Yes, turning a didactic book with complex political, economic, and ethical themes into a fast-moving story was a challenge. "Atlas Shrugged The Movie Part I" looks sometimes rushed, and the necessity to push a lot of Ayn Rand's secondary characters to the rear behind the foreground Hank Rearden-Dagny Taggart romance in order to pick up the pace and the level of coherence sometimes makes you wonder why the background of this film seems to be populated with such a revolving door of spiteful dwarves, none having received nearly as much directorial attention as the principals.
But face it, in real life, most "mainstream movie critics" believe rich industrialists need to be punished and taxed to curb their "greed," so they're offended by this movie's themes. Are they forthright enough to say so? I'm waiting for the first socialist professional movie critic (voted for Obama, believes we need to "raise taxes on the rich to make them pay their fair share") to admit they hate the political and economic THEME of this movie and therefore can't render objective advice.
Now, if they didn't enjoy the film they have a right and an obligation to say so. But don't they also owe their readers at least some attempt at enough honest introspection to admit WHY? Instead, they claim it's boring and hard to follow. I believe the fellow at "Rolling Stone" said the film just lies there shuddering like a clubbed seal. Do they really wish to plead guilty to not being able to follow the plot of this fast-moving film? Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler) is beating his competitors with a new kind of steel. The Washington gang, buying and selling favors as usual for those willing to pony up and "play the game" (including Dagny Taggart's brother) tries to bring him down. ("Spread the wealth around" -- sound familiar?)