How sad is this?

good back-story, and good acting

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

A documentary that appeals to insouciant libertarians, neophytes in economics, and everything in between. The filmmakers have succeeded in amassing an impressive range of political hacks and starry-eyed apostles that are more than willing to espouse their unbridled adulation of Rand. Viewers are richly rewarded with both a flattering homage to the person Ayn Rand as well as receiving a treat of mental masturbation to her philosophical ideas.The two interviewees with more substantive understanding are Jennifer Burns and Anne C. Heller, which both have written purportedly comprehensive books on the topic. All in all the documentary briefly touches upon Rands privileged childhood in Russia, semi-forced escape to the US in the mid-1920s, to the harsh criticism in the media after the publication of Atlas Shrugged. Objectivism and her magnum opus are slightly expanded upon, while all critical viewpoints are conspicuously absent. Moreover, what is further lacking is any discussion of the character flaws and hypocrisy Rand displayed in her personal life.The main problem with the implied prophesy of the novel - and the most crucial piece that Rand got completely backwards - was the expected cronyism of the "big government". In reality the problem in US was always an exceptionally strong and overpowering private sector, which has been able to water down regulations and any attempts to rein in its power. This has concerned everything from a lax oversight of Wall Street, to curbing polluting industries, to ensuring America has became inundated with guns and fire arms, to an ever-mushrooming military-industrial complex... At the core the problem was never the naive and idiotic fantasy of secretive government churning out Soylent Green, but an unhinged private sector that won every battle against ordinary people by a cadre of K-Street lobbyists, bought republican politicians, and well-funded media campaigns propagating misinformation.In fact, after the global meltdown of financial markets in 2008 even the ex-fed chairman Alan Greenspan, the early disciple Ayn Rand ever since the 1950s, had to admit that the outcome of a free, unregulated market was complete financial disaster.Finally, what clearly detracts from the documentary is having an entire conveyor belt of asinine opinions and mind-boggling ignorance regurgitated by a series of ever dumber pea-brained minions.

The documentary is a good summary of "Atlas Shrugged," and the ethics and politics that inform it. It also has some biographical information about Rand up to the book's publication. It would be a good introduction for people new to the book and her ideas. I started reading Rand about 30 years ago and I wish the documentary would have gone deeper. I would have preferred 30 minutes less of cheerleading and 30 minutes more of exploring her ideas and their ramifications.That the documentary didn't go into Rand's personal life and the Objectivist movement's ups and downs was a mixed blessing. I was surprised that Leonard Peikoff wasn't in the documentary but Amy Peikoff was, and that it completely ignored 9/11 and what I consider Objectivism's hysterical response to Islamic terrorism, which continues to this day.

My comments here are not on specific content or delivery, like some critics my pose. I simply want to express my fascination with the overall content and that this documentary kept me transfixed on the screen for the entire time. I couldn't look away and my mind raced for hours after watching it. Thinking about what all I had just learned and opened my thoughts in new ways to view society. Ayn Rand's life is discussed so you can understand why she wrote the book and how her early life gave her the philosophy she presented in her books. The discussions about how critics hated her book and called her vile names, including comments that it was an ill-spirited book and gave the impression that she was mean and soulless gave an additional perspective to the way literary elites viewed the world in the 1950s. Definitely worth the time.

I'd been hoping for a more or less balanced account of Ayn Rand's life and her influential novel, "Atlas Shrugged." It's getting harder to ignore both of them, what with our current Vice Presidential candidate having become a convert to objectivism in his youth.It was a disappointing movie, coming across as a hagiography, something like the life of Jesus. Ayn Rand, a Russian émigré, seems to have predicted the panic that grips so many of us today. There's a lot of philosophical fluff, and some of her writing is nicely done, but you know what's at the heart of our despair? Too many regulations, that's what.The world is divided into creators and looters. There are those who make and those who take. The government is the chief taker and its instruments are tax collectors and Wall Street thugs. The government imposes regulations and then imposes regulators on the regulations and it all multiplies like cancer cells. Among the looters would have to be counted those of us on food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, anyone who received help from Mother Theresa. That's about it. If it begins to sound a little familiar -- "Let's free the job creators", and so forth -- that's because it is. I DID say the philosophy was "influential."Rand, judging from what I've read elsewhere, was a more complex, and a more interesting person than this well-done propaganda gives her credit for. Her philosophy attracted a number of bright and eager young people in the 1950s and Rand became a sort of cult leader, tolerating little in the way of dissent. She bedded one or two of the more devoted males, with which I find absolutely nothing wrong, and threw out some dissidents. I didn't recognize any of the many talking heads. I'm not a philosopher nor a follower of any, except for a loose commitment to science and a notion of humanitarianism that's rapidly becoming antiquated. I guess I'd have been dismissed from the group. I think, though, that I may have heard of Harry Binswanger. He's a smart guy. He was teaching at CUNY at the same time I was. But I don't think any discussion with him would be very fruitful because he's so orthodox. For instance, he would throw open the borders of the United States and allow all the immigrants to flood the country. Ayn Rand, after all, was herself an immigrant. And Binswanger wouldn't worry about terrorism. If there were a threat from, say, Iran, he'd invade and conquer the country and eliminate the threat. Simple, no?There's a recurring problem with straightforward and simple analyses of the world around us, however appealing they might sound. The problem is that the world hasn't been structured in a way that's deliberately designed to facilitate our understanding of it. It's pretty complicated. That's one of the reasons it seems to me that charter documents like the Constitution are worded so vaguely. It's good that they're inexact. They can be interpreted in ways that fit the problems of the times. Imagine if one of the Ten Commandments read, "Thou shallt not allow any money-lending institution with a capital base of more than ten thousand shekels to lend money at a rate greater than 3.6 percent per annum." Imagine if the Second Amendment read, "No guns allowed for any citizen under any circumstances." Imagine a philosophy that says flatly, "Let's get rid of taxes and make the government impotent."Eric Fromm once observed that thinking was an irritant and it was Charles Sanders Peirce who defined "belief" as "thought, at rest."