Audio Reviews - Atlas Shrugged - Audio Review

Tags:  movie review, audio, spill, spill.com, atlas shrugged, taylor schilling, grant bowler, ayn rand

• 
  

  July 18, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Gurrilla said ...

  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985017/

• September 27, 2011 at 7:34 PM, said ...

  Amazing. Over fifty years have passed and people are still arguing about Objectivism on movie review message boards.

   

  Leon states once regretting not taking the time to read the book on which this movie is based. I'm glad he no longer feels that way after seeing this movie, because I DEEPLY regret the time I wasted reading this overlong piece of self-serving garbage.

   

  This review hits on all the points that hurt this movie. Of course the worst thing about it was that it was based on a book by Ayn Rand.

  
  
• 
  

  April 28, 2011 at 3:06 PM, said ...

  @CriticizeThis

  Well said.

   

  @Adam Havnes

  Oh, how very clever of you. How very endearing. You're only about the fifteenth person to post that quote.

• April 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, said ...

  "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

  
  
• 
  

  April 27, 2011 at 10:20 PM, said ...

  @Bruno F. Rivera

  Oh Jesus, get over yourself. Nobody thinks the government is their "savior"; liberal or conservative, communist or libertarian. People just have different beliefs about what role the government should be in society, and what form it should take. To say some people think government is a "savior" is a childish slur, that does nothing but make you look like a zealot - Like you're either delluding yourself so you don't have to face real arguements, or that your too intellectually shallow to see reality.
  You know that people don't really think that, so by all means, be a Randian, but please - for all our sakes' - cut the idiotic rhetoric.

• April 26, 2011 at 6:28 AM, John Howard said ...

  Did Leon just say AP English? That's pretty cool.

  I had to read Ayn Rand back in my own AP English class. Not only did I not like the book but my teacher actually looked like Ayn Rand.

  
  
• 
  

  April 25, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Bruno F. Rivera said ...

  @Badass Knives

   

  You're welcome...

• April 24, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Orlando Howard said ...

  @ Bruno F. Rivera THANK YOU!!!!

  
  
• 
  

  April 24, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Bruno F. Rivera said ...

   

  http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/04/20/the-truth-atlas-shrugged-part-1-by-the-numbers/

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfr7vzSx1lU&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QmAzEsrtyo

  http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110421/02341913985/atlas-shrugged-movie-leaves-hollywood-scratching-its-head-because-its-succeeding-without-them.shtml

  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/atlas-shrugged-why-is-msm-silent-on-this-films-potential/

  The reason that this movie is getting criticized is because people refused to admire and/or completely brainwashed into thinking Government is good, Government is our savior.  If these brainwashed liberals and mainstream conservatives hasn't realized that for the past eleven years has been hell to this country from Bush to Obama.  Nothing, but crap has happened to this country.  Wake up for God's sake!!!

• April 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM, said ...

  Indeed, TDT, do refrain from further posting about philosphy when you know so little about it. The crass strawman you made out of Kant is especially tacky considering the leap into action at the misrepresentation of Rand you believed to have seen. I'm not even Kantian, but saying Kant would have been ok with killing and lying under any situation, contrary to the core of his deontological ethics, the the formulation of maxims according to the categorical imperative, is practically nauseating to someone studying philosophy. He was a stout proponent of reason (as you would know if you actually read Critique of Reason, or even its wikipedia page); his goal was to make faith unnecessary concerning ethics.

  
  
• 
  

  April 22, 2011 at 1:10 AM, said ...

  Respect to Zpowers for copping to not reading her work and admitting he is still thinking things through. That is pretty cool of you.

  Anyway, suffice to say I've said my piece and don't want to hijack these comments. I'd be happy to discuss the issues raised further with anyone through PM, however.

• April 21, 2011 at 11:31 PM, said ...

  The way they talk about this film, you would think it was "The Room"

  
  
• 
  

  April 21, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Orlando Howard said ...

