Given the amount of material involved, and that it is being split into 3 movies, the first movie could have/should have been at least two hours long. My biggest criticism is that this movie is too short (90 minutes long) and ended fairly abruptly. My wife is a perfect example as she does not plan to see it with me because the premise of the novel (which she has not read) did not interest her when I described it. My fear though is that many people will skip this movie either because they have not read the novel or because they just don't hear about it.

Instead this had nearly all of the look, feel and polish that you would expect to see in a big-budget Hollywood movie, with the sole exception of the A-list actors. Not once did I feel that I was watching a movie that was 'thrown' together as some have suggested, or that sacrificed quality or story.

Combine that with solid acting and the overall feel of the movie, and they have delivered an enjoyable movie that I will see more than once in the theater, which is rare for me. The filmmakers plausibly weaved the original Ayn Rand novel into the present without sacrificing much in the process. No ordinary novel, Atlas Shrugged explores important philosophical concepts pertaining to reason, individualism, capitalism, and liberty. However, as a big fan of the book and given the current US and global political climate and turmoil, I would rather see this movie made now, under the conditions described above, than have to wait another 50+ years to see it hit the silver screen. Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s final and most influential novel, was first published exactly 64 years ago, on October 10, 1957. There are other reviewers which have chosen to discount this movie because it was made on a relatively small budget, has no major Hollywood stars, or because it takes place just slightly in the future, instead of the distant past.

Rand of atlas shrugged