Atlas Shrugged Movie

[quade 3]

Quote

The vast majority of work that comes out of Hollywood these days is pure garbage. So maybe this movie is like all the other Hollywood trash.

This film has nothing to do with Hollywood.

Independently financed and produced.

Box Office Mojo estimates it will have taken in $5,590 per screen this weekend.
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

While that may seem as if it puts it on par with other such film greats as Scream 4, it is still woefully below its nut and doesn't look as if it will be enough to recoup the cost of production. Right now the predictions are 80.7% against there being a sequel.
http://boxofficemojo.com/polls/?page=viewpoll&id=1954&p=.htm

The limited success of the film this weekend appears to be driven solely based on hard core fans of the more recent interpretations of the book (capitalist ideologues). At least that is how the vast majority of non-professional reviews read.

I'm going to see it tomorrow. I expect to see a train wreck.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

The vast majority of work that comes out of Hollywood these days is pure garbage. So maybe this movie is like all the other Hollywood trash.

This film has nothing to do with Hollywood.

Independently financed and produced.

Box Office Mojo estimates it will have taken in $5,590 per screen this weekend.
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

While that may seem as if it puts it on par with other such film greats as Scream 4, it is still woefully below its nut and doesn't look as if it will be enough to recoup the cost of production. Right now the predictions are 80.7% against there being a sequel.
http://boxofficemojo.com/polls/?page=viewpoll&id=1954&p=.htm

The limited success of the film this weekend appears to be driven solely based on hard core fans of the more recent interpretations of the book (capitalist ideologues). At least that is how the vast majority of non-professional reviews read.

I'm going to see it tomorrow. I expect to see a train wreck.

"Source Code" has a nice train wreck.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The vast majority of work that comes out of Hollywood these days is pure garbage. So maybe this movie is like all the other Hollywood trash.

This film has nothing to do with Hollywood.

Independently financed and produced.

Box Office Mojo estimates it will have taken in $5,590 per screen this weekend.
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

While that may seem as if it puts it on par with other such film greats as Scream 4, it is still woefully below its nut and doesn't look as if it will be enough to recoup the cost of production. Right now the predictions are 80.7% against there being a sequel.
http://boxofficemojo.com/polls/?page=viewpoll&id=1954&p=.htm

The limited success of the film this weekend appears to be driven solely based on hard core fans of the more recent interpretations of the book (capitalist ideologues). At least that is how the vast majority of non-professional reviews read.

I'm going to see it tomorrow. I expect to see a train wreck.

"Source Code" has a nice train wreck.

Yes, but Source Code is not going to be as instructive for my personal research purposes as Atlas Shrugged looks like it will be in terms of negative example.

I don't think I'm going to learn anything by watching Source Code. On the other hand, I might be reminded why it's a horrible idea to simply lift dialogue from a book and use it in a screenplay if that dialogue was written by somebody who doesn't speak English as a primary language. Ayn Rand's dialogue in the book is pretty horrible. I'm very curious to see how well they adapted that or, if in the interest of being (selectively) true to the book, they simply copy and pasted it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kbordson 8]

Pardon my intrusion in this soapbox... with some of the childish responses, lets call it a "sandbox" of a forum, but I did want to actually say something about this film.

Having ACTUALLY seen the movie (not just a preview or even less), I actually thought that they did fairly well. I enjoyed it and truly hope it does well.

Overall, I think they did a very good job conveying the message of the book and kudos for the way they "modernized" it (gas prices making the trains important again)
In my mind, I had pictured 'Frisco and Slug differently - I missed that background in their history and character; Hank Rearden was close but it didn't really delve deep into his PASSION with his business, it was more superficial - a brief representation of a "work-a-holic" mentality. James Taggert was fairly well represented. I think that they did well. I just wish that they had taken a bit more time on the people of the story even if that meant extending the movie another half hour.


Now... once others have honestly SEEN the movie that they wish to review, then I would respect those opinions as more than just empty words. Until then, posting an opinion on something that you haven't yet seen is foolish.

[quade 3]

Quote

Overall, I think they did a very good job conveying the message of the book and kudos for the way they "modernized" it (gas prices making the trains important again)

One of my questions is "did you think they made the time frame too close to the present?"

