Just looking for an opinion from someone who has seen it. (If this question is not appropriate for this forum, please delete it.) The critics hated it, but they don't care for or about Objectivism. For someone that does care about and is familiar with Objectivism, is this film worth watching, or is it lousy?
I've seen Atlas Shrugged part 1.
Some aspects of it were good, but on the whole, it was a bad movie, for many reasons.
The producers were well-intentioned, however. They didn't lampoon Ayn Rand's story. They attempted to present it honestly. But they just didn't understand Ayn Rand very well, and they made some poor decisions in direction. As well, the script development and production were extremely hurried.
Hugh Akston was very poorly presented. He even seemed surly when talking to Dagny the first time. I've also heard complaints about the presentation of Francisco D'Anconia.
Rearden was, I think, reasonably well cast. Unfortunately, the sex scene between Rearden and Dagny was boring and conventional.
I, personally, thought the best performance in the movie was by Rebecca Wisocky, who played Lillian Rearden. She was perfectly cast, and she did a brilliant job with what she was given.
If you are an Objectivist, or a big fan of Ayn Rand, I'd recommend seeing the movie just for the sake of seeing how Atlas Shrugged might be presented by people who are honest, but not Objectivists.
If you are not an Objectivist, I don't recommend seeing the movie, because it makes Objectivism seem like a bunch of baseless assertions. That is, there are elements of the dialogue which seem like statements which are not justified by the action; so the movie comes off preachy.