Atlas Shrugged: Part II (2012)

The film gives the impression that it's written by someone who's never been exposed to but always fantasised about class. It's then acted out in a spree of self-marginalising desperation of contrived spite for all humanity as an attempt to appeal to those who like to imagine themselves unrewarded heroes and yet-proclaimed masters of society by embracing such a caricature ideology... well, perhaps after all those viewers simply enjoy being assholes and had no further intellectual pursuits in deriving solace from these plot lines disguised as some embarrassing screen fiasco. Doomed from the inception and no increase in budget (which indeed looked very small and misspent) could salvage this train wreck. The change in actors only made it look more miserable.

So they made a movie with a fifth-rate director, no-rate producers, no money and no talent to tell the story of a philosophy of never compromising quality or dropping your standards. Did they not at least read The Fountainhead to understand the Randian stance on never compromising?Why did the conservatives not at least fund this movie?This is such an irony. Such an antithesis. Such a disappointment. The people who run the Ayn Rand foundation who sold the rights to these clowns must be total idiots.These two (so far) movies were even worse than the Steve Jobs movie (produced by a guy who owns an events company making conference AVs in Dallas, and written by one of his employees).

Even more soap operatic than Part I, Part II also lacks the few scattered exciting moments and variations in scenery we had in Part I (to which I gave three stars).Regardless of one's political persuasion or stance on America's current economic problems, I can't see how anyone could regard this film as anything but ludicrous. Example: The corrupt sell-out CEO James Taggart encounters a fawning groupie of a sales clerk in a bargain store where he's stopped to purchase a tie and immediately marries her. One of the dumbest confrontations in Filmland history takes place at the wedding, where mining mogul Francisco d'Anconia engages Taggart in a heated philosophical debate about the basic function of money in human society.Additionally, most of the acting and script are even more stilted than those in Part I. Still, I must give ASPII an additional star because it's quite funny --albeit, unintentionally--in a number of places. So, maybe watch it as a comedy (?) Nothing really gets resolved here, so I assume we're in for a Part III.

Usually a movie proposes a story, one that can be connected somehow to reality or tries to resemble an alternate world with a reasonable degree of logic in comparison to our reality. Even where and how different beings and species mirror us in someway.I found this movie to be poorly written in many aspects. Its condescending, instead of proposing a scenario, it accepts some beliefs as true and indisputable. Overall it seems this came from a quite shallow mindset.As a foreigner you grow up believing in the success the U.S. is both as a nation and country. Its might and power is such that it is under a glass veil and is constantly criticized for what it does or doesn't do. Its people and citizens are expected to be just as such successful.It is disappointing to learn that the foremost critics of the U.S. and the ones that appear to hate its institutions are really the U.S. citizens themselves. They strive to perform a more perfect nation, yet they despise their government. They want to be above all else but many are wary of themselves. Many think that there is a hidden agenda somewhere against them. I think this movie supports those ideas. I think it was a horrible product. I can't recommend this movie to anyone. Acting level is par with a midnight television show on a secondary network. The worse part of this movie is that it assumes the viewer has the same opinion as that of the script's writer. This is a like a preaching from a cult. It misses a lot, a whole lot.