They picked the year of 2016.

The original was written in 1957 and cars hadn't been quite as entrenched as they are today. Our interstate highway system was barely 1 year old at the time, so I think trains made some plausible sense for her to use. However, I really don't see how it would be possible for trains to have such a huge change influence as I think they're supposed to have in the film in the span of 5 years.

I'm also curious about how they explain the new Reardon steel. Seems to me like that's also anachronistic in terms of material design. Seriously, what new steel could there possibly be that would make as much a difference between train lines as supposedly takes place here?

Again, just a couple of the many questions I have about the adaptation from the original book to this film.

Also, I heard there was hardly any sex . . . WTF?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[johnmatrix 21]

Quote

>With capitalism , every person has the opportunity of fulfilling the "American Dream"

That is rapidly becoming the "Chinese dream." The "American Dream" is rapidly becoming "get on a reality TV show and make a million dollars so I can buy lots of Chinese and Japanese products."

Well said sir.

[Trafficdiver 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The vast majority of work that comes out of Hollywood these days is pure garbage. So maybe this movie is like all the other Hollywood trash.

This film has nothing to do with Hollywood.

Independently financed and produced.

Box Office Mojo estimates it will have taken in $5,590 per screen this weekend.
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

While that may seem as if it puts it on par with other such film greats as Scream 4, it is still woefully below its nut and doesn't look as if it will be enough to recoup the cost of production. Right now the predictions are 80.7% against there being a sequel.
http://boxofficemojo.com/polls/?page=viewpoll&id=1954&p=.htm

The limited success of the film this weekend appears to be driven solely based on hard core fans of the more recent interpretations of the book (capitalist ideologues). At least that is how the vast majority of non-professional reviews read.

I'm going to see it tomorrow. I expect to see a train wreck.

"Source Code" has a nice train wreck.

Yes, but Source Code is not going to be as instructive for my personal research purposes as Atlas Shrugged looks like it will be in terms of negative example.

I don't think I'm going to learn anything by watching Source Code. On the other hand, I might be reminded why it's a horrible idea to simply lift dialogue from a book and use it in a screenplay if that dialogue was written by somebody who doesn't speak English as a primary language. Ayn Rand's dialogue in the book is pretty horrible. I'm very curious to see how well they adapted that or, if in the interest of being (selectively) true to the book, they simply copy and pasted it.

Have you read the book? The dialogue is only a problem to those with a limited attention span. Furthermore, the Fountainhead came out before Atlas Shrugged and it is considered a masterpiece.

Do you think her command of the English language devolved over the years.

BTW, Atlas Shrugged sold over 25 million copies. DO you really think this movie will only do as well as scream 2?

[quade 3]

Quote

Do you think her command of the English language devolved over the years.

Is that a question?

She has a "unique" speech pattern. Seriously, listen to her speak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf6NK0wsiA

Hardly what makes for scintillating dialogue in a movie.

It's not a command of the English language that has gotten her the attention she has received but rather her philosophy, of which only certain parts have been embraced and only those by certain people; usually those wanting to justify their greed and uncaring attitudes toward their fellow man.

Ironically, the book was inspired by her thought of "what would happen if all the creative individuals went on strike?" and instead has been used to justify the actions, not of creative individuals, but rather those that would exploit them.

Quote

BTW, Atlas Shrugged sold over 25 million copies. DO you really think this movie will only do as well as scream 2?

Actually, it won't even reach that level of success just based on the numbers from this weekend.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trafficdiver 8]

Quote

Quote

Do you think her command of the English language devolved over the years.

Is that a question?

She has a "unique" speech pattern. Seriously, listen to her speak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf6NK0wsiA

Hardly what makes for scintillating dialogue in a movie.

It's not a command of the English language that has gotten her the attention she has received but rather her philosophy, of which only certain parts have been embraced and only those by certain people; usually those wanting to justify their greed and uncaring attitudes toward their fellow man.

Ironically, the book was inspired by her thought of "what would happen if all the creative individuals went on strike?" and instead has been used to justify the actions, not of creative individuals, but rather those that would exploit them.

Quote

BTW, Atlas Shrugged sold over 25 million copies. DO you really think this movie will only do as well as scream 2?

Actually, it won't even reach that level of success just based on the numbers from this weekend.

