Shocker: Roger Ebert didn’t like Atlas Shrugged

View Comments (48)

• Eggbert said: "I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all"

  My wife and I saw the movie on the day it premiered - April 15th, not 16th. She has never read the book. While the dialogue in the movie dragged a bit, she got the message very clearly and greatly approved and is glad the movie is out there making the point about looters in government and in league with government. She now plans to read the book!

  • Ebert was lying; he understood it, he just didn't like what it said. And he's a hypocrite.

    Obviously your wife is more honest, more intelligent, and more thoughtful than he is. She ought to be reviewing the movies.

• If anyone's interested I shredded his review when it came out here - http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/ding-ding-ding-roger-eggbert-goes-off.html

  And, the best part is he's a complete and total hypocrite about that philosophy thing; I've read some of his highly personal news and I know whereof I speak. Guy's a grade A- jackhole. A liar and a scammer. Stupid lowly STEEL production - harumph - it's not a lofty profession like, say, being a giant leech on the producers of items people actually need or want, right? Does he know that if the world goes Galt, he's done for? He...well...he's a jackhole.

  • Jolly good show!

  • Awesome spanking of the fat boob.

    • Thanks!!! I do love shredding people like him :D

• What can you say about an idiot who wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls"?

• I saw it Sunday. Like a fool I used my debit card to buy the tickets and the camera behind the popcorn counter moved every time I did.

  Seriously, it was good. I wouldn't say the acting was stellar but it was good enough and it followed the book well. It never was boring. I am anxiously awaiting the rest.

  Like the Passion Of The Christ, I suspect Ebert is pissed that the movie was even made to begin with.

• I hope the two of them never do stand together as the two huge bodies coming so close together would cause a disruption in the earths gravitational field which would implode into a black hole destroying our solar system.

• I never cared much for Rand for the same reason I never cared much for Auel. Both are way too wordy, taking so much time to tell you about the story they forget to tell you the story. Stephen King is the only author I know of that can get away with that.

  But, I'll have to watch this movie just because Michael Ebert doesn't like it. Or is it Roger Moore, I forget. I'll have to wait until it comes out of DVD though. It's over 75 miles to the nearest movie house and I am not going to waste $4 per gallon gas to see a movie. I don't go to movie theaters for another reason, I cannot enjoy a good cigar while watching the show.

• "If I had a dollar every time capitalism was blamed for the problems created by government I'd be a fat film maker with a ball cap"

  Author Unknown. Stolen from a T-shirt I saw.

  • ROFLOL! That is awesome!

• Really, who cares what Roger Ebert thinks? The minute I heard that "Atlas Shrugged" was being filmed I knew it would be panned by the critics, irrespective of its merits. 90% (maybe more) of movie critics are liberals who couldn't (and wouldn't) review the movie impartially.

  • 90% of movie critics are bloated imbeciles that could not review a movie based upon what people want if their life depended upon it.

• I dont pay one bit of attention to what the crticis say about a movie. If it looks like something I would enjoy I'll go, if not I'll pass. If I'm not mistaken, its called having a brain and good judgement.

• I've heard of Ayn Rand all my life and yet, I've never once read any of her books. I've heard people I respect tell me that she is a pretty good author. I think my hangup has been the fact that she's an atheist. Sorry guys, but I try not to take advice from people who have no use for the source of 'All Truth!'
  However, I'm going to see the movie just because Roger Ebert didn't like it. If I like the movie, I'll probably get over my hangup and read her book(s).

  • Anytime you read anything, no matter who the author is, there will be elements of that person's belief system that you will not agree with. Plato is an example of one such person you may have some disagreements with on theology. He was a polytheist but still gave us some of the most poignant proverbs and sayings that are no less true.

    Ayn Rand was an atheist but she did not evangelize her atheism like many do today. In fact, some of them spend more time and effort trying to convince us there is no God, than any street corner preacher ever did. If you asked her about it, she would tell you. But overall it was her philosophy on life and what she felt was an evil system that would some day become entrenched in our lives that she chose to symbolize in her works.

    Like any 12 step program meeting, take what you need and leave the rest. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    • There are a lot of books/authors where this is definetly appropriate to state. I agree.

      Sometimes it actually DOES help to read books where you would disagree with the author AND the message in the book, but it is read in so much to become educated on what the other side thinks about you and how that can affect you. Example: The Koran. I don't agree with the Koran nor the author(s), but by not reading it people may not understand what is really going on in the mind of many muslims. Knowing that a muslim may not necessarily be very truthful in his speech about how much he wants to be at peace with me, may help save my life.

      Reagan made it very clear that only those that read Marx can UNDERSTAND how evil Marxism/Socialism really is. Many people are walking around with an abridged or worst a cliff note version of socialism because they didn't take the time to study it appropriately. There are some that have and don't care and implement it anyway (evil people) and others that understand it in order to fight against it. The stupid ones that just heard what they were told and liked it without further study, are then use as tools.

      These fools walking around thinking Nietzsche is so great is just ridiculous to me. If they read Nietzsche and have study his influence no way a non evil normal person would be okay with him. All you have to do is ask yourself why someone like Hitler will admit being inspired by Nietzsche in his life's decisions?

      • Look at it this way. I'm not a Christian. Nor am I a Buddhist, a Jew, or any of a number of other things. So if I was to ignore the writings of anyone that is of a faith that I don't subscribe to, I would be missing out on a lot of good reading, wouldn't I? And yes, getting to know what others think is a very good way of understanding the things that they do. I still can't understand liberalism, though.

  • I am smack dab in the middle of reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time and I never once wondered if what her belief in God might be, nor do I care.

