Better than most people think

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

What a horrible woman. I have never read anything by her or about her but was really astounded by this documentary. Basically, she believes that everyone should be selfish and think only of themselves. Government should not take care of anyone. There is no God. she babbles incoherently about the future of the human race and her greatest philosophical achievement is a book about an architect that every selfish conservative in the world has bought next to only the bible. She sounds like a cult. I plan to watch Fountainhead. I wonder how it became the favorite book of Anne Hathoway (The Princess Diary). Wonder what her parents were like? If I somehow come up with a different opinion, I will let you know. Until then, watch this and tell me if you can find any redeeming value. Check out the parts where the audience is watching her on talk shows of the 70's with a collective look of horror as she spouts out her ideas that God doesn't exist, people should not seek help from their government and people who believe in helping others are wimps. Now you will know why conservatives love her and shun Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and other petty altruists. Ugh....

Rand philosopher or Novelist?Rand seems to exemplify the notion that our unreflected ideas are products of our environment and childhood experiences. The chief force motivating her life was a hatred of left-wing politics from the time when her family was expelled from Russia, and an accompanying acceptance of the glamour of the fascist dictators of the 1930s and 40s.Is she a philosopher? I have just read a rather good synthesis of the History of Philosophy from Plato to the modern day. "The Passion of the Western Mind" by Richard Tarnas. I heartily recommend it to all. He does not mention Ayn Rand once. In fact he does not mention ANY novelist because novelists do not do serious philosophy. Rand plays no part in Philosophy her ideas are bankrupt and without merit. They are second hand and undigested reflections on the now discredited Vienna school of logical positivism applied to wider society, yet her limited bourgeois effete experiences prove of no use for the sort of pan-social application to which her words are increasingly being used by the neo-cons of the present day. Her ideas are simple and appeal to simple people. The sort of people who glean their philosophical ideas from the back of a Cornflakes packet: homespun red-neck notions delivered by a naive middle-class woman under the spell of the glamour of the fascists of the pre1945 period.Rand is no philosopher.Chazwin

Documentary (narrated by Sharon Gless) about the life and times of author/philosopher Ayn Rand. Movies goes into exhaustive detail about her coming here from Russia, her "objectivism" philosophy, her books, her whole entire life. The film is too long (2 1/2 hours) and gets repititous at times (we hear about every single aspect of objectivism--it's not necessary and really weighs the movie down). Nonetheless, it is interesting and (I think) worth seeing for people who like or are interested in Rand. If you don't like her stay away.

Let's face it. Every documentary is biased. No matter how objective (forgive the situational wordplay) a documentary filmmaker wants to be in presenting his/her subject, he/she has a point of view, or else why bother making the film at all?The problem here is not Michael Paxton's bias, although he is clearly an adoring fan of the writer/philosopher. The problem is that in painting a portrait of this equally celebrated and vilified woman, he never shows, and only barely tells of, the vilification. As a result, he doesn't give viewers, not even her most ardent admirers, reason to celebrate her.The film mentions in passing some of her flaws as a person, and repeatedly talks of the criticism surrounding her ideas. But we never hear any of the criticism, any of the arguments against, anything at all to cast her in the light of "defender of the faith," or defender of anything at all, for that matter. She states her case time and again, in interviews, in excerpts from her novels and philosophical works, etc. But we're left with a feeling of "Great. Why should I care?"Not many people will see this film -- 2 1/2 hour docs rarely draw the masses in theater, on video or anywhere else -- so I'll make a rather simplistic analogy. Think of "Star Wars". How compelled would we be to root for the good of the force if we hadn't heard Darth Vader expound on the power of evil (the Dark Side)? How can you convince anyone of any point, positive or negative, without at least presenting the counterpoint?Viewers who already adore Rand will no doubt cheer this film. For them, it's very palatable candy. Her detractors shouldn't waste their time. But a documentary is supposed to educate viewers in some way, and the uneducated will get nothing more than a biography and an unquestioned statement of philosophy. That's not much for any doc, but especially for one this long.