Atlas Shrugged Part III [Blu-ray]

I have been a loyal reader of Ayn Rand for over forty years, and have read all of her published works. "Atlas Shrugged" I read so many times I lost count, but it must be north of twenty or thirty times by now. I especially liked her books "We the Living" and "Atlas Shrugged," so I eagerly bought all three of the "Atlas Shrugged" movies as soon as they came out on Blu-Ray. I also read most of the movies' negative Amazon reviews, because I was interested in how Ayn's message was being received as America and the whole world slides with us inexorably into Socialism. There are basically three types of critics of these movies: 1. People who are happy to see Socialism swallowing more and more formerly free peoples around the world, especially Americans, all hate the movies (and the book if they could read and understand it). They list all of the cinematic weaknesses of the movies and may leave it at that, but they often can't resist shining a light on their political and philosophical biases against Capitalism and Ayn's own philosophy of Objectivism. In other words, they hate the message and to justify their hatred, find all manner of excuses to hate the movies. If they had liked the message they would have cut the producers some slack. Either way, bottom line is that they are intolerant about the message in these films and her novel, even offended. So, their opinions are heavily biased from the start. Conservatives hate Ayn Rand because she was an atheist. Liberals hate Ayn Rand because she does such an excellent job explaining why socialism doesn't work. I suggest you read some of their reviews (one & two star reviewers), and decide for yourself whether they or Ayn make the most sense. Most of them have never read "Atlas Shrugged" and if you have not, I suggest you do so. Ayn does a much better job of illuminating Objectivism in her book than could be done in any movie(s). 2. People who have not read "Atlas Shrugged" and came to the movies with a relatively open mind, but criticize the movies for their cinematic weaknesses. Certainly, these movies are not perfect, with 1 being the best and 3 being the least perfect. A very common criticism of them is that the cast changes from movie to movie. This is in fact true to the book in so far as the book covers the lives of the main characters from childhood through middle age. So, changing the young actors in movie 1 to middle aged actors in movies 2 & 3 is valid. I thought the producers did a good job with the cast in all 3 movies, with the exception of movie 2's Dagny Taggert, who was too middle aged and too plump to carry the role. Dagny in the book was a strong woman who took care of herself and was meticulous about her appearance. That said, it is a small failing. Most of their other cast decisions in all 3 movies are fine. The Dagny in movie 3 is very good. But movie 3 has way too many narration scenes telling us story points, but not showing us. This is a problem, because it interrupts the pace of the drama. But, they just didn't have the money to turn those narrations into acted scenes, and the story would have had big holes had they left them out entirely. 3. People who have read and love "Atlas Shrugged" and criticize the movies because they don't equal the book. But, movies are usually thin broth compared to the books from which they are made. Yes, these movies are low budget. Yes, changing the actors from movie to movie makes them a little disjointed. Movie 3 is set in nearly the same time period as movie two, so this complaint is valid. But, no big Hollywood studio is ever going to put big money into movies made from Ayn Rand's books. Hollywood is simply too liberal, being the second most liberal city in the extremely liberal state of California, (after San Francisco). But, every lover of freedom must read "Atlas Shrugged" and see these movies, at least once. This is the only place they will see the facts about Capitalism, Objectivism and Socialism explained so well. In several of Ayn's essays, she makes these points about the four basic forms of society on Earth today: 1. In Capitalism, the individual owns the means of production, and private property rights are nearly inviolable. 2. In Fascism, the individual owns the means of production, but the state dictates what they must do with it, and private property rights hardly exist. The state dictates how much of what products are to be produced at what cost and sold to whom at what price. 3. In Socialism, the state owns the means of production and private property rights extend only to personal property (houses, cars, etc.), but not to the engines of commerce, (factories, mines, mills, etc.). 