I've watched both part 1 and 2 a coupled times in the last week. In a perfect world I would love to mix and match both and create my own film. That being said, I think as individual films, they both stand alone quite well and are very watchable and enjoying.

I think a big part of some of the criticisms I heard and have (although I am only speaking for myself here) is that those of us that have read the book several times have such strong ideas in our heads that it is hard to accept anyone else's vision. Especially when we are given two separate casts, it makes it even easier to be choosy and picky about what we like.

I said it before and I will say it again that I think Taylor schilling somehow naturally embodied Dagny. Her look and attitude match to me what rand had on the page. With that said, I think Mathis did a great job in AS2 and is very watchable. Schilling is just a personal preference. All other characters worked for me in both 1 and 2. Personally hank in 2 did it for me more.

Effects wise both parts had good and bad. Since p2 had a higher budget, I was surprised to see the disappearances so simple in p2. I liked p1 better for disappearances.

I think there are the key elements missing that others have brought up (Eddie being lost in translation and Ragnar not being mentioned yet for a few). Hopefully these will get tied into part 3.

All in all, I think the story that we all love is getting told and reaching audiences which is the main goal. If everyone in the gulch was asked to envision the characters and translate the books to screen we would all likely have different visions. I for one am just grateful for the tremendous efforts taken to bring this to film.

Wait till you see it, It will blow your mind how right on you are about it feeling like real life.
ON Strike, to me equates to Money "going into hiding" whenever
government make it hard on the Producers.

I thought Taylor Schilling stole the show in P1, although I liked both casts overall. Can't wait to see how P3 is cast. If we have to go with a completely new cast, what suggestions do you fine Gulchers have?

I watched it again last night also. I watch PII right after. I did like the year put on the vanished date in PI. PII only had the day and month.

I missed the 'you bore him' comment also.

After re-watching PI with me and us both seeing PII for the first time, my brother asked what happens next I told him to read the book. He really wants to read the book now.

PII really hit home with him. He's seeing the direct negative effects on his business of government regulations, not to mention corruption.

When ever I am feeling low I watch #1 or #2. I don't know how to explain it but it makes me feel better.

A couple more "Easter Eggs" from Part 1 -- Dagny has a picture of Ayn Rand on her computer monitor in her apartment. Hank Reardon has a Atlas statue in his office.

For reason, Explorer is acting funky today. I have TWICE lost long posts, so will break this into shorter ones. After a double feature last night, impressions:
Dagny. Definitely 1, but 2 wasn't bad or unbelievable.
Hank: Didn't think I had a preference, but after watching them back to back, I liked 2 better.
Lillian: Definitely 1. She had that air of patrician disdain down pat. 2 was just bitter.
Frisco: 2 didn't have the playboy thing stressed, but he had that stance of "cape waving in the wind."

I agree that the "you bore him" comment was hard to hear.

I really like the fade to greyscale at the end of the disappearance of Owen Kellogg. And Midas Mulligan. And everyone else in this movie, for that matter. Far superior to Part 2's "clear the screen and put up a white-on-black he's gone text" effect.

I just rewatched part 1 again. The end breaks my heart every time, even though I know it is coming.

I am completely DISCUSSED with Pt-2 . . . How "DARE YOU" . . . REPLACE, not just "ONE" of the actors . . . but "ALL" of them ?????????? How STUPID can you BE ?. Should you FAIL to "RESTORE" the first cast, the "Third" installment, will simply FAIL, an fail BADLY. . . .there it is.