There are many ways to watch this movie, and the way you choose to watch it will tend to determine how you rate it. You might compare it to the book, or set it against a standard of expression for a philosophical idea. Or, you just might watch it absolutely for itself, in a sort of self-defined manner. Everything depends upon the standard of judgment.I admit that there were parts of this movie that seemed awkward or condensed from a story perspective. However, such as each his or her own, we tend to like a movie that hooks us, often by attaching to something inside ourselves. Something in the movie with which we identify.What I loved about the movie is the essential message: the man's own belief in himself was a stronger force than the attacks could break down. Make the man an outcast, ridicule him, take his money. Take away everything society offers. Then we see what makes the man. Such as it was for Socrates, Jesus, and many others. Take it all away and there is nothing left, but the man and the principle that the man holds. This is the integrity of the man, and it is what holds the man together, from the inside out, not the outside in.The strength of the many is not the truth, the strength of the many is simply the many. The truth can stand alone, naked, and all by itself. The less adorned, the more essential. All strength comes from the inside, that is the only true source of strength, and nothing is as strong if reliant upon an external.Roark listens to the kingdom that is inside of him, and he wins without ever attacking, simply by staying true to himself.

What the Hell? Oh my God, what a God damned piece of crap this was. I mostly know Ayn Rand in a secondhand manner (I read Anthem in 8th grade but don't remember it being anything more than a 1984 retread), so I guess I'm kind of glad I finally got to experience her peculiar sense of morality (which should be easily identifiable to anyone with a shred of intelligence as evil). What particularly strikes me about this film (whose screenplay she did write, for the record) is not just that her morality is repugnant, but that she's an unbearably awful writer. First off, the dialogue that's spouted off doesn't sound like anything that could ever possibly come out of a human being's mouth. It's three steps beyond clunky and overly expository. Screw subtext, right? We're just gonna say everything on our minds, thank you very much. Second, I mean, how egotistical is Rand here? Clearly, at least part of the protagonist (Howard Roark, played by Gary Cooper) is autobiographical, you have to imagine, and we just think we're the hottest thing ever, don't we Ms. Rand? Oh, you're an individual and such a genius that the only reason anyone can ever disagree with you is because they think mediocrity is the way to go. And, finally, you all saw that he did it, right? He blew the Hell out of that building and surrendered right next to a plunger. It's a pretty open and shut case. I don't care how awesome your courtroom speech is - it's not, by the way - it has nothing to do with the case at hand and I'm surprised there wasn't one objection raised, especially given how much movie lawyers love to do so. And then there's some really dumb stuff with the Raymond Massey character too, but I was too flabbergasted by what had just happened in court to care about that. King Vidor, who was personally chosen by Rand, does what he can with the material, but it's utterably unsalvageable. Patricia Neal is quite attractive and it was nice seeing Cat People's Kent Smith in the film, but it's objectively garbage.

I just caught this movie on one of the free cable movie channels. Other reviews have already picked it apart and listed all the reasons why the film is a stilted, sophomoric, pretentious, preachy, melodramatic mess. All I can add is that, if you've never read any Ayn Rand, you should see this movie. Not because it's good (it's definitely not), but at least you'll only waste two hours of your life having Rand's silly "every man for himself" philosophy and "every woman needs a strong man to dominate her" sexual agenda bashed into your head over and over and over. As someone who had the misfortune of spending way too many hours slogging through Atlas Shrugged on the recommendation of a friend, I wish I had just watched this movie instead. It would have warned me off anything with Ayn Rand's name attached to it.On the other hand, if you watch this and think it's brilliant (and the current 7.1 rating it enjoys on IMDb indicates that there must be a lot of people who think so, considering all the 1 and 2 star reviews it's gotten), then by all means run out and buy Rand's collected works. You'll love them.

Taken from a novel by Ayn, "The Fountainhead" is a film of ideas. As such, it won't appeal to everyone. It can be viewed as a love story or as the struggle of one man to remain true to the values and goals he has set for himself, but Rand's philosophical underpinnings run through every scene.The film is very stylized and very dramatic. The sets are wonderful and the score is excellent. Most of the acting is good. Unfortunately, the most deficient portrayal is that of the protagonist, Howard Roark. Gary Cooper gets about half of his lines right. The other half have no emotional connection to the inner story of the film. Cooper himself said he did not understand some of the story. Patricia Neal as Dominique Francon gives a very strong and very nuanced performance.Obviously, those who do not understand or agree with Rand's philosophy will not enjoy the film. Roark is an individualist with high principles. He designs buildings according to his own ideas of beauty and refuses to compromise to conform with the views of others. Dominique is the woman who understands him, but fears for his well-being, knowing the penchant for society to tear down what it cannot control or own.Rand, who had been a Hollywood screenwriter, wrote this screenplay herself. She was so dissatisfied with the process of filming the novel, due to attempts to amend the story, that she vowed never to subject herself to Hollywood's machinations again. The resulting film is fairly true to Rand's vision, but she disowned the film because it is not totally what she intended.