4. In Communism, the state owns the individual. There are no private property rights of any worth, combs and hair brushes maybe. The individuals are told what jobs they will have, where they will work, where they will live, where they will shop, etc. The individual is enslaved to the state. Why, I ask, would anyone want to live under any system but Capitalism? Why would anyone want their private property rights diluted? I have a friend in Europe, in a very socialistic country, and he told me that taxes on overtime income are so high that he makes less per hour than on straight time. So of course, few people voluntarily work any overtime. This in turn puts a significant drag on his country's worker productivity and in turn gross domestic product. Why would anyone want to live that way? The answer came from Ayn's own lips in an interview she did with Phil Donahue, "Anyone who speaks of the common good is either of the state or they want to be of the state," (i.e. either a government employee or politician or someone who wants to be a government employee or politician). Phil then stated that a great many people think she is crazy. She answered, "They don't. They want YOU to think that. What more do you need to know? People who identify with the state, identify with the ruling class, don't like Capitalism. Why? Because they hate to see the power of government diluted with OTHER PEOPLE'S individual freedoms. They want to see the government use its muscle to compel their fellow men to live like they want them to live, behave like they want them to behave. They want this so much that they are blind to the resulting loss of their own freedoms. That anyone would think it is better for the state to own or dictate the means of production, than for private individuals to own it, means such individuals are blatantly jealous of everyone who has more wealth than they have. I think a government safety net can be a good thing. But, it should be there to assist the "wounded" of us; our most vulnerable members of society. We should carry our wounded, and "nurse" them back to as much "health" as possible. The rational reason we should have such a safety net is that our society as a whole and all of its individuals are made stronger by helping as many as possible of our wounded return to productivity. But, when the safety net becomes a dreadnaught redistribution of wealth intended to carry the stragglers, it is too bloated to be good for society or individuals. It has become a force that limits both the productive individuals and the stragglers. Why would our society opt for such a bloated safety net? The answer is that our ruling class wants to grab as much power as possible. They are never satisfied with how much power they have. They always crave more power. Never let a crisis go to waste, when you can use it to increase government power. So, they have crafted a system that promotes and subsidizes our weaknesses, making us as dependent on government as possible. Compelling us to behave as government dictates or else they take away the dole. They have already socialized healthcare in every western country, INCLUDING America. So, now they have power over all aspects of our lives. There is hardly any part of our lives they cannot control via this weapon. As time goes on, they will consolidate their gains and we will lose all of our freedoms one by one. Freedom to smoke tobacco? Heavens no! Your smoking will drive up healthcare cost by all the lung disease, so we just cannot have that. Freedom to eat junk food? Heavens no! Your body fat will drive up healthcare cost with all the heart disease, so we just cannot have that. New York City already regulates the salt and fat in restaurant food and the maximum size of soda pop drinks that can be sold, so don't think that my warnings about socialized healthcare being a lever for government to control all aspects of our lives is too far out there. The clearest point the book and these movies make is that socialistic government creates many more problems than it solves, and the solution to the problems it spawns is always more socialistic government. This drama is unfolding in real life all around us. Forgive me for picking on healthcare system again, but it is just too tempting an example. It is absolutely true that America's healthcare system is very broken. Costs and prices are spiraling out of control, and have been doing so since the last major overhaul of the healthcare laws during the Reagan administration. The problem is that the patient is not the doctor's customer. The insurance company is the customer. The patient is the insurance companies' product. The patient often does not even see the prices paid, let alone be empowered to shop around for the best care for the price like consumers do for every other aspect of their lives. You can price & feature shop for a microwave oven, but not for your knee replacement, because you are not given all of the information and choices you would need to do so. Small wonder then, that prices and costs spiral higher and higher. About ten times higher than anywhere else. And, what was the solution? The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care), which pushes the healthcare system even further into Socialism. The solution to the problems created by socializing healthcare a little was to socialize healthcare even more. Immediately, the federal government was telling the insurance companies that they had to cover birth control and all sorts of procedures, whether or not the patients needed or wanted those things in their policies. No wonder the healthcare policies' premium prices were so much higher than anyone predicted. What would be a better solution? Let all medical insurance companies offer policies in every state, to anyone who wants to buy them, and let the patients decide which types of healthcare they want their policies to cover. More competition. Less government. Less Socialism. This is all that Ayn Rand was trying to teach us. Pay attention to her message. Tell others. So, for the message they convey and for bringing my favorite novel to life on the screen at last, I give movies "Atlas Shrugged I, II & III" four of five stars.

