Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

omnitech_1 I saw both part 1 and part 2 back to back on DVD. It was a stupidly colossal move to replace all the main characters in part 2.. And to top it off the acting suffered tremendously throughout all the main characters. No wonder it received poor reviews and did a third less at the box office. Actually after watching part 1, I was looking forward to part 2 but oh god ... Part 2 Was so Painful to watch. I haven't checked but it would be a smart move to obtain the original character for part 3, and then redo part 2. Oh and get the original director back as well then the movie might have a chance just maybe!

Mark Ifi i feel strongly about the book, so my review is tinted, or biased in that respect. it's worth a watch, and good follow up to part one, which was just interesting enough for me to check out this one.i liked the beautiful visuals, and nice lighting, although the occasional "sci-fi channel sped up shot" ruins a lot of it. not to mention the occasional crooked shot. what's up with that? the rearden steel bracelet looks awesome. esai morales for francisco d'anconia is perfect casting. 20th century motor company appears on a baseball cap. jumpjets are cool.i didn't like the disaster movie elements. dagney shouldn't have crashed the plane. those trains didn't crash. did they? a large part of it is thereby reduced to a common disaster movie, with cheesy jokes. and characterize francisco d'anconia as a proper playboy, will you? wesley mouch is pretty disgusting person in the book, here he's almost handsome, and doesn't come across as an evil character.i also think that this movie is pretty much been made for people who read the book, and are anxious to see an adaptation. without prior knowledge it's probably unwatchable. if your read the book it holds attention, is somewhat faithful, but leaves you wanting for something better to come out down the line. it deserves a five out of ten stars for it.TLDR: if you like the book, watch this. if you don't know the book, stay away from this movie.

geraldconques The first movie was a pile of garbage, this movie is a pile of garbage with vomit on top. Where do I start. The special effects were crude and looked home made, like on a laptop on the kitchen table bad. The acting was so mechanical and bad, Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks its funny, but he won't be coming back. And the script, who wrote it, Linda, Heather R., Heather B., Heather L., Heather A., Blair, Ashley Binder-Joiner-Pinker-Kelssey-Pugner-Koch and Cindy Bowen. It reads like a bunch of prep school girls wrote it while they were mad at their teacher and were stuck at the Mall because their dad's limo couldn't come pick them up for two hours and there was no cell phone service (the horror) at the Mall. This "movie" failed on every front, why, because it deserved to. This move is a narcissistic ego trip trying to pass itself off as a thinly veiled attempted by the morally corrupt elite "right" to portray itself as the "victim" of the all consuming poor. This movie is completely disconnected from reality, it is fiction, no worse, its bad fiction, even worse, its preachy bad fiction. If I could find out where to write to demand my money back, I am willing to spend hours to do it, just so I could know that NONE of my money went to the support the "groups" that made this huge pile of puke. Trash.

doug_park2001 Even more soap operatic than Part I, Part II also lacks the few scattered exciting moments and variations in scenery we had in Part I (to which I gave three stars).Regardless of one's political persuasion or stance on America's current economic problems, I can't see how anyone could regard this film as anything but ludicrous. Example: The corrupt sell-out CEO James Taggart encounters a fawning groupie of a sales clerk in a bargain store where he's stopped to purchase a tie and immediately marries her. One of the dumbest confrontations in Filmland history takes place at the wedding, where mining mogul Francisco d'Anconia engages Taggart in a heated philosophical debate about the basic function of money in human society.Additionally, most of the acting and script are even more stilted than those in Part I. Still, I must give ASPII an additional star because it's quite funny --albeit, unintentionally--in a number of places. So, maybe watch it as a comedy (?) Nothing really gets resolved here, so I assume we're in for a Part III.