So you've never read the book, never seen the movie, but you're an expert on both.

And you're a mod. Great.

[quade 3]

Who said I've never read the book?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trafficdiver 8]

Quote

Who said I've never read the book?

Have you ever read the book?

[kbordson 8]

Quote

One of my questions is "did you think they made the time frame too close to the present?"

They picked the year of 2016.

The original was written in 1957 and cars hadn't been quite as entrenched as they are today. Our interstate highway system was barely 1 year old at the time, so I think trains made some plausible sense for her to use. However, I really don't see how it would be possible for trains to have such a huge change influence as I think they're supposed to have in the film in the span of 5 years.

I'm also curious about how they explain the new Reardon steel. Seems to me like that's also anachronistic in terms of material design. Seriously, what new steel could there possibly be that would make as much a difference between train lines as supposedly takes place here?

Again, just a couple of the many questions I have about the adaptation from the original book to this film.

Also, I heard there was hardly any sex . . . WTF?

1. Honestly, 5 years is likely to be too soon. Even if gas prices did rise to $32/gal. Then more people would just use motorcycles or you would see more of a shift to electric/hybrid vehicles. But say we set it for 20-30yrs, then HOPEFULLY the automotive industry would have tried to capitalize on new advances... if they were ALLOWED to capitalize on anything. But if they wouldn't have been allowed to develop or if taxes on NiMH or PbA batteries became cost prohibitive ... then THAT could have been included in the "modernized" version.

2. In the movie, I felt that they brushed over the science of Rearden steel. But ... to be honest, they did in the book as well. I think Rand was graceful in describing it:

From Chapter II: The Chain

Quote

To the men at the tap-hole of the furnace inside the mills, the first break of the liquid metal into the open came as a shocking sensation of morning. The narrow streak pouring through space had the pure white color of sunlight. Black coils of steam were boiling upward, streaked with violet red. Fountains of sparks shot in beating spasms, as from broken arteries. The air seemed torn to rags, reflecting a raging flame that was not there, red blotches whirling and running through space, as if not to be contained within a man-made structure, as if about to consume the columns, the girders, the bridges of cranes overhead. But the liquid metal had no aspect of violence. It was a long white curve with the texture of satin and the friendly radiance of a smile.

but she didn't go into detail of the alloy contents. It wasn't really important in the telling of the tale. Cuz really, other than knowing that it requires 1.21 gigiwatts, how does a flux capacitor work?

3. The sex... yeah, I was rather disappointed in that decision. I like the smut in the book. No apology. It's entertaining to read... Why do you think Mr. Heffner is so rich? Sex sells.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

One of my questions is "did you think they made the time frame too close to the present?"

They picked the year of 2016.

The original was written in 1957 and cars hadn't been quite as entrenched as they are today. Our interstate highway system was barely 1 year old at the time, so I think trains made some plausible sense for her to use. However, I really don't see how it would be possible for trains to have such a huge change influence as I think they're supposed to have in the film in the span of 5 years.

I'm also curious about how they explain the new Reardon steel. Seems to me like that's also anachronistic in terms of material design. Seriously, what new steel could there possibly be that would make as much a difference between train lines as supposedly takes place here?

Again, just a couple of the many questions I have about the adaptation from the original book to this film.

Also, I heard there was hardly any sex . . . WTF?

1. Honestly, 5 years is likely to be too soon. Even if gas prices did rise to $32/gal. Then more people would just use motorcycles or you would see more of a shift to electric/hybrid vehicles. But say we set it for 20-30yrs, then HOPEFULLY the automotive industry would have tried to capitalize on new advances... if they were ALLOWED to capitalize on anything. But if they wouldn't have been allowed to develop or if taxes on NiMH or PbA batteries became cost prohibitive ... then THAT could have been included in the "modernized" version.

