Rating: 
Summary: Over the top expressionist romp
Review: Absolutely enjoyable melodrama extraordinaire played with relish by all concerned. One favourite moment is when Patricia Neal is caught at home during business hours by her employer, Raymond Massey managing editor of The Banner newspaper (cf New York Post),as she drops a white statuette artifact from her 20th floor NY apartment, watching it smash to pieces on the concrete below. When queried by her boss why, she explains she loves the statuette so much, it's so perfect, she has to destroy it because she does not want to be dependent on anything. The sexual imagery is also wonderfully Freudian and rich such as the long moment when Ms Neal as Dominique visits the quarry where Mr Cooper as the uncompromising architect Howard Roark is working as a labourer as he is unwilling to compromise his artistic integrity. He stands there with the large drill extended in front of him whilst they exchange one of the longest most smoldering looks in cinematic history, her eyes dropping to the drill, the touch of a smirk/smile on his lips. The finale is a classic Freudian moment, as we watch Ms Neal ascend the tallest phallic symbol in New York and experience the religious/sexual ecstasy of complete fulfilment. A truly wonderful moment given aural power by the lush music of Max Steiner. All the actors have a field day, but for the great actor Raymond Massey, it may have been one of his greatest performances. Nor should one overlook the brilliance of Robert Douglas as the newspaper's critic, who is worthy of comparison with George Sanders in All About Eve. Forget the weird philisophy of the film which would probably be endorsed by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who once famously said "There is no such thing as society. Just individuals." This is a movie for movie lovers and students of great cinema.
Rating: 
Summary: See it if you haven't read the book, else skip it.
Review: I was introduced to the work of Ayn Rand through her masterpiece
novel, "The Fountainhead." I think that, whether you agree with
the author's ideas or disagree, the book makes you think about
concepts, and for that reason alone THE BOOK is an all-time
classic.Seeing the MOVIE after reading the book was a HUGE disappointment
for me. I think that one main reason for this might be that the
book is an epic, and no movie has the time to explore and
elaborate on the characters as much as the book has. The
second is that many of the dialogues in the movie are directly
taken from the book. Within the grand scope of the book, this
is appropriate, but taken out of context, the dialogues seem
awkwardly transplanted. Rand should have written different
dialogues for a short movie. This book should have been
remade as a TV series ... that allows for the depth of character
development, which is vital to understanding Rand's ideas. Having said all that, I'll say that Gary Cooper is the perfect
fit for Howard Roark. I was disappointed by the limited
expression that was allowed in the movie for Dominique Francon.
Gail Wynand's depiction as the tragic hero is the one that
seemed to me closest to the book, and Ellsworth Toohey in
the movie was hardly what I expected after reading the book.
The Toohey character in the movie is well-built, and a
fairly imposing person. The Toohey that I gathered from the book
might have been a frail and odd-looking character, much like
Larry King, who achieves his power based on his personality,
wit, intrigue, and sarcasm. Well, enough talk. Read the book, you will adore it. If you've
already read it, don't see this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Faithful and yet too faithful the book.
Review: The strong points in this film are the cinematography, the music score, the set design, and the faithfulness to the book. The weak point is the dialogue which the main characters have to deliver, its disjointed and brusque quality leaving no scope for any physical expression in order for them not to appear wooden. Howard Roark and Gail Wynand come off very badly due to this failing, One of the few scenes in which it wasn't a problem is the one in which Howard, Gail, and Dominique are chatting in the grounds of the Wynand's new home prior to going on a yachting trip. In the book the same problem was apparent, but because here wasn't any actors involved to amplify the issue it didn't draw attention to itself as much as it did in the film - but not by much. As far as I could recall, the dialogue was pretty much straight from the book, aside from where scenes had been changed to fit in with the screenplay. And Roark's speech at the end was shorter in comparison to the book's, I thought. Gripes aside, this is a well put together, good looking film.
Rating:
Summary: a good movie
Review: the fountainhead is a good movie as far as it goes. having just read the book again, i realize that a lot of characters and events are missing, which would have made the movie more interesting. gary cooper is an ok howard roark, but a little old for the role. patricia neal is good, but the best character in my opinion is raymond massey as gail wynand. his delivery and overall performance are outstanding and he was the right age and build for that role. it's worth seeing to see his performance. their one big mistake was killing gail wynand off at the end. didn't happen in the book. all in all a good watch.
Rating:
Summary: Very stiff acting
Review: I guess some people might see Ayn Rand's characters as without emotion... but the acting in this film is very stiff. I don't think Ayn Rand saw her characters without emotion, just with controlled emotion.
