Skip to content

Atlas Shrugged Viewers’ Take on Roger Ebert the Liberal “Idiot”

April 16, 2011
This great film's official release reminds me of the opening of the John Galt Line in the book...

This great films official release reminds me of the opening of the John Galt Line in the book...

In my previous post I called top movie critic of the Left, Roger Ebert, brain dead. I’ve given my explanation why I called him that. Atlas Shrugged movie is about big ideas, and I understand why leftists and liberals failed or refused to see them. When it comes to arts or aesthetics, the liberals have this typical mentality that films are supposed to entertain people, and this is what Ebert says in his crappy, idiotic review. There’s no doubt that Roger has become the national hero of the liberals overnight for demolishing the movie with his supposed ‘expert’ critique. However, the fact remains that he simply exposed himself as nothing but a brain dead, idiotic liberal or a fraud with his dishonest, moronic review.

Here’s an excerpt of braindead liberal idiot (this is actually a redundancy because liberals are brain dead and idiot) Roger Ebert’s review:

You’re an objectivist or a libertarian, and you’ve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

The movie is constructed of a few kinds of scenes: (1) People sipping their drinks in clubby surroundings and exchanging dialogue that sounds like corporate lingo; (2) railroads, and lots of ’em; (3) limousines driving through cities in ruin and arriving at ornate buildings; (4) city skylines; (5) the beauties of Colorado. There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.

Now it’s good that a number of Atlas Shrugged viewers took on Ebert’s sophomoric review, which clearly exposes the fact that he’s a fraud. He can’t be trusted in making film reviews in the future. So the following posts are not mine. They real viewers’ analysis of- or take on- Ebert’s “rumpy-pumpy”. 

Here’s one good analysis written by Ichneumon posted on Darwin Central forum. Actually, I find it very interesting that some

Brain dead Liberal movie critic Ebert

Brain dead Liberal movie critic Ebert

avowed Darwinists came to like or love Atlas Shrugged.

Here’s what Ichneumon said:

After comparing Roger Ebert’s “review” of Atlas Shrugged to my viewing of the film itself, I have arrived at an inescapable conclusion: Roger Ebert is an idiot.

Ebert the Idiot wrote:Oh, and there is Wisconsin. Dagny and Hank ride blissfully in Taggart’s new high-speed train, and then Hank suggests they take a trip to Wisconsin, where the state’s policies caused the suppression of an engine that runs on the ozone in the air, or something (the film’s detailed explanation won’t clear this up). They decide to drive there. That’s when you’ll enjoy the beautiful landscape photography of the deserts of Wisconsin. My advice to the filmmakers: If you want to use a desert, why not just refer to Wisconsin as “New Mexico”?

My advice to Ebert: If you want to snark at filmmakers about geography, make sure you know something about it yourself first. The establishing shot on the way to the 20th Century Motors factory is very clearly not “New Mexico”. A few prickly pear cactus in the foreground does not equal New Mexico, especially when the background contains numerous lush green deciduous trees along what’s clearly the slope of a river valley. This, Mr. Ebert, would be Wisconsin’s famed Sand Barrens, formed along the Lower Wisconsin River in southwest Wisconsin at the end of the last Ice Age when massive amounts of glacial sand were deposited in terraces during the collapse of Glacial Lake Wisconsin. This resulted in desert-like habitats where one can find, yes, the Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus in abundance: http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=36984

The same advice goes for snarking about a film’s science explanations: If you didn’t understand the explanation proffered, just admit it, and don’t blame it on the filmmakers. First, how the engine works isn’t material to the plot (it was rightly left unexplained in the book), and second, the explanation given was actually a pretty decent one for anyone who has taken a few physics courses in college or bummed around Wikipedia. It’s based on vacuum energy and the Casimir Effect (both explicitly mentioned in the film). Never mind that an engine that can extract energy from the Casimir Effect is probably impossible — that’s kind of the point (the ingenuity of exceptional men achieving what others dismiss as impossible). But don’t fault the film for your failure to recognize the physics it describes, they did a decent job. And nowhere did they mention “ozone”.

No, the “states policies” didn’t “suppress” the engine. Nowhere in the film (nor the book) does it claim that. In the film (like Part 1 of the book upon which it is based) it very clearly alludes to a new “business plan” by the factory’s management as being responsible for the engineers abandoning ship, but does not go into details (the explanation is given later in Part 2 of the book and presumably the second film). Did you go out for popcorn at that point, Mr. Ebert, or were you merely not paying attention even though that’s your job?

Ebert the Idiot wrote:During these meetings, everybody drinks. More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs.