2. In the movie, I felt that they brushed over the science of Rearden steel. But ... to be honest, they did in the book as well. I think Rand was graceful in describing it:

From Chapter II: The Chain

Quote

To the men at the tap-hole of the furnace inside the mills, the first break of the liquid metal into the open came as a shocking sensation of morning. The narrow streak pouring through space had the pure white color of sunlight. Black coils of steam were boiling upward, streaked with violet red. Fountains of sparks shot in beating spasms, as from broken arteries. The air seemed torn to rags, reflecting a raging flame that was not there, red blotches whirling and running through space, as if not to be contained within a man-made structure, as if about to consume the columns, the girders, the bridges of cranes overhead. But the liquid metal had no aspect of violence. It was a long white curve with the texture of satin and the friendly radiance of a smile.

but she didn't go into detail of the alloy contents..

Just as well, since from that description she clearly wasn't a metallurgist.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

From Chapter II: The Chain

Quote

To the men at the tap-hole of the furnace inside the mills, the first break of the liquid metal into the open came as a shocking sensation of morning. The narrow streak pouring through space had the pure white color of sunlight. Black coils of steam were boiling upward, streaked with violet red. Fountains of sparks shot in beating spasms, as from broken arteries. The air seemed torn to rags, reflecting a raging flame that was not there, red blotches whirling and running through space, as if not to be contained within a man-made structure, as if about to consume the columns, the girders, the bridges of cranes overhead. But the liquid metal had no aspect of violence. It was a long white curve with the texture of satin and the friendly radiance of a smile.

but she didn't go into detail of the alloy contents..

Just as well, since from that description she clearly wasn't a metallurgist.

so... tell me how a flux capacitor works. Or a Stargate. Or how you get to warp speed. It was a fiction novel. My opinion is that she was a very eloquent writer and some of what she wrote made sense to me. If it didn't make sense to you, no problem. There are at least 1 or 2 more books in the book store that I'm sure you could find... even nonfiction texts on metallurgy.

[quade 3]

Quote

Cuz really, other than knowing that it requires 1.21 gigiwatts, how does a flux capacitor work?

Well, I know a flux capacitor would allow for time travel. That's a pretty obvious cause and effect. The Reardon metal? Even if it improved the efficiency of a train by 50% (or whatever the number was supposed to be), would that really justify creating an entirely new train company and attempt to create a monopoly? I always thought that was pretty fishy scifi in the book, but even more so now in 2011.

Quote

3. The sex... yeah, I was rather disappointed in that decision.

No doubt to help appeal with the "Christian" market.

I also heard there was no mention of the anti-religious themes of the book as well. I assume this is just for the pick-and-choose philosophical acceptance of Rand's ideas and again to help its appeal with the "Christian" market.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Who said I've never read the book?

Have you ever read the book?

I read it once, about 30 years ago. I don't remember vast passages of it, but I do recall it not being the book a LOT of people on the far right claim it is.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

From Chapter II: The Chain

Quote

To the men at the tap-hole of the furnace inside the mills, the first break of the liquid metal into the open came as a shocking sensation of morning. The narrow streak pouring through space had the pure white color of sunlight. Black coils of steam were boiling upward, streaked with violet red. Fountains of sparks shot in beating spasms, as from broken arteries. The air seemed torn to rags, reflecting a raging flame that was not there, red blotches whirling and running through space, as if not to be contained within a man-made structure, as if about to consume the columns, the girders, the bridges of cranes overhead. But the liquid metal had no aspect of violence. It was a long white curve with the texture of satin and the friendly radiance of a smile.

but she didn't go into detail of the alloy contents..

Just as well, since from that description she clearly wasn't a metallurgist.

so... tell me how a flux capacitor works. Or a Stargate. Or how you get to warp speed. It was a fiction novel. My opinion is that she was a very eloquent write

I'm not aware of anyone trying to use "Back to the Future" or "Star Trek" as a basis for policy.

The tiniest amount of research would have identified the flaw in her description of steel making.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Cuz really, other than knowing that it requires 1.21 gigiwatts, how does a flux capacitor work?

Well, I know a flux capacitor would allow for time travel. That's a pretty obvious cause and effect. The Reardon metal? Even if it improved the efficiency of a train by 50% (or whatever the number was supposed to be), would that really justify creating an entirely new train company and attempt to create a monopoly? I always thought that was pretty fishy scifi in the book, but even more so now in 2011.