Rating: 
Summary: Half Great, Half Garbage
Review: Oh, it's hard to rate this film with stars.
The problem is dramatic; Pat Neal is mesmerizing as Dominique, and Vidor moves the movie along with brilliant momentum.
Then we have Gary Cooper, who seems embarrassed - as well he should - by the cartoonish dialogue. All right, Rand wants to ram her objectivist views down every available throat. But surely someone with a sense of good dialogue was near the set? Her screenplay is riddled with sentiments expressed as subtly as the 'Ka-POWS!' in the Batman TV show. Herds of sheeplike businessmen say 'But what's the good in originality?', or, 'Look here, old man, one mustn't fight popular opinion!'. It's really that banal.
Too bad. I don't much care about the philosophy Rand espouses, either way. What bothers me is that a ridiculously clumsy trumpeting of it ruins what good have been a classic film.
Rating:
Summary: Time for a remake
Review: Finally saw this amazing film..Don't know how I ever missed it..truly one of the oddest films to ever come out of Hollywood...the debt to Kane is not mentioned enough by reviewers here..campy and perfect time capsule of a certain completely lost American era. Time for a remake..I hear Coppola is making some sort of archetectural bildungsroman flick called Megalopolis that MAY draw on the Fountainhead. I'm thinking Kevin Spacey and ummm..gee who is the modern day counterpart of Patricia Neal? Kate Blanchett when she stops slumming around maybe..And why the hell could they MAKE such adult movies 50 years ago? What have we lost along the way?
Its like I.A.L Diamomd once told a Hollywood aidience - the talking picture has come a long way since I broke in..but wh should I depress you?
Rating:
Summary: A PONDEROUS NOVEL BECOMES GRIPPING FILM HOKUM
Review: Gary Cooper was well cast as the architect of ultimate principle and so noble a character might be hard to conceive, yet his portrayal of protagonist "Howard Roark" is sterling if not entirely moving. This is no fault of Mr. Cooper for he strives to portray a purity of motive that may be impossible. Worse is the premise of the film: that 'self-sacrifice' for public good is a craven defeat for the individualist who should have the integrity of his convictions, and that to himself alone. The denouement showing the fate of the titular antagonist, "Gail Wynand", as essayed by Raymond Massey, is somewhat stilted and not entirely believable, but the prose is certainly vivid if not hyperbolically purple in this overblown morality play with the modes of architecture used to show the conflicts in the modes and mores of man. Patricia Neal's spoiled rich girl character swings from neurotically icy to suddenly torrid with nary a bedroom scene in sight yet serves no clear motivation for the drama, merely a convenient (and salacious) nexus for the meeting of events. Though architecture is used allegorically in the background, one learns little of it, but the story does bring to the fore a consideration of one's responsibility to posterity versus contemporary community. While we all can sympathize with the outrage of someone taking his labors of love and altering them without his consent, the point of the film (that ultimately one is only responsible to one's self) is lost to those who realize that human society could not long endure if each individual determined to stand apart regardless of the affect of his actions upon the whole, the body of man. When the architect takes matters into his own hands to the extent of breaking the law in a violent act that could endanger the public, the viewer's sympathy for him should vanish, for he demonstrates - and later proclaims in a monumental speech - that egoism is in his opinion, of greater importance than the public good. To be exculpated from such a demonstration vitiates what vaunted integrity the premise may have had and shows by the fate of newspaper publisher Wynand's recourse, the hollow hubris of self-made men. As a pretty morality play the movie is interesting and well acted, and visually splendid if not somewhat wordy and stagy, but as a proclamation of righteous, God-given morals, if falls entirely short.
Rating:
Summary: Bad Mistake On My Part
Review: I just realized that I kept typing "Atlas Shrugged" where I meant to type "The Fountainhead". All the comments I made pertain to this movie. I don't know why I mixed up the names like that.
Rating:
Summary: Just Not Good
Review: I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged about a year after I had started college. I can definitely say that that book changed my life. I could see the logistical problems with making Atlas Shrugged into a movie. The book is just so unbelievably complex - you could read it a dozen times and get something new out of it each time. It would seem impossible to fit everything into a single movie. This film does a horrible job in the attempt. It jumps from scene to scene without any explanation really. The only reason that I had some clue as to what was going on was because I had read the book. I don't understand how all the other reviewers could have missed this. I wanted to love this movie, but it was impossible.
| 
