Message muddled in ‘Atlas Shrugged’

If Oscars were given for sheer determination, then director Paul Johansson might find himself holding a golden statue.

He has done what many over the last half-century have tried and failed to do: bring at least part of Ayn Rand’s 1,100-plus-page 1957 epic, “Atlas Shrugged,” to the big screen.

Considering Rand’s fervent anti-government philosophy and staunch, man-against-the-state individualism, having his labor of love open on the day when taxes are traditionally due must feel like a bit like the Academy Awards for Johansson already.

But it’s doubtful Johansson will find himself honored at next year’s Oscars.

Conservatives might claim it’s because of liberal Hollywood bias. But even if there’s some truth to that, the other factor is that – as a film and as drama – the inert, stiffly acted and heavy-handed “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1” just isn’t nearly as provocative as it was no doubt meant to be.

It’s 2016 in an alternative retro-future where everything has the look of mid-20th-century modern, the Internet apparently was never invented (people still read newspapers) and trains are how goods get from coast to coast.

Society is on the verge of collapse, largely, it is proposed, because of the jackals of conformity and mediocrity who are baying at the heels of creative, wealth-producing entrepreneurs like railroad head Dagny Taggart (the charismatic Taylor Schilling, TV’s “Mercy”) and metals tycoon Henry Rearden (New Zealander Grant Bowler, “Ugly Betty” and “True Blood”).

Together they have a plan to revolutionize rail travel, but the government and its lackeys try to squash it.

Meanwhile, a mysterious figure is behind the disappearance of other pioneers like Dagny and Henry. Where they’ve gone will no doubt be answered in the sequels, assuming there are any.

The filmmakers probably see their “Atlas Shrugged” as a way to get Rand’s beliefs out to the multiplex masses. But with little chemistry among the actors and stilted conversation the main source of action, it will have a hard time appealing to anyone beyond the Rand faithful.