  No use in arguing beliefs because people are going to believe what they believe. That's like a christian arguing with a Buddhist about what religion is best. A complete waist of time

• April 21, 2011 at 6:38 PM, ZPowers said ...

  Actually, she did use the phrase "the most evil man in history" while describing Kant. And I should note that Kant does not require faith. The Critique of Pure Reason/Practical Reason are not negative criticisms of it (critiques and criticism are seen today as necessarily negative, but that connotation wasn't so popular back then. Criticism, like film criticism, is intended as a neutral term: it may be positive, it may be negative). Kant used a combination of pure reason (that is, reason beyond influence by our physical world or reason used to determine ideals, such as ideals of virtue or pure philosophy) and practical reason (reason employed secondarily to deal with situations we actually encounter in the world, using ideas based on pure reason as guides and motivators). This is a pretty slim version of Kant's philosophies (which are among the most complex and difficult I have ever read), but the point is that faith is not necessary for Kant, only reason. I should also note I am not a Kantian (though there are aspects I admire about it), but calling him the evilest man in history is patently absurd.

   

  I will also cop to the fact that I haven't read her nonfiction. I've read some her fiction (she tends to have lengthy philosophical arguments in her fiction anyways, the John Galt speech is longer than the entire Communist Manifesto. It also irks me that there are basically two character types: people that are basically her, which are Taggart and Galt, who have NO FLAWS at ALL, which is awful storytelling, and a series of strawmen on the other side. At least the antagonists in societal and political distopian novels like Brave New World and 1984 made their arguments, and even made them semi-well, but here there is only her POV), and some secondhand accounts of her ideas. I've seen an interview or two as well. And you're right, she commonly abhors force, ostensibly on the ground it takes will or individuality from another (I've never seen how this is an objectivists concern and am not convinced: I see little distinction to say extreme physical competition is different from the types she prefers, or any less valid based on the basic principles of Objectivism). But surely, the actions of Goldman-Sachs and the banks remain untouched even by this one flimsy argument. The use of sweat shops, corporations fighting for rampant pollution, even though it is clearly a growing global concern, because that is in their self-interest? Surely, the stock market crash caused by the banks (after a long period of deregulation, just like the one that preceded the Great Depression) stole the will, means and autonomy from a lot of people. The collective loss there trumps the loss of an individual murder, in fact. Similarly, the threats of global warming are likely to cause at least some degree of human death: why is that okay? Because the polluters are slightly LESS directly responsible for killing? Rand hated Medicare, so clearly she's okay with HMOs cutting off or overcharging sick people. Allowing others to die as a direct result your self-interest is fine, as long as you don't personally kill them? I don't see a real difference here.

   

  So for me, there are two ways to see Rand: the first, which is supported by quotes like her protagonists' view in "We the Living" which is "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" and her statement in an interview that argues mentally retarded people should receive absolutely no societal aid, that they must rely entirely on personal charity (which is a form of altruism, meaning in a perfect Randian society they would receive nothing), and general personal stories of narcissism and real, genuinely disdain and hatred for certain parts of society that she is somewhat morally empty. The other option is that she believes somehow that the cream not only always rises to the top despite huge inequalities in quality of schools or the fact that millions cannot afford college (another form of pure luck besides good genes is needed here: rich parents), which is pretty absurd sounding to me, but also that that cream, having proven itself industrious and competitive, is always or almost always good. It is safely regulating itself to a system of morals, and other forms of regulation are not needed, because it is one of society's great peoples and therefore good. If that's her view, instead of morally dubious, I have to find her patently naive or overly optimistic (ironically, this is part of my issue with Kant's philosophy: it isn't particularly practical).  