I missed the first 20 minutes of the film, and maybe there was some kind of wine-tasting orgy going on at the start that I failed to see, but given that I saw wine appearing rarely in the last 1.5 hours of the film, and always in scenes where it’d be odd *not* to have wine or some other libation (Lillian’s party, Dagny/Reardon/Wyatt’s celebratory dinner after the John Galt line run, etc.) I have to wonder what in the hell Ebert is whining about here, and even if there *had* been a lot of wine in the film, so bloody what? Is this supposed to be some kind of valid criticism of the film qua film? Really?

Ebert the Idiot wrote:It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

Wouldn’t you love to see Ebert’s reviews of other dystopian tales, such as 1984? You’d think a “film critic” would understand that for some stories, being “entertaining” is not the point.

Ebert the Idiot wrote: The movie is constructed of a few kinds of scenes: (1) People sipping their drinks in clubby surroundings and exchanging dialogue that sounds like corporate lingo; (2) railroads, and lots of ’em; (3) limousines driving through cities in ruin and arriving at ornate buildings; (4) city skylines; (5) the beauties of Colorado.

The horror! Yeah, and Citizen Kane is constructed of a few kinds of scenes including newpaper companies and posh mansions. So? Is this what constitutes a professional film review these days?

Ebert the Idiot wrote: So you see how governments and unions are the enemy of visionary entrepreneurs.

Dude, have you watched the news lately?

Ebert the Idiot wrote:There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.

Okay, now I *know* Ebert phoned in his review from the candy stand in the lobby. During the love scene, Rearden is shown humping Dagny in the missionary position in bed, with the bedspread covering his ass but his very bare body visible from the waist up. “The man keeps his shirt on” my patootie.

Ebert the Idiot wrote:There are conversations in English after which I sometimes found myself asking, “What did they just say?

I’m sure you did, if you paid as little attention to the dialog as you did to the love scene, the geography, and all the other things you failed to note that were actually in the film. I on the other hand had no problem following the dialog. If anything it was too simplified or dumbed down, not hard to follow or understand.

Yup, Ebert is an idiot.

————————************———————–

Here’s another one posted by pggnd88 on RottenTomatoes:

Well, now that I’ve seen the film, and re-read Ebert’s review, I am moved to further critique his effort.

“I feel like my arm is all warmed up and I don’ have a game to pitch. I was primed to review “Atlas Shrugged.” I figured it might provide a parable of Ayn Rand’s philosophy that I could discuss. For me, that philosophy reduces itself to: “I’m on board; pull up the lifeline.” There are however people who take Ayn Rand even more seriously than comic-book fans take “Watchmen.” I expect to receive learned and sarcastic lectures on the pathetic failings of my review.”

Damn straight! One paragraph down…wondering if he’ll offer any thoughts about the film at all. This reads like it was written, and re-written, and re-written, and re-written, before being put to bed sometime before principal shooting ended. Like the guy who wrote Liz Taylor’s obituary for the New York Times, and then died six years before she did.

“And now I am faced with this movie, the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault.”

Let’s not kid ourselves. No one is ever going to confuse this with a Best Picture nominee, but neither is it a “Brown Bunny” or even a three-star, chock-full-o’lies box office bomb like “Fair Game.”

“I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all, and I doubt they will be happy with it.”

This must be intended as irony, coming from a film critic with a long and proud history of not having read the source work.

“For the rest of us, it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms.”

Thus praising with the faint damnation of a cheap and misdirected insult some very fine production values, art direction and set design. And congratulations for finally getting around to saying something about the movie.

“During these meetings, everybody drinks. More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs.”

I counted three: one at a dinner at one character’s home, another at a celebratory business dinner, and, if you count the huge party scene where the champagne would be more conspicuous by its absence, you have three. Hardly a “Bottle Shock” or “Sideways.” And hardly the sterotyped, spirit-soaked one-percenters about whom Roger cranks out polemics on his blog and pecks at on Twitter.

“There are conversations in English after which I sometimes found myself asking, “What did they just say?””

Roger ought to know better than to go to the movies when it interferes with his nappy-time.

“The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investors’ Business Daily.”

If this was a movie about passion, there might be a point here, rather than another cheap insult. But it’s no surprise since that’s what Roger trades in anymore, and he seems to have forgotten that the theme of this film is EXACTLY WHAT ONE FINDS in the pages of Investor’ Business Daily.

“Much of the excitement centers on the tensile strength of steel.”

Completely removed from the context of the government’s noble and righteous efforts to first condemn and then control that steel – in the name of the common good, of course! What was I saying before about not reading the source material?

Again, reading like something put to bed 8 months ago.

The next paragraph details Dagny Taggart, and her goals, after which Roger snidely comments, “Vast forces seem to conspire against her.”

Seem? SEEM? I think it’s time to come clean…Roger sent an intern to see this film. More evidence coming.

“It’s a few years in the future. America has become a state in which mediocrity is the goal, and high-achieving individuals the enemy.”