relate this to what's happening today

I have read "Atlas Shrugged" two or three times in the last thirty years. It is one of my absolute favorite books. It's unfortunate for us that Ayn predicted America's future so accurately. Or maybe it's sad to watch history repeat itself given she came from Russia and watched everything being taken away from her family and a whole lot of people being killed by the government supposedly "for the greater good" of the people. We, in America, aren't to that point yet. However, it's scary to watch our current our government getting way too big, our rights are being taken away and the government telling us what we need and don't need......again, "all for the greater good". Yeah, right?!?!??? Who's good? We are individuals with different needs and wants. It is our God given right, especially, in America......to think for ourselves. To dream and achieve the "American Dream". Who knows what we need better than ourselves? Why so many people in this day and age want the government to take so much control over everything, I'll never understand. I don't think they get what they're really asking for. We're currently on a very slippery slope and if we slide to the bottom of that slope.....America is pretty much doomed.I'm saddened about the movies though. The first movie was great! The cast was well chosen. It followed the book pretty accurately. One came out of the theater hyped, excited and ready for the next installment/movie. Which, unfortunately, came out way too long after the first movie. The second movie also went a little downhill, especially, with new cast members to get to know all over again. By the third movie everything really went to hell in a hand basket, so to speak, at least, in my opinion. Again, more new cast members to get to know. And other than the point of the government taking more control......I don't think it did the book justice. Granted, I get that "Atlas Shrugged" would have been a tough script for anyone to write. I wish Ayn would have written a complete well scripted movie before she passed on. I think that's what made "The Fountainhead" such an incredible movie with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal back in 1949. Ayn insisted on writing the script. She made her objective or point so incredibly clear. Movies two and three of "Atlas Shrugged" kind of go all over the place without truly getting Any's wisdom across. So I would highly recommend taking the time to read the book. Yes, the melodrama in the middle gets a little long, but by the time you get to the end I assure you it will all be worth it.So I'm happy that the movies were finally made. I just think they could have been done a bit better.

Despicably bad. Anybody reading the book and seeing this adaptation would think the filmmakers understood neither the story or the philosophy underpinning it. Lovers of the book must surely laugh at the bitter irony of a story focusing so brilliantly on the wonders of man's mind being brought to the screen so incompetently. I think these people are either themselves secretly haters of Ayn Rand's ideas or, being not too bright, have been set up by people who are. Because these films can only serve as an indictment of libertarian ideas, Objectivism in particular. The overwhelming, disastrous shame of it is that this Book, filmed properly with top people and a budget to match, would literally, I think, spark a world renaissance.

It would have been difficult to adapt the book to the screen as it is such a complex and detailed read so I guess the film would never stand up to the book. Just watch the film for what it is and enjoy it. Try not to make comparisons to the the book. I have watched all three films and enjoyed them all even though they are filmed in some instances with different actors playing the lead parts it doesn't spoil the whole impression of the story. You believe in every film as you go along its journey.

This is a rather disappointing conclusion to the trilogy and again,as in part 2,the cast remain the same Character wise but are played by different Actors.Theres a rushed feel to it all and you wonder if a part Four may have wrapped things up better.Still though,not bad for what it is.

This is a review of the three parts. Parts One & Two are impressive but the lack of adequate budget for Part Three results in a very flawed ending to what is an engaging and philosophically fascinating attempt to film Ayn Rand’s extraordinary book!

Its in the charity shop along with the others. Awful change of actors for the series and each one worse than the previous. Strays so much from the fantastic book