   

  I also want to note that Ayn Rand herself took Social Security and Medicare aid near the end of her life under an psuedonym, all while hypocritically calling the people who did so parasites. I don't blame her for taking it (I do blame her for still criticizing others who did), because she needed the help. See, even in this society, one not even as harsh as the Randian ideal, the architect of Objectivism couldn't cut it on her own. And the benefits of societal altruistic programs extended her life, as they extend and save many. In a pure Objectivist society, a handful of people only would, and then their children, and every generation perhaps a few new people arise. But the majority of people, well, they're screwed, even if they are brilliant, because all that exists is a new status quo in which the pillars of wealth and power have it, and they aren't going to share it with you.

   

  That, however, is my novice view of the situation only. Allow me to agree with Julius: if you haven't already, read and research some of her stuff. Kant too, if you want. Make up your own mind.

  
  
• 
  

  April 21, 2011 at 4:38 PM, said ...

  How is BioShock awful about historical accuracy?

• April 21, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Sky said ...

  @Julius Jacobson - You didn't come off as harsh to begin with, I know my age group is severely naive. However I always knew the original novel was about objectivism as was the game. To be honest, most of your rant just seems like you're judging Bioshock on what you heard or read and haven't even played the game yourself. Or just couldn't pick up on some of the obvious Ayn Rand references and ideas. 

   

  Again, I admit I have no ability to debate much since I never read the novel, but I know what objectivism is and can tell not only the severe flaw in the philosophy but how it can be displayed. It is a flawed philosophy regardless of how you try to back it up though, in my opinion. 

   

  I'm getting the vibe that you're a huge Randian who's getting annoyed people would rather play the game than read the book. I never said that though for the record, I actually plan on reading it eventually, but the movie I'd rather skip and play Bioshock instead. Is Bioshock silly? Yeah, but so is Red Dead Redemption lol. (Both are awful with historical accuracy for the record. But I could rant about that later.) But at least it's more entertaining than this movie. 

   

  But... in essence, I skimmed through your post because it was tl;dr and ridiculously pretentious. Sorry. :/

  
  
• 
  

  April 21, 2011 at 6:47 AM, said ...

  so in other words disregard what julius jacobson said

• April 21, 2011 at 5:48 AM, said ...

