answer to the question - Who is John Galt?

I don't want to make this a philosophical discussion on Ayn Rand. I rather talk about movie logic, and story construction. I've never read the book, and I'm not going to. It's the movie I'm reviewing and it has many problems.

The general level of production is much better than a syfy TV movie, but it's much lower than most big screen theater releases. For a $4.3M production (if IMDb is accurate),it's actually pretty impressive. I have no problems with the production or Taylor Schilling's acting. She does a good job as the driven woman executive. The problems lie elsewhere.

I don't know how hard they try to follow the book, but I think they would be better off to abandon the storypoints and keep the philosophy. It's written in the 50's by a woman who doesn't know much about business or steel. It was questionable at its time but is incredibly outdated today. I don't know why the filmmakers believe steel would sound futuristic by people today. They are talking about steel...Right? We're watching IronMan and Transformers and steel is the new material?

This is an apocalyptic world on film. There is nothing new there. Every other movie is the end of the world. But the filmmakers really need to set it up better instead of some generic oil crisis. They're trying so hard to gin everything up to recreate the Atlas Shrugged storyline that it has no relevance to today's world. Instead trying to adapt the feel of the book, I think they try to recreate the book for today. Maybe it made sense when it was written, but it makes no sense today. It makes 'Red Dawn' look realistic.

I have many other problems with the movie logic here. Let's just say I rather not get bogged down. It's not a bad production if they could make the story more logical.