Written October 14, 2012
I can't fathom some of the criticisms given to this movie by some of the professional critics. The acting in this movie was far better than the first. Jason Beghe gave a phenomenally strong performance as Henry Reardon. The addition of fine performances by recast and new supporting characters did a great job making this film. I hadn't read the book and watched the first film on PPV beforehand but the acting easily overcame their caricature nature the plot required.
The criticism of it's effects are warranted but overblown. Most effects were kept to a fair minimum because they seemed to realize it was their weakness but they were decent enough not to pull you out of the film.
The small budget also hit it in that there's a lack of grandeur and wide world in that they had to keep filming to fairly small sets and couldn't show the immense nature of a global depression. Luckily that's offset by the acting and script pacing.
The critic who said it was sub-1986-porno is crazy. 8/10
Written October 13, 2012
Excellent film. Directing, acting, etc very professional. Would have preferred the same actors from part 1 for the continuity, but understand the variables that can get in the way of making that happen. Those of us who are aware of what is really happening today - who are smart enough to think for ourselves - who are not fooled by the barefaced spin and "new speak" - who possess a moral compass and a strong work-ethic watched the screen with our hearts in our throats. We knew we were watching the future if we can't get the brakes applied to this runaway train in time. Ayn Rand was a true visionary. One could almost be convinced she is alive today. Not just because of the accurate depiction of the US, but of the rest of the world as well. If this movie doesn't make you think, you are probably among those of us who will experience the greatest suffering and will wonder what happened.
Written October 22, 2012
I loved the book but dividing the movie up into three or more parts separated by months to years is a total disaster! I know it's a long book but why three (or maybe more) parts? This movie deserves the same treatment as Gone With The Wind and other lengthy films. They should have made it one 3 to 4 hour movie with an intermission and you'd have a classic.
I did enjoy Part 1 as it followed the book closely and I thought Part 2 would finish the book with the same cast. Why would you change all the actors for Part 2? Big mistake! They were not as good, and the plot line was sophomoric at best. Maybe the original cast wouldn't do Part 2 when they realized what a bomb the producer was creating.
Don't waste your time with this loser. Read the book instead.
Written July 26, 2014
I attended the showing on its first night because I've waited two years to see Part II. I also hoped to be able to spread the word.
Part II was interesting in that the book was updated to more recent events using people known to us from the media. The cast of characters were different from Part I, but the two year interval made that point irrelevant.
I enjoyed the movie and plan to attend it again when it arrives in my area having traveled almost one hour to see it last night. Additionally I plan to purchase the DVD asap.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone but especially those Americans who see the unraveling of the American dream.
Written October 13, 2012
An outstanding movie. Stayed pretty true to the book. Preferred the Dagney in the first movie, but this one acquitted herself well. Interesting to know how many of the actors/actresss understand and believe what their characters are espousing. Acting was good; cinematography was very good. I'm still amazed at how prescient Ayn Rand was, writing this story in 1957 that's completely applicable to today. I strongly recommend everyone see this movie - especially so prior to November 6!