Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Brilliant and touching

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

When circumstances constantly conspire against our most sincere and best efforts, rest assured, something is dangerously amiss and tragedy is inevitable unless aggressive corrective action is taken asap.Can't blame people for wishing the prophetic reality presented would all go away so as to give this TV series and later Video release a low rating.Don't be confused by feigned incompetence at the highest levels.... that is only part of the story. Corrupt leaders are both corrupt and their own victims of gross incompetence.For solid historical background on this development you can also read CP Snow's best seller book entitled "The Two Cultures + A 2nd Look".... Even before that were signs of trouble ahead..... read about the life of famous Nobel Prize winner and Nuclear Physicist Niels Bohr and/or Robert Oppenheimer from the book about his tragic life entitled "American Prometheus".Now go prepare yourself for what is yet to come.....

John & Harmon set out to start a trilogy of Ayn Rand's epic novel. They were new at movie-making, didn't know what the film would eventually cost, and were either ignored or scorned by those in the movie world.Yet they got pretty good acting, a little slow pacing at first, and some good drama - the John Galt Line creation. I thought the movie picked up towards the final third, as the team found its center and began rolling out staccato pithy comments. I thought the most inspired acting was done by the man who played Ellis Wyatt.AS Part I (2011) is a fine effort, capturing the themes of the novel while developing the mystery storyline. It's really a rough draft of "Non-Contradiction"; a follow-up could feature more Akston's Diner & dollar-sign cameos, AS Part II (2012)'s Rearden Steel set, and more product placement of current capitalist icons.

When other reviewers write that many people rate this movie low because they disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy and values, they fail to realize that her characters - this movie's characters - are unsympathetic and almost across the board unlikable.The Screenplay and its character development, with the necessary creation of drama on which the story hinges, is the foundation of any film. This production failed from the start. I won't even go into the extreme mess they made of the politics behind the corporate machinations depicted here, except to say that this story was like Wall Street's answer to its fraudulent actions that caused the long-term collapse of our country's economy and the immediate collapse of the whole world's. Who can sympathize with those whose only goal is undying greed?In the end, who can or will identify or empathize with the characters here who show active disregard and even distaste for other human beings, like the ones buying the movie ticket?One positive is the two lead actors, with huge props to Taylor Schilling; however, both characters are still too chilly and distant to warrant carrying about them. They are characters from the mind of Ayn Rand, and she was well-known for being fairly strange and certainly not warm. So, it is what it is.

This is a very good film but the whole thing falls apart spectacularly in the second installment because they used all different actors to carry the same story along-a story that loses its edge and becomes commonplace in the second film. That being said this film captures the essence of Anne Rands work-a writer who was ahead of her time and a person who had a unique vision of the future. Her style was apparent in the first film but the change of personnel didn't maintain the same feeling that existed in the first film with regards it being a definitive representation of Anne Rand's work. Some people won't mind the funny way they executed this multi film project- its still something to watch when its cold outside type of thing-but others, like myself think they could have done better and should have tried more to do the project more professionally. I can remember this being advertised but I cannot remember it ever being on any screens anywhere around after it was released. Usually I don't miss the more interesting films. The thing that is a resounding issue in the work of Anne Rand is she is basically a 'new romantic' writer even though she described herself as an "objectivist" and considered her work as a way to promote 'a new philosophy of Objectivism.' She was a different type of writer.