emmett-hoops I see this as a movie with Gary Cooper first, as a film second, and not at all as a philosophical treatise with which I must either agree or disagree before I can decide whether I enjoyed it. As stories go, it's pretty good. A guy wants to do his own thing -- but unfortunately, that is what modern architects do, and the results are dismaying, to say the least. Still, the film is deftly plotted, continuity is excellent, and the story moves right along to a smashing conclusion. Worth seeing.

contact-562-20249 Movie is faithful to the book since Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay. Deserves 10 for content. The miscasting of Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, and Raymond Massey prevented it from being the great movie it deserved to be.

Stathis Zittis I had high expectations about this movie. I watched it right after I finished reading the book.Some parts of the story are altered and some other, very important and exciting parts are missing. As a result, the film fails to convey the meaning of the book.Some of the characters appear more surrealistic than they should, due to the actors' performances and because important parts of the book, that are about those characters, were left out of the film. Patricia Neal's performance, however, is pleasing to watch.I hope that, in the future, a great fan of the book will make a film worthy of the book.

baisa I love Ayn Rand's novel, but this film version is unfortunately a mixed bag. Just a quick capsule review:The Good:* Rand's screenplay was excellent (she was a screenwriter in Hollywood, earlier in her career, and also wrote a number of plays, so unlike some authors who butcher their own work, hers was excellent. And her contract guaranteed it was basically shot as she wrote it.) That said though, a movie this short is just *too* short to really do the novel justice; for example, the character of Peter Keating, who even has an entire 1/4th of the book named for him, is only in a few brief scenes in the movie.* Raymond Massey's portrayal of Gail Wynand. Massey understood the character, and really gave me that great sense of being what I had imagined from the book. (That same great joy most of us got from the characters in Jackson's LOTR movies...)The OK:* many have complained about Patricia Neal, but I liked her as Dominique--and that ahem "infamous" scene (that I shall not spoil) was really something shocking at that time in cinema!The Bad:* even though Rand selected Cooper, he was really way too old to play Roark by the time this was made into a movie--you almost feel like laughing in the first scene when the dean is telling a 40++something man that he is being kicked out of college. Cooper also seemed to fall into the trap of thinking that a man of reason is like Spock--devoid of emotion. And even though the courtroom speech is great, you didn't get the sense he really understood it.* a property of this immense stature deserved a big budget, color film--the production itself was obviously low-budget, with many obvious miniatures shots that even at that time should have been much better doneThe Ugly:* oh, dear, the Toohey character was so off the mark, they could have used it later to fuel the moon landings--in the book, Toohey is refined, witty, slender--even frail-- the very embodiment of a self-effacing, humble intellectual. In the movie, he is a crude, arch caricature, with a long cigarette holder, stout belly, booming domineering demeanor, just oozing "evil autocrat" from the first frameSummary:Overall, despite its flaws, I have to say I did thoroughly enjoy The Fountainhead--the core of the story is there, and the condensation struck the right balance between drama and ideas, keeping both in balance, while selecting the key aspects of each from the much deeper and longer novel. So I have no hesitation in recommending it, although I would strongly suggest reading the novel first, then watching the movie.