Actors miscast, misused in mediocre film adaptation of novel

I read the novel "Atlas Shrugged" in the summer before my senior year of high school and I am one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who can honestly say it changed their lives. It's a profound book that serves as a fascinating introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy, her specific brand of libertarianism now known as objectivism.

Having read the book, I can safely say I was skeptical about how it could possibly be made into a film because, with the possible exception of the film's climax, it's simply not action heavy. It's an introspective novel that focuses a lot on ideological debates between characters. Most of the novel's most profound moments come in the form of long speeches — speeches that work well in text form but wouldn't translate very well to an exciting movie.

The film, which follows only about the first third of the book and is supposed to be the beginning of a trilogy, is wise enough to avoid falling into this trip and avoids having any long speeches. In fact, I would argue that "Atlas Shrugged" is significantly less preachy than 2005's well-received "The Constant Gardener," which many might recognize mainly for Rachel Weisz's Academy Award-winning performance. This lack of didacticism is both a good and bad thing because it makes the film more watchable than it might have been otherwise but also sucks much of the power out of "Atlas Shrugged."

In terms of plot, "Atlas Shrugged" is the story of Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling). Dagny is the sister of a railroad president, James Taggart (Matthew Marsden) who runs the company poorly and likely would have run it into the ground if it was not for Dagny, who was able to make up for all of his mistakes. As she struggles to keep the railroad afloat, she begins dealing with an inventive steel executive, Hank Reardon (Grant Bowler), who has created a new type of metal that is an improvement over steel in almost every way imaginable.

I was personally surprised by how well the plot works on film — anyone who has read the book can tell you that it's not the plot that keeps you turning from page to page in "Atlas Shrugged." The climax of the film involves Reardon's new metal being tested on a mass scale for the first time and it's surprisingly exciting. You actually genuinely want to see Taggart and Reardon succeed — I won't spoil whether or not it does or how it's being tested, but it's not exactly a "Sixth Sense"-like twist.

Other than the fact that many parts of "Atlas Shrugged" are seemingly difficult to capture on film, the biggest problem with the movie is the acting. Let me be clear: the acting is not bad; some of the performances are arguably good. Schilling is terrifically believable as Dagney Taggart and I even thought Bowler's stoic performance as Reardon fit the character pretty well.

The problem is how the actors are used. Mardsen does a great job of acting as James Taggart, but I couldn't get over the fact he seemed miscast. I kept picturing a Kevin Smith-like figure as Dagny's lazy brother — that's how I remember picturing him in the book, but maybe I was wrong to begin with; instead Mardsen comes across as a manipulative but ambitious figure. It was strange casting, but I certainly can't fault Mardsen for doing a decent job with a role he just never seemed to fit.

Another thing worth noting is the actor in the film who is arguably most famous is also one of its least used. Edi Gathegi plays Eddie Willers, a loyal friend of the Taggart family. Many of you will know Gathegi from his role in the "Twilight" series as Laurent or his role on "House" as Dr. Jeffery Cole, one of Dr. House's potential new employees who struggled to reconcile his Mormon beliefs with the demands of his job. He's not an A-list actor, but he's more recognizable than most of the cast, so I couldn't help but wonder why he was used so little in this film. To say he's underused in the film is an understatement — he's barely in the film.

Overall, "Atlas Shrugged" is not a bad film, but it's not great either. Fans of the book will be disappointed, but they might still find themselves mildly enjoying the film. I felt rather neutral about the film, maybe leaning toward the positive side. If you loved the book, you're going to go see the film with or without my recommendation, so just know to not expect something as powerful as the novel.