Yes, yes…a dystopian future shockingly mirrored by… uh… now.

” Laws have been passed prohibiting companies from owning other companies. Dagny’s new steel, which is produced by her sometime lover, Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler),”

Sorry, I was going to let this paragraph stand on it’s own, but I must interject here: Roger is flat out lying to his audience here. First, the law was passed prohibiting individuals from owning more than one company. The result may be much the same, but Roger has his plot details completely wrong. Second, Hank and Dagny have never met at the beginning of the story, do not become lovers until after the successful kickoff of the John Galt Line, and they have only one love scene. This makes them both far more, and far less, than what Roger characterizes as “sometime lovers.” We now return to your previously schedule tripe.

“…has been legislated against because it’s better than other steels. The Union of Railroad Engineers has decided it will not operate Dagny’s trains. Just to show you how bad things have become, a government minister announces “a tax will be applied to the state of Colorado, in order to equalize our national economy. So you see how governments and unions are the enemy of visionary entrepreneurs.”

And yet, to repeat, “Vast forces SEEM to conspire against her.”

Riiiiight.

“But you’re thinking, railroads? Yes, although airplanes exist in this future, trains are where it’s at. When I was 6, my Aunt Martha brought me to Chicago to attend the great Railroad Fair of 1948, at which the nation’s rail companies celebrated the wonders that were on the way. They didn’t quite foresee mass air transportation. “Atlas Shrugged” seems to buy into the fair’s glowing vision of the future of trains. Rarely, perhaps never, has television news covered the laying of new railroad track with the breathless urgency of the news channels shown in this movie.”

I’m sure Aunt Martha was and may still be (dead & stuffed in a trunk in the attic), fascinating to Roger, but she kind of gets in the way of this review of a movie he either doesn’t understand, didn’t pay attention to (they mentioned that fuel prices had reached $37.50/gallon at least twice in the first 5 minutes, which would push a cross country airfare minimally into the high 4 digits), or sent an intern to see. But I know this about Aunt Martha. She was a truth teller, and all some situations need is for someone to tell the truth instead of pussyfooting around.

Situations like this one.

But you know what? Roger makes an excellent point about the TV coverage of the laying of a railroad. That was entirely overdone. He hasn’t entirely lost his touch. He still has a little ways to go.

“So OK. Let’s say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, you’re an objectivist or a libertarian, and you’ve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?”

Aaaand once again Roger jumps off the tracks (pun intended).

I felt compelled to search Ebert’s archive to see what ratings he gave to some of the more prominent anti-war films of the last several years. With no trouble at all, I found six to go with the aforementioned Sean Penn debacle, ‘Fair Game:’
Redacted
In the Valley of Elah
Green Zone
Jarhead
Rendition
Lions for Lambs

Of these the lowest rating was 2.5 stars – once. The next lowest was 3.5 stars – once. The other four all got 4 stars. Anyone who tries to sell the notion that Roger’s politics don’t bias his reviews is peddling the same equestrian by-product he is.

“The movie is constructed of a few kinds of scenes: (1) People sipping their drinks in clubby surroundings and exchanging dialogue that sounds like corporate lingo; (2) railroads, and lots of ’em; (3) limousines driving through cities in ruin and arriving at ornate buildings; (4) city skylines; (5) the beauties of Colorado.”

Oh, look! Some actual commentary about the film! Yay!

“There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on.”

Actually, there are two, but the same male characte appears in both, so I can see how this might confuse poor Roger. And he is shirtless in both.

Did I mention that he probably sent an intern to see this movie?

“This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.”

Probably quite a bit more, which you might know if you interacted with libertarians.

“Oh, and there is Wisconsin. Dagny and Hank ride blissfully in Taggart’s new high-speed train, and then Hank suggests they take a trip to Wisconsin, where the state’s policies caused the suppression of an engine that runs on the ozone in the air, or something (the film’s detailed explanation won’t clear this up).”

Actually the state had nothing to do with it. Roger’s intern probably took poor notes. It was the company’s Marxist pay structure that drove all the best minds elsewhere, which caused the company to lose quality, then customers, then everything.

And the science behind the engine? A literary invention of Ayn Rand, just like Rearden Metal, an alloy strong than steel and lighter than aluminum (Google ‘ArcelorMital’), and the government’s sonic weapon Project X (today they call it an LRAD, and cruise ships use them to repel pirates). She also invented a refractor ray (cloaking device, stealth technology), an electrical torture device, palm activated door locks, voice activated door locks and a process for extracting oil from shale (Google ‘Bakken shale oil formation’).” Looking at 1957 science fiction vs. 2011 science, and Roger’s failure to understand this engine appears to be more his problem than anyone else’s.

“They decide to drive there. That’s when you’ll enjoy the beautiful landscape photography of the deserts of Wisconsin.”

