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.

Howard Roark is an idealist. He is honest. He cares not for fame and fortune. Howard is approached several times to sell his soul for less than upright purposes. He always refuses, however. He learns that good, simple honesty is the best way to run one's life. He is approached by liars and cheaters. He always turns them down. They are the real losers in the world. Howard will not build anything cheap. He will not build anything flimsy. He is not out for awards. In short, he is the ideal person many people should strive to be. Unfortunately, many people, even today, try to skate through life with dishonesty, cheating, immorality, etc. Even today, though, there are a few honest, upright personages like that gallant Howard Roark. :)10/10

Let's face it - On the surface The Fountainhead appears to be a fairly ambitious film. But in reality the final product is nothing but a downright silly and confused adaptation of Ayn Rand's famous philosophic novel from 1943. This flick completely misses the mark on all of the book's vitality, dynamics, and character development by a country mile. The fountainhead has been stripped bare, right down to the plot's basic essentials.The Fountainhead's story spotlights in on a 'Frank Lloyd Wright'-Type architect by the name of Howard Roark and his fierce clash with the compromises of society. Roark is a defiant, inflexible man whose determination to retain his artistic integrity must be kept in his complete control at all costs, even if that means resorting to an act of destructive violence.The Fountainhead's one major flaw, and biggest disappointment, was the casting of the 50 year-old Gary Cooper to play a 25 year-old Howard Roark. Not only was that a bad decision, but the story's super-intense romance which Roark had with Dominique Francon was seriously compromised by Cooper's age, too.Roark's love-interest was played by actress Patricia Neal, a woman who was young enough to be Cooper's grand-daughter, for crying out loud. The sexual-chemistry between these 2 actors on screen was just about nil.The character of Dominique Francon was, indeed, an odd one. This woman was just plain weird from my perspective. I mean, she had the most peculiar, and annoying, way of purposely tormenting any man with whom she found herself attracted to. As far as her actions went - Instead of being pleasantly alluring and enticing, Dominique came across as being extremely repulsive. Believe me, Dominique was one mixed-up babe, that's for sure.All-In-All - The cast did what it could within the stifling limits of a plodding, heavy-handed script that was written by novelist Ayn Rand, herself.At best, The Fountainead was mediocre movie-entertainment. It should have been a whole lot more than that.