Here's The Daily Caller's John Aglialoro interview in full, including the bizarroworld possibility of a musical adaption of the third part.
Meanwhile the word of mouth suggesting a stinker continues to grow - as does the reported budget, now up to $20m - with Filmstage giving it a C- and describing the film as "incomprehensible gibberish" that is "neither compelling nor entertaining".
Every time I start to feel good about this thing, Aglialoro opens his mouth and makes me reconsider.
However, it's at least possible that he said this only to generate publicity. One of the film's two websites is pushing the musical meme to get people talking. Maybe that's its real purpose.
http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/
If they really are going to do a musical, they'll need better music than "The John Galt Theme," which can be heard at the film's other website. To my ear, it's weak and uninspired.
Maybe he was just doing stream of consciousness-- he's Italian, no? And Atlas Shrugged would obviously work way better as an opera than a movie or play. As Greg has noted, no need to understand the words, or follow the plot. Just feel the feelings.
The possibility that people familiar with the book and with a positive attitude towards it might enjoy the movie, while those who are not as familiar or positively inclined will tend not to, should not be dismissed out of hand.
I agree Laj, but for example the Filmstage reviewer was a fan of the book and was excited about the movie, while having some doubts. His "doubts won".
I can see the problems with the production design already- eg that lame, "futuristic" Rearden Metal logo that looks like it was done in the '80s. Plus the whole project's killer problem - the script - just doesn't appear to have been solved. Every line I've seen so far is a clunker - and that's the trailer and teaser! The rest of it will be therefore far worse, and Filmstage's review suggests just this.The actors are obviously making a fist of it, as is the DOP, and good on them. But you just can't make a great movie with only those parts working.
Being predisposed to like the book also can cut both ways for the film.
I'm wary of overly intellectual descriptions of gut reactions masquerading as Objective evaluations. He gave the movie a C- after writing an F review. I don't think the reviewer shares enough about himself to understand his review and even then, I usually think the best way to use a reviewer is to see how well his views match up with tours over time.
As you may guess, I'm just trying to see what kind of person might enjoy this movie and what background might enhance that experience. The fountainhead movie was no masterpiece but it is quite dun if one brings camp expectations to it.
I am seeing some parallels with the "Battlefield Earth" movie here. You can find people who think it's great, but they tend to already be Scientologists.
An important dynamic in the evaluation of the movie involves expectations going in. People who don't like the book expect the movie to be bad, perhaps very bad, so they have very low expectations. Curiously, the same can be said of many who think highly of the book, since they are going to be skeptical that any movie can do justice Rand's magnum opus. The movie, therefore, benefits greatly from the low expectations that most who know the book bring to their evaluations. The question then remains as to how those who don't know anything about the novel (and don't have strong ideological commitments) will react to the movie. Will such people be interested in seeing the movie at all?
Another review. For those of you scoring at home, this one positive:
http://tinyurl.com/4tajnvw
The reviewer is a conservative who clearly likes the pro-free-enterprise thrust of Rand's ideas, but doesn't appear to be very enamored of Rand's fiction. She calls the novel "a slog to get through," a "long treacherous" text with "awkward dialogue." I get the impression she likes the movie better than the book. If the film can appeal to people who aren't wild about Rand's fiction and simply have a predisposition toward right-of-center politics, it could do better than expected.
10 comments:
Every time I start to feel good about this thing, Aglialoro opens his mouth and makes me reconsider.
However, it's at least possible that he said this only to generate publicity. One of the film's two websites is pushing the musical meme to get people talking. Maybe that's its real purpose.
http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/
If they really are going to do a musical, they'll need better music than "The John Galt Theme," which can be heard at the film's other website. To my ear, it's weak and uninspired.
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/
Maybe he was just doing stream of consciousness-- he's Italian, no? And Atlas Shrugged would obviously work way better as an opera than a movie or play. As Greg has noted, no need to understand the words, or follow the plot. Just feel the feelings.
The possibility that people familiar with the book and with a positive attitude towards it might enjoy the movie, while those who are not as familiar or positively inclined will tend not to, should not be dismissed out of hand.
I agree Laj, but for example the Filmstage reviewer was a fan of the book and was excited about the movie, while having some doubts. His "doubts won".
I can see the problems with the production design already- eg that lame, "futuristic" Rearden Metal logo that looks like it was done in the '80s. Plus the whole project's killer problem - the script - just doesn't appear to have been solved. Every line I've seen so far is a clunker - and that's the trailer and teaser! The rest of it will be therefore far worse, and Filmstage's review suggests just this.The actors are obviously making a fist of it, as is the DOP, and good on them. But you just can't make a great movie with only those parts working.
Being predisposed to like the book also can cut both ways for the film.
Dan,
I'm wary of overly intellectual descriptions of gut reactions masquerading as Objective evaluations. He gave the movie a C- after writing an F review. I don't think the reviewer shares enough about himself to understand his review and even then, I usually think the best way to use a reviewer is to see how well his views match up with tours over time.
As you may guess, I'm just trying to see what kind of person might enjoy this movie and what background might enhance that experience. The fountainhead movie was no masterpiece but it is quite dun if one brings camp expectations to it.
Posting from an Android phone can wreck a composition...
I am seeing some parallels with the "Battlefield Earth" movie here. You can find people who think it's great, but they tend to already be Scientologists.
An important dynamic in the evaluation of the movie involves expectations going in. People who don't like the book expect the movie to be bad, perhaps very bad, so they have very low expectations. Curiously, the same can be said of many who think highly of the book, since they are going to be skeptical that any movie can do justice Rand's magnum opus. The movie, therefore, benefits greatly from the low expectations that most who know the book bring to their evaluations. The question then remains as to how those who don't know anything about the novel (and don't have strong ideological commitments) will react to the movie. Will such people be interested in seeing the movie at all?
Another review. For those of you scoring at home, this one positive:
http://tinyurl.com/4tajnvw
The reviewer is a conservative who clearly likes the pro-free-enterprise thrust of Rand's ideas, but doesn't appear to be very enamored of Rand's fiction. She calls the novel "a slog to get through," a "long treacherous" text with "awkward dialogue." I get the impression she likes the movie better than the book. If the film can appeal to people who aren't wild about Rand's fiction and simply have a predisposition toward right-of-center politics, it could do better than expected.
BTW, I wrote my last comment at the same time when Greg was posting his, so I wasn't trying to respond to his point.
Post a Comment