Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

aramis-112-804880 Fantasist Ray Bradbury wrote FAHRENHEIT 451 about new technology rolling in at the time (1953). His theme was originally a critique of the new media, including television--a medium where, too often, then thinking is done for the viewer. Whereas, with books, effort is involved just in hefting it up and opening the cover; and thinking is involved in reading and comprehending.Unfortunately, even by the time the movie came out nearly ten years later and certainly since, pedagogues had taught young readers it was about censorship. The misunderstanding was so serious, once when Bradbury gave a talk at the college and said his book was a media critique, the students protested that HE was wrong.Try watching this movie (if reading a book is too much trouble) with Bradbury's original theme in mind, and think about society half a century later, where books are often considered passe and we're surrounded not only by an exhausting variety of choices on television; where we can read books online or on downloads; and where we are drowning in Internet social media.As for the movie, Julie Christie is always welcome, as is the underutilized Oscar Werner. Personally, I'm no fan of Truffaut and wish someone else directed the thing. However, I like the hopeful ending. The images of book-burning seem geared more to the alternate/censorship application of the story, but that's a failure on the part of the filmmakers to foresee a time when computers would dominate the reading landscape.Compare the book-burning images to the scene in Pal's TIME MACHINE where the time traveler finds the Eloi have plenty of books--but when he picks one up it crumbles to dust because no one has touched it or bothered to preserve what's in it. That brings you closer to Bradbury's vision.

Movie Junkie This film is a rather paced review of the life and times of "fireman" Guy Montag. A model citizen of his community he is committed to service. He serves the public trust by cleansing society of its deplorable elements. In this case books. Because books are the tools of free thought. Which creates free speech and free expression. Which has proved offensive and has brought a need to bring order. By burning books.Our fireman is good at his work and has come due for promotion. His superiors believe he is their man. At home his obedient , care free wife is thrilled by the promotion as now a second full sized television can be bought to stream the state approved news. Yet in all of this worker's paradise there remains dissent and disharmony. Persons committed to hiding books and who defiantly express a different opinion. Daring to grow long hair , audaciously leaving their collar unbuttoned at work. Suddenly to Montag the dream looks rather like a nightmare.As he grows closer to a recently befriended woman , he discovers she too is a reader of books. His inability to reconcile the cause of equality in the burning of books as pronounced by the select few of the state , and the rights of individuality's that these security measures trample and smash , causes him madness and uproots his life.His wife quietly spies on him during this period he struggles with. As any good member , a patriot , would do she reports him to the state , and leaves him , removing herself from the toxic influence of a being that is both emotional and has developed morality independent of collective populist opinion. After this event Montag's boss , brings Montag to his house to persecute him for being the domestic terrorist he has now become. His boss is proved correct when Montag kills him with a flamethrower in his own home. After which Montag is pursued relentlessly by the state police for this murder.He finds refuge outside of town with a literary group of terrorists , who are so fanatically indoctrinated by their evil , they have gone to the length of memorizing the works of great authors verbatim. A rouge agent of the cell returns to town to commit suicide in order to pass the belief that Montag is dead. So he remains in the isolated camp cut off from civilization and free to explore thought and emotion.A good look at how a society can willfully promote ignorance through misinformation , non disclosure and blind obedience or nationalism.

Kirpianuscus its virtue - preservation of the spirit of novel. its source of seduction - nuanced use of the images from novel. its role - to remind the essence of dictatorship. short - a beautiful film about censorship who remains an useful example of fine adaptation. a film about the freedom who, with its , at first sigh, simplicity, represents a wise portrait of terror, selfish, hope and its fragility, courage and the importance of truth at the level of individual conscience. a film about beauty. and, maybe, about books. seductive and convincing and useful and charming. because it has the tools to be one of the films who transforms the vision of viewer about reality. as adaptation. but, more important, as a honest film.

jeftavarwijk i thought this was a really bad movie because:horrible acting. The timing of miss-en-scene. Dialogue. Really bad. - empty sound-design. - Super tacky props. - the sloppy camera-moves (that were too ambitious) - having 2 completely different characters played by the same person and have them look pretty much the same, is saying that you, the viewer, are stupid. Come on. Unless there is some weird reason why they'd look the same, why do it? In the beginning one its stated she looks like the wife, but thats something else as to say "i look EXACTLY alike'. And no, people in 1966 weren't stupid. - The film-stock was ugly. Very flat. Felt more like TV than film, and this is supposed to be a science fiction film. The only shots that looked good were the ones with fire in them. - perhaps this wasn't yet a standard practice yet, but i think this film would've been a bit better if it were filmed in anamorphic, helping the science fiction feel. - these guys in white latex shirts and pants. Whut? - The 'niece' running from the law but getting out of public transport at her usual stop (a 1 minute walk from her own house) - did i mention the sound-design? - While i do appreciate looking for new forms of editing and camera-moves, lots of them did not help the story, but just felt like gimmicks. Some unwarranted slow-mo's, zoomed in on the film-negatives. - the baby with the tiny book. Really? If it were a comedy, ha ha. With this film; not so much. - The whole change of mindset by Montag was done so fast, i really didn't know why he actually changed. - Jet packs. - the guy with the apple. - that handshake. - the man doubting if he should report any one. overacted. very predictable. - Montag's bathrobe. - He's taking the stairs instead of the pole. WHAT A REBEL!!!1! - was that fire suit some reference to the KKK? - The blood bag thats given to Montag's wife. - skin-colored lipstick. - that train set-piece you know probably costs half of the total budget. - the grandmaster of finding hidden things hides all his OWN books exactly at those places he's telling his pubescent students to look, including the toaster. and, worst of all: the whole concept of people burning books because they make you unhappy is just stupid. Maybe the film didn't do the book justice (i really hope so). It wasn't made believable at all. I was waiting to be convinced but it didn't happen. What i also found very weird, and a little bit disturbing, is that if you're going to talk about books being banned, i am going to think of religious texts first (its clearly a non- religious society, in a religious society it would be the non-religious books) but not 1 single reference of a bible, Koran, or any other religion. Also, the believability of people reciting a book and trusting that to be a good preservation method is just laughable. Especially by a kid listening to a mumbling dying man. people, this film was not good for its time. This was a bad movie. Maybe there was little money? Then make a smaller film. Good for its time? 2001 a space odyssey was probably in production at that time. Solyaris was made a couple of years after that. So yeah no.8 thumbs down for this film. 2 thumbs up because Truffaut made the 400 blows which was amazing.