Hank Rearden's Court Defense Sums it Up

By rightvoice
Written October 17, 2012
This movie is so on point with what is happening in today's society. Hank's speech needs to be made into a commercial as a wake-up call to all citizen's of this ever declining Republic. The best part...the liberal critics are panning it so it must have hit its mark.
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Did you?

Pure Propaganda

By herbertcastillo
Written July 04, 2015
This movie is trying to demonize people whose believes are different from others. The dialogues are pretty simple and clearly trying to accomplish the objective of the movie. I knew what the movie was about by reading its description but I wanted to have my firm opinion after watching it, I have to admit that staying the whole movie was painful. I believe people have the right to disagree but not to demonize others in order to prove a point and that is exactly what this movie is trying to do.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Did you?

The assumption it's one vs the other?

By nreilly-
Written October 13, 2012
For those that think this movie says one of the two parties is better than the other really need to look carefully. This isn't anti-republican, or anti-democrat.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Did you?

The professional critics must have pre-wrote their reviews

By RealMrBogey
Written August 03, 2015
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
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Did you?

Liked it very much

By jude536
Written October 13, 2012
I like it even better than the first one. They were able to present Rand's long speeches with a few important lines. There were some exciting special effects. Esai Morales makes a good Francisco D'Anconia. It seemed very relevant to today.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Did you?