Ameriatch One of the best films i have seen

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Michael Ledo The film suffers from attempting to make a modern adaptation of Ayn Rand's master piece. Part 2 does better than Part 1 as we now see the cell phones and computers in abundance. However, alternative energy seems nonexistent. Indeed with gas at $40.00 a gallon, Volts and Prius would be everywhere. Since plastic comes from petroleum, the use of plastic as a coffee cup lid would have ceased. But the film was made to show us that when all the world's best and brightest are taken away, Sean Hannity would be left behind and no one can fill the void of those wonderful job creators.No matter which side of the political spectrum you are on the film agrees with both: The poor couldn't exist without the rich. Henry Rearden (Jason Beghe) is quite the despicable character to be the hero of libertarian capitalism. He makes amateur speeches similar to those made by tax protesters I knew in the 1980s...the ones who ended up in jail. His message is simple: Government is evil. Taxes are robbery. Tax money given to help everyone but himself, goes to looters. In this film capitalism has gotten so out of control, they force the hand of government to nationalize all business and created a sudden communistic society by executive order. Can't happen, but try to go with it.There is a gross exaggeration of the battle between capitalism and socialism, as if the two can not coexist in one society, except it does exist that way in every society to one degree or another. However, they don't exist exclusively without each other. You hear the mantra of the barter system "True value for value." Hand me my barf bag.The main problem I had with the film was not the exaggerated if not cartoonish view it took on economics, but the stiff cardboard characters who can't act. The directing, editing, and screen adaptation also left much to be desired. And yet, as bad as it was, it was an improvement over the first film.

Isabelle Vanhouver The new casting is just too distracting. I sat through Dagny's awful makeup and fake eyelashes and the "hey, look at my boobs!" outfits (not to mention her suddenly taking on 20 years) for as long as I could, but I can't take it anymore. Hank Rearden is decent, but he too is too old and he sounds like he has to cough something up. He and Dagny's scenes together are cringeworthy. Lillian was--disappointing. Absolutely nothing like the original or the book. Her acting wasn't bad, however. Poorly executed and horrible follow-up. Would not recommend. The only person who has aged gracefully in this film is Francisco; he lost that hair. Ayn is probably choking on a wad of dollar bills in her grave

david-58-631842 The film gives the impression that it's written by someone who's never been exposed to but always fantasised about class. It's then acted out in a spree of self-marginalising desperation of contrived spite for all humanity as an attempt to appeal to those who like to imagine themselves unrewarded heroes and yet-proclaimed masters of society by embracing such a caricature ideology... well, perhaps after all those viewers simply enjoy being assholes and had no further intellectual pursuits in deriving solace from these plot lines disguised as some embarrassing screen fiasco. Doomed from the inception and no increase in budget (which indeed looked very small and misspent) could salvage this train wreck. The change in actors only made it look more miserable.

Mark Ifi i feel strongly about the book, so my review is tinted, or biased in that respect. it's worth a watch, and good follow up to part one, which was just interesting enough for me to check out this one.i liked the beautiful visuals, and nice lighting, although the occasional "sci-fi channel sped up shot" ruins a lot of it. not to mention the occasional crooked shot. what's up with that? the rearden steel bracelet looks awesome. esai morales for francisco d'anconia is perfect casting. 20th century motor company appears on a baseball cap. jumpjets are cool.i didn't like the disaster movie elements. dagney shouldn't have crashed the plane. those trains didn't crash. did they? a large part of it is thereby reduced to a common disaster movie, with cheesy jokes. and characterize francisco d'anconia as a proper playboy, will you? wesley mouch is pretty disgusting person in the book, here he's almost handsome, and doesn't come across as an evil character.i also think that this movie is pretty much been made for people who read the book, and are anxious to see an adaptation. without prior knowledge it's probably unwatchable. if your read the book it holds attention, is somewhat faithful, but leaves you wanting for something better to come out down the line. it deserves a five out of ten stars for it.TLDR: if you like the book, watch this. if you don't know the book, stay away from this movie.