- But neither Rearden nor Dags were specifically planning to create a monopoly and neither of them were creating a new train. Hank spent 10 years developing this metal. It truly was HIS "invention." He invested his time and personal fortune into it. It was his passion. He cared more for that than his marriage (but with how Rand cast Lillian, who wouldn't have?) Dagny was just trying to run her family company. She didn't want to push Dan Conway out of business. Her brother was the one that was using pull to shut him out of Colorado. Dagnys character actually wanted the competition to be better.

Quote

3. The sex... yeah, I was rather disappointed in that decision.

No doubt to help appeal with the "Christian" market.

I also heard there was no mention of the anti-religious themes of the book as well. I assume this is just for the pick-and-choose philosophical acceptance of Rand's ideas and again to help its appeal with the "Christian" market.

But... on that note, I was still rather surprised with the fact that they kept the affair in the movie at all. They even spelled out with a rather second grade style spelling that the affair WAS, no bones about it, adultery. So... they toned the sex down (to keep it PG-13?) but played the sin up?!

edit to correct grammar errors

[kbordson 8]

Quote

I'm not aware of anyone trying to use "Back to the Future" or "Star Trek" as a basis for policy.

Maryland Senate

Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Federation Tax Collectors, National Review Online, September 28, 2007. By Ilya Somin.

- now, you are right... I did not find anything on "Back to the Future."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Ironically, the book was inspired by her thought of "what would happen if all the creative individuals went on strike?" and instead has been used to justify the actions, not of creative individuals, but rather those that would exploit them.

I find it hilarious that the ubber conformists who aspire to dumb as dirt and proud of it right wingers have embraced that philosophy while denigrating those who are interested in education and creativity.

[quade 3]

I would say my usual line about guaranteeing no spoilers, but seriously, I can’t in all honesty recommend this film anyway, so I am going to toss in a couple. My guess is if you're the type attracted to the "modern" idea of this story, I'm probably not spoiling anything for you anyway.

Normally when an independent film is in limited release, I can either drive up to Los Angeles to see it or hope it’s somehow found its way on the only two screens in all of Orange County that plays “art” films. The trouble is, there are more art films than screens in OC and that means quite a few great independents get squeezed out and I have to make the drive into LA.

Imagine my shock, shock, when in ultra-conservative OC it was playing at no less than 5 different theaters! Considering it’s only playing on 300 screens nation-wide, I think that speaks volumes as to who Atlas Shrugged considers its key demo.

Walking into the theater, I felt like Peter Lake going under cover to do a bit of investigative journalism. The theater was better attended than one would expect for a Monday, 11:45 showing. Mostly old white men, but a smattering of women and a couple of families typical of OC, that is to say extremely white bread conservative. I may have been the only “dude” of the 30 or so people in the 500 or so seat theater.

I will admit right here that I fully expected a train wreck going in and not just because there’s a train wreck in the first five minutes of the story, but because of the history of the project.

Written in 1957 by Ayn Rand, the rights and options to produce the movie have been in development hell since 1972. The rights eventually ended up in the hands of John Aglialoro a businessman and poker player. In a last-minute-before-the-option-runs-out deal, he hastily threw together horror screenwriter, Brian Patrick O'Toole and director, Paul Johansson, who plays the always-in-shadows-face-never-seen, John Galt.

Ok, I’ll admit I read the book, all thousand plus pages of it, about 30 years ago most probably for the dirty bits. I do not remember it anywhere nearly as much for its ultra-capitalistic views that most people associate it with today. I saw it as a Harold Robbins rich fantasy type book wherein the main characters essentially got to do anything they wanted with little regard for anyone else following the alternate Golden Rule of “he who has the gold, gets to make the rules.” There was power and money and greed and sex, oh there was lots of sex, and none of the people at the top ever really had to pay for their immorality because, well, they were rich.

Pretty much my fantasy at the time. Of course, I was young, stupid and naive at the time.

Today, the film is held up as a sort of “oh what a burden it is to be rich” sort of Tea Party wet dream, except without hardly ever mentioning the greed and the wet part of the dream. Oh how times have changed.

Ok, so enough about history. How was the film?

Awful.

I’ll grant that adapting a novel as big as Atlas Shrugged would be a challenge for anyone and the idea of splitting it up into a trilogy isn’t without merit. That said, it still has to be a movie and not a book. So what do you keep and what do you condense?