Or possibly the foothills of Colorado, or the dry beauty of Wyoming & South Dakota, beautiful flyover country that appears on screen for all of 10 seconds, and which a cosmopolitan sophisticate like Roger has probably never approached from closer than 35,000 feet.

“My advice to the filmmakers: If you want to use a desert, why not just refer to Wisconsin as “New Mexico”?

Because New Mexico is not between Colorado and Wisconsin. It isbecoming ever more obvious that Roger has never read the source material. Or studied geography.

“Atlas Shrugged” closes with a title card saying, “End of Part 1.” Frequently throughout the film, characters repeat the phrase, “Who is John Galt?” Well they might ask. A man in black, always shot in shadow, is apparently John Galt. If you want to get a good look at him and find out why everybody is asking, I hope you can find out in Part 2. I don’t think you can hold out for Part 3.”

I hope Roger will still be around to suffer through two more films – though I’m more than certain those reviews could still be published posthumously as currently written, were it to come to that – all they would need is a polish and some inaccurate details from that year’s intern.

11 Comments leave one →
  1. May 2, 2011 3:38

    This blog is pathetic. You spend all of your time labeling your detractors “leftist pigs” and sucking on Ayn Rand’s teat instead of actually making a cohesive point. What a sad waste of my time.

    • Marxist Hypocrisy 101 permalink
      July 25, 2011 3:38

      “What a sad waste of my time.”

      Impossible, as it’s clear you didn’t bother to read the article, just wanted to bitch about it.

      That, and because it’s impossible to waste an idiot’s time.

  2. umad? permalink
    May 3, 2011 3:38

    hahaha, you take this shit pretty seriously. Why don’t you save yourself some time and fill a jar with your tears and send it to Ebert in the mail?

  3. Um...what? permalink
    May 5, 2011 3:38

    “Take this shit pretty seriously” says someone who wrote a four or five page rant which probably used the word “idiot” more times than it used the word “the” to someone who wrote a two sentence comment berating it for being whiny and without substance.

    • Marxist Hypocrisy 101 permalink
      July 25, 2011 3:38

      “-for being whiny and without substance.”

      Sounds more like Ebert’s review than anything else.

  4. Lloyd Testerman permalink
    May 6, 2011 3:38

    It was a horrible movie that is not representative of conservative principals – it is an abomination of conservative principals, and you, not Roger Ebert, are a big fat idiot. There is absolutely zero redeeming qualities about this film – I would have rather watched your dead hero, Ann Rand, take a shit on a glass table.

  5. Marxist Hypocrisy 101 permalink
    July 25, 2011 3:38

    “It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?”

    Big words coming from a man who has never given anything but his highest accolades for propagandic garbage like Oliver Stone’s revisionist fantasy of the JFK assasination, Soderbegh’s idolatry of genocidal totalitarianism in “Che”, or whatever Michael Moore or Animal Rights Cult agitprop happens to be in theatres.

  6. August 12, 2011 3:38

    Ebert gives An Inconvenient Truth 4/4 rating and says this of Al Gore, “Forget he ever ran for office. Consider him a concerned man speaking out on the approaching crisis.” This is indisputable evidence that Ebert is an idiot.

  7. John Seffers permalink
    August 31, 2012 3:38

    The movie was pretty terrible, but I did enjoy the points presented in the book, even if some of them were a little flaky in today’s world. (Profit motive vs. Wikipedia editors, for example). “Well Johnson, I see on your resume that you’ve edited 50 Wikipedia articles, you’re hired!” I think not. Anyway, the book was entertaining… the movie was dry and boring. Without going ad hominem crazy (like the author of this read), I’ll simply say that as a fiscal conservative I find the movie a huge disappointment.

  8. John permalink
    February 2, 2013 3:38

    Let me just say that for someone berating someone else as an “idiot,” you sure as hell make a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes. Are you even from this country? Your grasp of the language is less than sound. If not, I can understand your complete lack of familiarity with why people in America go to see films. If you are from this country, then I understand that you have some kind of Freudian issue. Covering up your own idiocy by going batshit-crazy on someone else? NOTE: Read Ebert’s review of “The Motorcycle Diaries”, another film about Che Guevara. Far from idolizing the man, he disliked that film because it overlooked the bad things done by and for Che. His admiration of the film you mention was in its execution, which, by the way, IS WHAT REVIEWERS REVIEW. THEY DON’T REVIEW A FILM’S IDEAS, THEY REVIEW THE FILM ITSELF, YOU INCOMPARABLE PIECE OF SHIT. Anyway, that’s my say; Cheers, you illiterate maniac.

    • February 2, 2013 3:38

      LOL! Whatever you said won’t change the fact that Ebert is a liberal idiot like you…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: