The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

"The Passion of Ayn Rand" is an interesting film about the famous and controversial philosopher, adapted from a book by Barbara Branden. Due to the fact that the script was derived from Branden's book, the emphasis is on her and her bad marriage and less on Rand and her philosophy.In the movie, Rand (Helen Mirren) becomes involved with Nathaniel Branden (Eric Stoltz), a psychiatrist 25 years younger than she is (and Barbara's husband), and sets up the Nathaniel Branden Institute. When he becomes involved with another woman, she has him banned from the Nathaniel Branden Institute. The movie doesn't say that, but that's true. Stoltz is very good, if somewhat cold. He comes off as a smart man and a sex addict who is unethical. Helen Mirren likes these roles that de-emphasize her glamour and beauty. She played Alma Hitchcock but she was too glamorous. Ayn Rand was a homely frump. Makeup and clothes did a great job, but Mirren never comes off as frumpy. Nevertheless, she is fantastic, sporting a Russian accent, tremendous passion, and an energetic personality.As to why Nathaniel would be attracted to Rand, she was a brilliant woman and I imagine charismatic. Barbara, well played by Julia Delpy, was an insecure woman, and his marriage to her was not satisfying.Peter Fonda does a fine job as Rand's husband, Frank O'Connor, a man Rand loved, but who himself just went along with her and concentrated on things like painting and gardening. In the movie he becomes a hopeless alcoholic. Part of Rand's philosophy is that you think only of yourself but don't make anyone else unhappy. So she and Branden asked permission of both their spouses to start an affair. Don't tell me they weren't hurt. Branden becomes an integral part of her work until he starts seeing someone else. Not really rational thinking, is it? When Barbara becomes ill and desperate for help, she calls Ayn, who is having sex with Nathan at the time. Ayn says, "Don't you ever think of anyone but yourself?" And hangs up. That's a true story, too.I know something of Ayn Rand from reading The Fountainhead and seeing her interviewed. What has most impressed me about her is her prescience, as so much of what she wrote has come to pass. However, whether she wanted to admit it or not, she was a woman and a human being despite aspirations to be something else. She championed selfishness, capitalism, and reason (you can't make something true just by wanting it to be true). A good example of her philosophy is the phrase "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" which she considered to be the wrong way around.The problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy is that, like many philosophies, it's impractical. Once it's off a piece of paper, it involves human beings. For instance, she yells at a screenwriter for writing things he doesn't believe in for the studio. I suppose he could quit -- and if he were a brave soul who didn't care about working or money, he could. But most people aren't brave souls and most people can't get along without money. Why not write what you believe in and hand the studio the dreck? That way you can make a living while working to live your best life.In The Fountainhead, the main character sticks to his beliefs and loses jobs because he won't adhere to the design the client wants. Okay, but it was his business, he wasn't working for someone else. He stuck to his beliefs and found people who bought into them. That's what artists do. The screenwriter would have found a market for his script as well, if he wasn't dead from starvation by then. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark doesn't have a side job, but most people like Howard Roark probably do.The film sports excellent production values, capturing the '50s beautifully. There are a couple of faux pas -- in one, Frank makes reference to "King of Kings," the silent version, emphasizing that it was the REAL King of Kings. This indicates there was another, but there wasn't until some years later. Also at one point Nathaniel offers to call his wife a cab. It's New York City. You don't call for cabs. Minor points both.Helen Mirren is always worth seeing. You'll have to make up your own mind about Rand.

I have watched this movie several times.I read Ayn Rand's four major works the first time before I was 16 years old = "We the Living" 1936, "Anthem" 1938, "The Fountainhead" 1943 and "Atlas Shrugged" 1957. I have read these four books several times. Actually I have read "Atlas Shrugged" at least twelve times. I wrote a term paper in my second semester at the university entitled "The Abstract Themes In Ayn Rand's Novels." A research paper presented in partial fulfillment of requirements in English Composition 113 submitted November 14, 1966. My grade was an "A." Yes, I earned a bachelor of science in business at the third largest accredited university in Oklahoma.It is my opinion that Ayn Rand was a genius in Leonardo da Vinci and Albert Einstein's class. Ayn Rand was a philosopher. Her works listed above state her philosophy. I think her philosophy of "Objectivism" is the best philosophy and incorporates the principles of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. I do disagree with Ayn Rand's position as an atheist. I think her position as an atheist was influenced too much by the acts, actions and works of "men" in their creation of religion. My faith in GOD and his SON Jesus is total.I think the movie "The Passion of Ayn Rand" is well done and reflects the powerful emotions involved between the four individuals = Ayn Rand, Frank O'Connor, Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden.I am 41 years younger than Ayn Rand. I would have loved to have been in her life as her lover and intellectual compatriot.I can relate directly to Ayn Rand. In many ways she and I are a lot alike. From 1993 through 2010 the four significant Ladies in my life are each and every one 24 years younger than me.For me in my life I blend the philosophies of "Atlas Shrugged," 1957 by Ayn Rand and "Stranger in a Strange Land," 1961 by Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein has stated that his book "Stranger in a Strange Land" is entirely a work of fiction. To those who revel in attacking Ayn Rand I can say only "Look into your own life and spirit to see if you can find any fulfillment." I find fulfillment when I look into my own life and spirit. I believe that Ayn Rand found fulfillment in her life and spirit.I recommend the movie "The Passion of Ayn Rand."I have watched the first two "Atlas Shrugged" movies several times. I think they are well done. I will see the third "Atlas Shrugged" movie when I can buy it on DVD. I do not go to movie theaters or use any movie services.

The philosophical musings of Ayn Rand can be and are debated to this day with wavering interest, worship, and disdain. This movie could be an introduction to the controversial author and lecturer, not only her political mind but her sexual psychology.Here the collectivism or selfishness by philosophical design is not nearly a comprehensive or even a deep exercise. It is more sexual psychology and social marital morality than capitalism and rational egoism. The subjects that so tickle conservatives, unbridled economics and unfettered individualism are best found elsewhere.This is a very well acted and well done character study of both the famous authoress and her immediate and fervent followers. Her "admirers" may be too weak a description of these folks who seem to kneel at the whim of this dominating and forceful personality. The film lays bare her inability and also her disciples, to practice what they preach.It may not be a profound revelation that Gurus often succumb to human frailties and are unable to overcome the adversities they advocate against, but this movie is a thoughtful rendering based on the non-fiction book of the same name. It is a story told by one close to it all and its "objectivism" can only be speculated.

I hope every fan of Ayn Rand's Novels and Philosophy would sit down and view this film. It is an extremely disturbing view of a brilliant Cult Charismatic writer who started "Objectivism" which in reality is a disguise for Hedonism and Rationalism (Truth as one defines it). To say it simply, the woman was demented, selfish, perverted, and evil. Barbara Branden's (Ayn's best friend and Wife of Nathaniel Branden) Book tells the disgusting truth that would make a sailor blush. Helen Mirren is brilliant as Ayn Rand playing her with such honesty that one wonders which one of the artists is on display. The sex scenes with Helen Mirren (Almost 60?) and Eric Stoltz will shock you with its passion -- and only two fine actors could "perform" these scenes without one wondering if this is a joke in poor taste. Peter Fonda proves once again that he is one of our finest actors playing Ayn's supportive alcoholic husband.For those of you who felt that Ayn Rand's Novels "changed your life," I suggest that you view this film and see what kind of behavior spurned such "Heroic Individualism" which in my opinion is crap served up as an appetizer. Does anyone actually believe that you have to love yourself before you can love others? True love is sacrifice of one's self at your own peril for the sake of others. Ayn Rand had none of the qualities to admire in a Heroic figure!