  As all of these Bioshock lovers know, a man chooses, and a slave obeys. But after both listening to a review and reading many comments that display a complete disregard for the actual content of Ayn Rand's work, I basically have no choice but to comment in this thread. And I don't mean disregard in the sense that people disagree with or don't like her ideas. As is common, Cyrus and the various commenters here have probably read very little of Ayn Rand's work. They hear the words "capitalism" and "individualism", and go "I know what that means!" (or they get their information from a secondhand source that has used this methodology) then go off on their own bizarre tirades. What is missing here, as it was missing in that ridiculous game Bioshock, is any actual comprehension or even passing familiarity with what Ayn Rand actually said, wrote, and believed. What we get are attacks on different ideas that many people associate with words like "capitalism" and "individualism", but no actual discussion of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy. There are so many examples of this kind of misrepresentation, it is hard to know where to begin, so I'll just go with zpowers diatribe, as it seems to have garnered some attention here. This entire thread and the review itself, however, are beyond rife with them. "But here is something factual about Ayn Rand, she said Immanuel Kant, a philosopher whom said ideally murder or lies etc should be permitted under no circumstances whatsoever if human beings are to reach ideal states, was the worst person to ever live." I don't think she used the words "worst person to ever live." She certainly thought he was a monster and that his ideas were responsible for what she regarded as the sad state of the modern world. Regardless, it was not because he said "murder or lies were to be avoided", as you imply, it was because of his opposition to REASON and his defense of FAITH, as elucidated in works such as The Critique of Pure Reason, The Critique of Practical Reason, and so on. Furthermore, she abhorred Kant precisely because the essence of his moral system is DUTY. That is, it is all fine and dandy to kill and lie, as long as you are doing it out of a sense of DUTY and NOT out of self-interest. So Steve Jobs is evil because he pursues his own life, regardless of how he goes about it, and Abraham from the Bible is a hero because he is willing to kill his own son on God's say-so. Ayn Rand was against killing and lying because she believed they were objectively anti-life and thus anti-self interest. So you and most everyone else here have it exactly backwards. Ayn Rand would argue that these dictators you liken as pretty good Randians are actually excellent Kantians (and altruists), thus her hatred for Kant. For more, you can read The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff. "I've yet to see anyone show me those limits exist, or by what means one manner of exploitation of others is good and when they do begin to become immoral, in terms of Rand's logic" Might I suggest, rather than waiting for this or that to be demonstrated to you or turning to a collectivist repository of "information" for smears to attack her with, that you just read Ayn Rand's nonfiction? There are plenty of essays in Philosophy, Who Needs It?, The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal that deal with precisely these issues. Questions like "Aren't there conflicts among interest between even rational men?" and "Why isn't it in my self-interest to rob and murder?" are dealt with at length in her works. For some reason, some individuals, who pose as being interested in these important intellectual issues, seem completely ignorant about them. And just to wrap things up, this whole BioShockian smear of "somebody has to scrub the toilets, i.e. not be part of the elite, thus Ayn Rand's philosophy collapses" is ludicrous. It doesn't even have anything to do with Ayn Rand. Again, people here see the words "individualism" and "selfishness" (and perhaps even "atheist") to describe her and think "Oh! That means Nietzsche!" then proceed to beat the dead straw-man of Nietzsche's withered remains, all the while unaware that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. Why? Because they didn't explore Ayn Rand's ideas for themselves. That, or they are intentionally trying to smear her. Both Nietzsche and Ayn Rand were atheists that opposed altruism. Beyond that, they were basically opposites. Ayn Rand did not believe that only the talented were worthy of life or even had "better" lives. She believed that every individual should make the most out of their own lives, living amongst other people in a spirit of benevolence, not expecting the unearned as a right nor granting their own life as a sacrificial offering for the community. Her two most famous books focused on gifted individuals for literary reasons, in the same way X-Men focuses on oppressed Mutants to dramatize a theme. And I don't think anyone here would argue that X-Men is about the superiority of the Mutant Race because it focuses on Mutants, unless Magneto posts often on this site. "There is no such thing as a lousy job - only lousy men who don't care to do it." "A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others." These are quotes from Atlas Shrugged (the book, not the movie). If they seem like things the citizens of Rapture wouldn't say, I invite anyone interested to explore Ayn Rand's work for themselves and discover why it bears no relationship to the world of Bioshock or the descriptions offered by Cyrus and Friends. For everyone here under or around 18, I don't mean to come off as harsh. I know it can be easy to get sucked into group think and you have probably been fed all kinds of beliefs and opinions, especially in the case of a figure as controversial as Ayn Rand. I implore everyone, but especially those of you still looking at the world and forming your beliefs, to think and READ for yourselves. Don't let the misconceptions of others, no matter how great their number, do your thinking for you.

  
  
• 
  

  April 20, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Shegaw said ...

  I'd like to congratulate ZPowers for having earned "Spill Comment of the Week"

• April 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM, said ...

  Thankyou ZPowers for such an interesting read.  And i agree Tea Party Rat, this aint got shit on Bioshock!

  
  
• 
  

  April 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Martin F. said ...

  Attention spillios.  ZPowers has closed this discussion.  Please thank him.

   

  Thank you ZPowers.

• April 20, 2011 at 5:01 PM, QbanGladiator said ...

  @Tea Party Rat: ditto, seriously

  
  
• 
  

  April 20, 2011 at 6:58 AM, max maushardt said ...

  The philosophy this book is based on is flawed in so many ways. It's hard to believe that people actually believe in the ideas that it presents, it only take a small amount of thought to see why this belief system is wrong.

• April 20, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Sky said ...

  I have the urge to play Bioshock right now... 

   

  

  
  
• 
  

  April 20, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Orlando Howard said ...

  Boy, I really need to play BioShock or at least read the book.

Post Comment