TxMike Ayn Rand famously wrote her book "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950s, it is a cautionary tale. What would become of the world if politicians and governments continued to interfere more and more with technology and commerce? What would happen if innovative people had to contribute more and more to the "have-nots" without have a say in the matter? At the end of part II, two years ago, we see Dagny Taggart's plane enter some sort of phantom zone and crash. But she survives and sees John Galt. This third installment is set in the present time, we see them drinking wine from the 2012 vintage.This third installment takes up there, after a very brief review of what led up to it. John Galt carries Dagny to safety and explains that he and the other innovators who "went on strike" have settled in that mountainous valley. Their location is secret and, while it is never explained, we see in the sky that they have invented some sort of cloaking technology so that they can see planes passing overhead, some searching for them, but the hunters can't see them.Dagny is asked to stay with them for 30 days to see if she wants to pledge to their cause and stay with them. But at the end she decides to return to take care of some railroad issues. Leading politicians want to control the rails and the particular issue is whether they will allow trains to go to Minnesota to transport fresh crops to the East Coast. The politicians are willing to sacrifice a few thousand people for what they think is the greater good.OK, this isn't a great series of films but all of them, including this last installment, are interesting. Each of the three movies has the same primary characters, but each movie has a different set of actors. The actors chosen here work out just fine and the actress playing Dagny looks enough like the others who played Dagny that it isn't an issue. We finally meet John Galt face-to-face, played by tall (6-3) actor Kristoffer Polaha. Pretty blond Laura Regan is Dagny Taggart. We don't meet a President but we meet Peter Mackenzie as "Head of State" Thompson. And old reliable Greg Germann, who I enjoyed many years ago in "Ally McBeal", is the hapless James Taggart. I am glad I took the time to watch it, for the interest in how the famous Ayn Rand portrayed the possible dysfunctional future.

btg-810-920456 I can kind of see where people critical of the movie are coming from but their complaints are very exaggerated. This is a philosophy movie, not a thriller. And its philosophy indicts so many people in one of two classes: Those that have been directed into a dependent state by society, and those that exploit those that have been directed there.The message is what is important and the vehicle that carries it is good enough in Atlas Shrugged 3. I've seen the critics forgive far worse-time and time again. I've all but given up watching movies they say are "good" only to be disgusted yet again by two certified morons in yet another unneeded sex scene to take them seriously. And even Gone with the Wind was the nemesis of the critics when it came out. Fact.People need to learn that the water of capitalism merely carries the addictive poison of statism, and that the cure is not to add more poison and then continue blame drinking water for making them sick. I'd be happy to see it done better but for some reason I don't anticipate many critics with government funded liberal arts educations would feel good about such a message.

TheDancingPanda-692-744536 Let me start off by saying, I hate the idea of reviewing a movie without finishing. Especially a move that's only 90 or so long. But then comes a series like atlas shrugged.I loved the first one. Had no interest in the concept but I found it compelling. Hate Taylor schilling, but thought she nailed dagny, and played the best role of her career. I made the mistake of getting invested into the cliffhanger of a series.then part 2 came. The worst sequel of any series ever. Every.single.actor changed. I know why, and I understand it. But every single actor was a downgrade. Suddenly Dagny was a 39 year mother of two and the movie was filled with B-actors. I'm pretty sure I wrote my first IMDb review the night I saw it. Then part 3. Oh god. I've had it sitting here for free for a few days and I just kept finding excuses to avoid the heart break but here we go.Part 3. Immediately the very first thing you'll notice is it's cheap. Not charmingly indie low budget but straight up filmed in someone's freaking house with natural lighting cheap! I was done with the movie in the first scene.it lacks the Hollywood magic entirely. Right now I'm about 20 minutes in and it's so poor, that I've already decided to turn it off when I'm finished with my lengthy review. That's a first. A movie so bad that you have to write a poor review before you can not finish it.Also Dagny isn't as bloody awful of a fit as she was in part 2, but she's not better. She lacks all the elements that schilling brought to the character in the first movie. I noticed another reviewer say she in no way carrys herself in an executive mannor and that couldn't be more spot on. She has no character at all. She's simply a blonde woman that could be standing in line at Starbucks. She missed her calling as a background dancer because she's entirely unnoticeable. Also the childhood bf role choice is almost hilarious. He's clearly 20 years older. No leather jacket will put a band-aid on that reality. And galt. I won't go into the depths of the disappointment of that immediate reveal. He's clearly the lowest budget version of as close to Chris pine/josh duhamel they could find. If you didn't notice that watch it again and tell me I'm wrong. Cus he looks like their love child except near chubby and a lifeless actor.The narrating bits would haven't been so off putting if they weren't spoken by such a terrible, unlikeable, spiritless narrorator. And the editing. The editing is just what puts this movie into the unwatchable category. I'm not being mean to be mean when I tell you I'm subscribed to half a dozen YouTube channels that edit better in daily videos than this entire movie. Sony Vegas guys. It's only like $90. The actors across the board are not simply unknowns. They're bland cut outs in a film chicken winged by its terrible quality. The leads are bad. The supporting actors aren't bad enough to blame, but they're certainly forgettable. I gave the film a 3/10 because there were no boom mics dipping in the shots.its not funny bad or train wreck bad. It's simply poor. It's just the disappoint after the disaster after the tease (the series in reverse order if your poetic sense is lost). Part 2 was a 1 for me. So this isn't as flat out terrible. Part 1 was a 7.5-8.Bonus:Now to reflect that fact that this isn't about the budget but rather how the $5,000,000 was used here is a list of good and great movies that you SHOULD WATCH made for $6,000,000 or lessThe guard, beginners, paranormal activity 1 ($15,000!only $15,000!!!), saw 1, napoleon dynamite ($400,000), Donnie darko, reservoir dogs, super, rocky (even now the film quality is better than atlas shrugged 3),safety not guaranteed, mad max, clerks.So please just avoid atlas shrugged pt 3. It's not funny bad. It's not shaking your head bad. It's just made with the lack of flair and integrity that we watch films to see. There's nothing there for the viewer. It's almost as if a box were checked, finished atlas shrugged- move on.it must've been so hard promoting a movie knowing it offered nothing

melissacorrell The third installment in this series is somehow worse than the first two. Lazy exposition (voiceovers galore!) and lame acting make an already-bad story that much worse. Ideologically, I'm biased - I disagree with pretty much everything Ayn Rand had to say - but I'm not talking about ideology here. On an objective level, this is just a bad movie. It's boring. It's confusing. It makes no effort at continuity with the first two installments. The best part of this movie was Galt's monologue on the airwaves, and even that was executed in the most obvious, hackneyed way. I imagine that this movie was made not by film people, but by Objectivism people. That's cool; everyone needs to get their message out somehow. Just saying, they could have made a YouTube video - cheaper and more to the point. Oh, and I LOVE that this was funded by a Kickstarter. I'm sure Ayn Rand would have been so happy to know that donations from fans went into bringing her story to the big screen. The book was better - you care about the characters much, much more.