    By the way, excellent book. Some people believe it's too wordy, but I am really enjoying every page. If you have not read it yet, now is the perfect time -- as the "looters" in the book are just like our democrat leaders.

    • I've read it twice, and loved it both times. Yes, it's message could have been conveyed in a much shorter book, but if a person enjoys reading, what would be the use in that? Any of us regulars at this site that haven't read it, most definitely should. It defines much of what we believe. When you get done reading the book, go see the movie. I just bought my tickets online for this weekend.

  • I don't know much about Ayn Rand either. I think that a lot of people that have legitimate questions belief that because they have questions they must be atheist. That is actually not the case. If that was her case, then she was an agnostic, but if she had no questions just statements that there was no G-d then yes she was an atheist. I am not sure what her true condition was. In any case, sometimes we cannot dismiss the message because of the messanger if the message is altruistic, benign and so on and so forth.

  • I've been thinking seriously about that issue. I love Rand, and I'm religious. How do I resolve that? I think the answer is that Rand was simply wrong. In this one thing, the Soviet propaganda that she abhorred won the battle. She never seemed to understand that the individualism she cherished was supported by Judeo-Christian theology. She saw the twisted phony altruistic ethics of socialism and hated it, and ended up misassigning the blame. Instead of being philosophical enemies, Judeo-Christian theology and objectivism are allies.

    Just my opinion.

    • Rand's 'subversiveness' kept a lot of people from reading her -- the "kill the messenger" philosophy really did more damage to the very people who would find her philosophy resonating in themselves *because* of their religious beliefs.

      I do not have a problem with her lack of religion -- there has to be free will to worship, or it is compulsion. (Dominic Guzman was always a little fuzzy on that one. Couldn't Torquemada much at all...) While I would point out the irony in many non-religious people's having a world view founded upon a society of Christians, I also understand that the concept of unalienable rights resonates even in the darkest corners of the most atheistic societies -- a person can never heard the Word and still have a moral world view, albeit lacking in what I feel is vital to myself as a human.

      That is why the Soviet culture did not descend into mass hedonism (between that the Orthodox church proving a lot harder to kill, and a whole lotta killing that kept the remaining people looking for a reason to hope)

      I have great respect for our non-religious friends -- as long as they treat me with that same decency and respect.

      'Atlas Shrugged' is not the Bible, nor was it ever posited as such -- and so it may or may not have application to our lives and times. I believe that she had a point, and her book is well worth reading.

      • The whole story of Atlas Shrugged is about a philosophy that most of us here can agree with. Some of us came to this belief through religion, some of got here without religion. Does it matter? Should I refuse to read books by Jules Verne, because he was a Christian? I think not. Good books are good books. Choosing which ones you read or don't read by the religion of the author is bound to have you missing out on some good books.

        I heard on the radio that the movie is coming to the San Diego area, so now I have to go find out where. This movie needs the support of all of us, so they make enough money to film Parts 2 and 3.

        • I think the other parts will get made. They couldn't get Hollywood big money support for Part 1 so they made it with a barebones budget... seems to me I read $10 million dollars. What that means is that investors are going to make a killing with even mediocre results at the box office.

          And you and I know when investors make a killing they come back for a second course.

        • RockingHorseGuy, I get your point but I have a take on it that might not be your cup of tea: These godless philosphers base their ideas about society and the world at large on a world view that is predominantly Judeo-Christian in scope and seems to work because their premise is primarily Christian, but the farther they move from the Imprimis example the farther from GOD they move. There is not a multiplicity of directions to the truth, either you move towards it or you move away from it, there is no middle ground worth occupying. Either you're all in, or you're all out, you can't sit on the fence and dictate, you may decide, but you may not dictate. A perfect example is the limp and ineffective response of the Rdpublican leadership to the onslaught of the Progressive movement and agenda.

          The reason that people like Trump and Ryan resonate with so many of us is the fact that they are, mostly for appearances sake, doing what the reat of us ought to be doing ourselves. Cowardice has a thousand fathers but a hero only one! We love the heroes for a reason and we despise the cowards for a reason and we recogonize that there is no middle ground between them. We need to get up off of our butts and hit the streets and start following the 'Rules for Radicals' by Saul Alinsky and give these progressive bastards a dose of their own medicine! In fact, I think that's the next book I'm going to read. One has to know his enemy well before he can hope to defeat him!

          I hate Alinsky and everything he stands for, but Sun Tsu would probably agree with me; as long as we think we're in the minority, that's where we'll remain. The soldier who's fought the battle before he reaches the battlefield has already won! The one who fights the battle when he arrives will almost always lose. This is a great website, but what are we doing, ultimately? We need to organize and push back or we will become those forgotten. We should do more than just vent our frustrations and shake our fists at the sky. I don't have a lot of suggestions that are street legal so one of you is going to have to pick up the torch and run with it. If it's a good suggestion I'll willingly follow!

        • I'm not sure what part of your post you were expecting me to disagree with. Right is right, regardless of how a person gets there. If I can tell right from wrong without having a Bible to tell me the difference, or to threaten me with eternal damnation if I go the wrong way, where is the problem? So, as you put it, I AM all in. I do things the right way, I don't hurt anyone, I put a lot of my time into charitable works, (mostly for kids), so where's the problem. Because I don't believe in the same thing that you do, none of that matters? Ok. I'm alright with you believing that, too.

        • I'm with you Rockinghorseguy, I am non relgious, unreligious, whatever, but have found that to avoid conflict with the posters here which I agree with on just about everything else I uaually don't post about it, lately anyway. I know the difference between right and wrong and don't need a book or preacher to tell me, so what's the problem as long as I don't hurt, or cheat or lie etc.? But I will say this, Islam is the only religion that preaches violence and murder.