In summary, rushed.

It is kind of amazing that after having the rights for twenty years or so for a book that is 1000+ pages the movie really seems rushed.

The overall movie seemed to jump from scene to scene trying to get through the story but not really settling in on the main plot.   I liked the shift from the 1950s to a much more modern version of the story.   But this was left lacking, simply mentioning the headlines and moving on into the story.  Continual reenforcement of the overall theme was sprinkled throughout but it seemed a background and none of it left a lasting impact.

The character development was lacking, almost believing that anyone that saw this movie already knew and therefore who cares.   Dagney was stiff early on, seeming caught between just bad acting and trying to ply the stiffer stodgy persona of the early Dagney.   Rearden was not as I would have cast him, but was likable.   He seemed to be the focus of this film and did get a bit more development through family as well as business associations.

Though the character development was weak a few people stood out.  Rearden’s wife Lillian was perfectly cast.  And, though not a fit for my minds-eye, Ellis Wyatt was absolutely wonderful.

But the one on one interactions that cement the books themes in your mind were lost.  Fransisco’s character was not as intriguing and mysterious as he needed to be.  Though not key to this section, he needed to draw the interest of the viewers.   And important scene with the professor connecting Fransisco, Ragnar and the yet unnamed was important enough to put in, but lacked the sadness and disappointment to connect it to the audience as valuable.

Readen’s defense in front of the court completely erased which surprised me.   Maybe they could not do it justice by cutting it down and figured it was best left unsaid.

Once the movie shifts from the early stages to the building of the John Galt Line, the pace of the subject seems to catch the pace of the film.   Though, I think it too could have been slowed.  More detail on the impact of the men who vanish, the hoops jumped through and nearly impossible task.  Make us want them to win, make it seem that they might fail.   The relationship that builds between Rearden, Wyatt and Dagney was finally evident at Wyatt’s house but the story did not take us on that journey and therefore it was not a climactic as it could have been.

The ending at Wyatt’s torch was powerful but it too seemed to jump and cut too quickly.   The suspense of what had happened, where he was and the ultimate realization that he had done this himself should have shocked to audience.  They seemed more confused and then remembered (those that read the book).  The signpost was there but a tighter focus on Dagney’s realization, reading the sign and then a cut to the fire and then fade (or zoom) into the sign standing alone could have really driven it home.  Another powerful moment lost.

Overall, I am glad the film was made, it needed to be done, I just wish it was more to my liking.   My friend that was with me said that it could have been as powerful as the Godfather, or filmed like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction.  I had to agree.  It had the potential and missed it.

Not one to leave an opinion without a solution, I will endeavor to explain how it might have been improved.   Many will say why, too late, leave the review and move on.   I say no for two reasons.  First this is only part one of three and improvements should be made to draw more crowds to the remaining films and not less.   I also believe that there is still time to improve on the first film.  It will have a DVD release.  This could have scenes added or updated in an enhanced or editors version.   This improved and longer version could then be released to theaters to coincide with th release of part two.  Hell, if Lucas can change Star Wars, surely this could use a little refining on the edges.

1.  Reshaping the overall environment.

One of the elements from the book that seemed to be deeply lacking was the disparity and destruction of the country and the need for men (and women) of great value.   It was shown in the city street scenes but never really addressed directly.   The government was interceding but those seemed more directed at Rearden then for the more altruistic social good.

a. One direct and powerful scene knits some of this together.   The scene when Dagney is talking to the magazine stand owner.   He talks about the economy, the busy people in the train station and their movement.

“I don’t like the thing that’s happening to people…I’ve watched them here for twenty years and I’ve seen the change.  They used to rush through here, and it was wonderful to watch, it was the hurry of men who knew where they were going and were eager to get there.  Now they’re hurrying because they are afraid.  It’s not a purpose that drives them, it’s fear.  They’re not going anywhere, they’re escaping.  And I don’t think they know what it is that they want to escape.  They don’t look at one another… I don’t know what it is that happening to the world.”

b. Another important moment is that the magazine stand owner gives her a cigarette.   This one, then one with Fransisco (also dropped from the movie…or maybe that scene is later), ties together with the one being smoked by Hugh Akston.  That linkage could have been shown to the audience with tight focus on the cigarette (or cigarette butts) letting them connect and be pulled in by something yet unknown.

c.  They included the scene when, as the line is being built, the union boss tries to stop it from being run.  But they left out her getting all of the volunteers.  Could have been altered into a very short scene of her and Eddie walking towards the room talking about the need for volunteers, entering a room full of men ready to help, despite the unions wishes.  A few handshakes and reconciliatory nods woudl have sufficed to enhance the need for these people.

d.  When the train was pulling out of the station the tracks should have been lined with people.  This was vivid int he book.  Though the government had said it was not safe, people needed the line to work.  They needed success.  Bums, families, other workers, everyone along the line waving, holding signs to set the mood, then turning into a blur as the train came up to speed.

2.  Concentrate on the one on one conversations.

I mentioned a few scenes above that I felt were lacking.  The court scene and deeper understanding of Fransisco were the most glaring.   But even the scenes that were present in the film did not pack the power and tension required.   A slowed down deeper confrontation would help to draw the viewer into the scene and the characters.   In a sense, it seems that the directors tried to change a deeply philosophical drama about political tensions into an action film.  Thinking Godfather or Hitchcock for elements on how to do this well and draw you in.

I want to go a different direction. Why has illegal immigration not been fixed?

The answer is two-fold and in both parties: Corporate crony-ism and votes. Corporations want cheap labor and political parties want votes.  People would not vote for higher prices and percieved “racism”.  Therefore, politicians have no reason to fix the problem… or should I say “had” no reason?

Crime in border cities has grown, kidnappings and killings were profiled, debt became a major issue and unemployment doubled.   Now, the voters that were willing to turn a blind eye to “cheap labor for cheaper goods” have seen the impact of their own selfish decisions.  They are finally demanding accountability of their politicians and corporations. There are no jobs Americans will not do (watch Dirty Jobs a few times). There are millions of people here legally that need work. Those here from other countries will lose their “work visas” without “work” and students are graduating into a dead market. The costs of cheap labor are now hurting our economy and forcing us to rethink that which we ignored.

I agree with all the costs, the crime, the risks to our security, etc. But all of this was allowed to happen to keep cost of labor down. Let’s be honest about it. If we want cheap goods and cheap labor, create a worker program. But the cost of education, crime and unemployment may not be impacted by this in the least. We simply need to harden the border to illegal traffic, find the new normal and then create a managed worker program to satisfy the “need” within the constructs of our economy. Just like we do with legal immigrants today.

Note: Suggestions for a worker program are not restricted to Mexico. Why are all all the race-bating Democrats so against all other races and nationalities? Why not a worker program from Haiti, South America, Africa, the Western Block, China and or billions of other poor people throughout the world? Why do the people of Mexico, that are willing to ignore or sovereignty, get to benefit simply from their physical location? Let them compete on the world market in a guest worker program and you will be amazed how many millions want to be here, legally and work for a decent wage.  In this case; crime, drug use and education will likely be improved.