Well, in keeping with “modern” interpretation of the book it becomes a capitalist manifesto. The captains of industry carry the world on their shoulders and fight against virtually everyone except their closest allies, those willing to lend them money.

Ok, I get it. Fine. John Aglialoro sees the story one dimensionally and damn it, he thinks he can sell that to a Tea Party audience. He’s the Producer, the big cheese, the guy with the money and if he wants it a certain way to spout his philosophy that’s the way it’s going to be.

Unfortunately, that also makes it boring as hell.

Exposition coming from news report after news report, one of the biggest cheats in the game. "We have stock footage and we’re not afraid to use it!”

Stilted expository dialogue in diatribe after diatribe.

Ok, maybe Aaron Sorkin can get away with two people sitting across the table from one another talking for five minutes at a time, but Brian Patrick O'Toole cutting and pasting Ayn Rand’s book dialogue into a MOVIE simply doesn’t work.

What acton there is, well, somehow, the director managed to make a new super train made of new super metal, going 250 mph, what is supposed to be a breath taking achievement, into both a boring and hilarious moment. I was unaware a train, a short five years into our future, would be able to take corners like that at 250 mph and defy the laws of physics.

Even the art direction was bad with far too many ham handed signs reminding you of exactly who’s office you’re supposed to be looking at. I ask you, really, does the CEO of most companies actually have HUGE signs in their offices?

Why the hell is there a waste paper basket there?
Who the hell keeps letting all these people just walk into my office?
Where the hell is security? Where’s my body guard?

Other strange touches in this dystopian world are things like old white man paper boys. Really? Five years from now we’re still going to have printed newspapers being sold by “paperboys” at train stations? We’re all giving up our iPads and going back to print?

Another great touch was the selective blacking out of the name of a newspaper machine in one scene to read: “--- Angel-- Times.” Yeah, subtle huh? Nothing like good old fashioned attempts at subliminal messages indicating “the end times” are here.

Is it bad all the through to the end? Yes. It even ends on a cliche so trite I could not help but laugh out loud. “NNNOOOooooooooooooooo!”

So, what was the audience expecting? Well, I assume like a good little audience they took their marching orders from the film’s marketing department and simply showed up. In this case the marketing department included the likes of Glenn Beck and other Tea Party promoters. Clearly a good number of them had never read the book. How do I know? Well, a little more than half way through the movie the name of a new train company is revealed. This is a major plot point; one that can’t be forgotten even if you did, like I, read the book 30 years ago. At that point the audience audibly gasped.

Yes, this was in large part this audience’s first exposure to the material and they didn’t even know they were being simultaneously cheated and brain washed by its producer.

Sad really.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

>The dialogue is only a problem to those with a limited attention span.

It's a problem to anyone who reads normal prose! I remember some speeches that went on for pages without so much as a paragraph break. Reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's "stream of consciousness" character speeches in some of his books.

It's a real slog to get through any of her books. (Worth it in many cases, but a lot of work.)

[billvon 2,400]

>but she didn't go into detail of the alloy contents.

Well, it was greenish blue and contained a lot of copper, per her descriptions of what Reardon needed to make it (which became a big plot element between him and Wyatt.) But not too much beyond that, which I thought was OK.

>The sex... yeah, I was rather disappointed in that decision. I like the smut in the
>book. No apology.

That would be tough to sell nowadays unless you changed it significantly. Not as bad as the rape scene in the Fountainhead, so probably doable with good writers.

[kbordson 8]

Although you didn't care for the movie, I far more respect you and your opinion in that review for having seen it.

[quade 3]

Quote

I just wish that they had taken a bit more time on the people of the story even if that meant extending the movie another half hour.

For me the issue with regards to that is I felt it was already too long. IMDB says it's 102 minutes, but it's so painfully slow in some spots it sure seems a lot longer.

I think they structured the movie a bit wrong. It certainly ends in the wrong place. This isn't a 1930's b&w movie serial that requires a cliff hanger. What it needed to be was a film that could stand on its own. It doesn't and suffers from it.

It -should- have ended after the train made its initial run. That's a far more logical place for Part 1 to end rather than rushing through a bunch of subsequent scenes on the mission to track down the maker of the "engine." Which, BTW, looked horrible, like it was a reject "Mr. Fusion" design from Back to the Future. Gack.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver