A very thought provoking movie. It has an cheap 온라인카지노추천 series feel about it. A bit like Dr Who. The sets look like they might fall over. The costumes look like those cheap wear once fancy dress outfits you can buy at joke shops. Naughty nurse outfits for £25. But this film is all about the content and it hasn't made the crossover from book to film as well as it might have. Lack of funding. Poor direction. Unhappy cast and crew. Who knows but it's nowhere near as bad as it is a lot better than the 2018 remake which averaged 20% in the reviews. I haven't seen the remake so perhaps a back to back sitting is on the agenda. Maybe the remake might become a cult classic because its so bad like The Blob with Steve McQueen or is it Paul Newman. I always get them two mixed up.

OK, so this is a good film if you like a story being built. Asides from Julie Christie being unable to pull of two separate roles (they seem to be the same person but with different haircuts) the film is enjoyable. Oscar Werner plays the role that builds and builds as he embraces books. Christie, despite being likeable and pretty, is as per above (I understand they wanted to try and show a likeness between his wife and the girl he met but JC didn't have the acting range). Anton Diffring is moody and Cyril Cusack is all knowing and smug with it. Bradbury himself said he preferred the ending to the film, rather than his book (the book itself is quite shocking in the demise of one of the main characters). It's a clever film, a bit dated and with some very amusing special effects (the toy fire engine being shot from distance to make it look like a real one). I like my films to have characters I can like and not like, this is a good one and it does justice to the book whilst still being a good film to watch. It was due a remake but they managed to right royally screw that up with the Michael B Jordan catastrophe. Maybe they can do another, better remake and use the Spider in that one (only thing missing from the first film was the spider but I'd rather have no spider than bad special effects for that).

François Truffaut was one of the more admired directors of the French New Wave, but his first movie in colour (and only English-language) movie is not one of his better-loved works. Fahrenheit 451 often inspires only lukewarm film reviews. It has its admirers. Martin Scorsese insisted that the film is under-rated, and cited it as influence on his own work. Ray Bradbury, author of the famous novel on which the film was based, said that he liked the adaptation. He particularly praised the poignancy of its ending. Bradbury did feel that it was a mistake to cast Julie Christie in two roles however. Truffaut made this decision to indicate that her two characters are not easily broken down into good and bad, but are two sides of the same coin. This casting choice may have been an error on Truffaut's part. He was conscious of the film's other flaws. Not an English speaker himself, Truffaut was unhappy with the stilted language used in the English version of the film. Indeed the dialogue often sounds odd and awkward, though perhaps that is appropriate for a future world in which the written word is missing from people's lives. Some of the gestures made by the actors are also stiff. There is the peculiar salute that the Firemen give to one another, and the Masonic handshakes that seem so cumbersome. These are only small problems however. The film's most serious weakness is its leading actor. Truffaut had worked with the Austrian actor Oskar Werner before, notably on Jules and Jim, Truffaut's most famous movie. Somehow this time the chemistry was not there. By the end of the production, the two men were not speaking, and Werner childishly cut his hair before the filming of the final scene in order to make a continuity error. One of the leading areas of contention between the two men was Werner's insistence on delivering a robotic performance in the leading role of Montag. Truffaut wanted a more human Montag, and the film would have benefited from a sympathetic leading character. However Werner stubbornly insisted that his dull acting would capture how people would speak in the future, and the film is stuck with it. Truffaut's directing is repetitive, but in a hypnotic way. The same images return – the fire engine racing through the streets, the firemen going up and down poles, the pages curling as the books are burned. Truffaut chose some of his favourite books to be among those that are set on fire. The sight of some of literature's most famous works being destroyed is strangely beautiful, and yet it feels sacrilegious. From the outset the film establishes the strangeness of a world that looks superficially like ours. The opening credits are spoken, and not written down. The importance of using one's voice in place of written words will be seen again at the end of the film. The camera shows television arials everywhere, and constantly zooms in on the arials until they fill the screen. They now dominate people's lives instead of books. One of the dominant colours of the film is red, often seen on walls, and in bricks. The red recalls the traditional colour of fire engines, and the flames of the fires started by this modern incarnation of the service. A society in which imagination and alternative opinion is suppressed can only be a drab one. Most of the citizens live in dreary housing units. Montag's home is called Block 813. It does not have a more picturesque name. The people of the future dress in plain clothes, and have mundane hairstyles. One rebellious individual who lets his hair grow long is held down and given a haircut by force. The biggest killjoys and bullies are the Firemen. They dress in nondescript uniforms and black helmets, as if they are seeking to remove all colour and joy from the world. Their job is to remove contraband books from people's houses and burn them. They have become experts at finding the secret hiding places of books – lampshades, heaters…Some are concealed in the very televisions that have supposedly replaced them. The central character of the film is not a natural rebel. Indeed he is one of the enforcers of the existing regime. Montag works as a Fireman, and he has no problem with this role for many years. He even has the approval of his boss, Captain Beatty (Cyril Cusack), who would like to promote Montag. ontag steals one of the books that he was supposed to destroy, and brings it home. It is David Copperfield. Montag reads the book as if he is learning a new language, stumbling over the words, and running his finger along each line as he reads. Soon Montag becomes addicted to reading, and he is indiscreet. His wife finds out, and is upset. Montag reads a passage from David Copperfield to Linda's friends, and opens up buried feelings that one woman had forgotten. (That Montag can still read, and Linda's friend remembers emotions are clues that the story is not set too far in the future.) Fahrenheit 451 is not about an all-powerful government that forces its views on the people, but about a population that is already narrow-minded and oppressive, and backed up by a responsive government. Bradbury's concern was not with power, but with conformity. Hence the book-burners are not concerned with repressing knowledge, but with repressing opinion. Alternative opinions are the enemy of happiness, and books express a plethora of opinions. Hearing other opinions will give offence, and it is better for everyone to hold the same opinion so that nobody gets upset, or so the book-burners think. Bradbury's book approaches the issue from a conservative point of view. He is attacking something that we would now call political correctness or cancel culture. Every book has opinions that are offensive to someone, so if we take matters to the utmost extreme, then we should ban – and burn – all books. Happiness is to be achieved by avoiding offence. Offence is to be avoided by suppressing opinions. Opinions are to be suppressed by destroying the repositories of different opinons. While Fahrenheit 451 stays reasonably close to the original novel, it does have a remarkable ending that differs from the book, and I must avoid a spoiler here. However you can read my blog (with spoilers) offering a full appreciation of Fahrenheit 451 at: https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2021/06/17/fahrenheit-451-1966/

Esta adaptación de la novela de Bradbury es difícil de calificar, pero una adaptación bastante satisfactoria. Claramente debido a su época, no hubo efectos especiales lo suficientemente avanzados para replicar la visión de la novela. Afortunadamente, logró ser fiel a la trama de la novela a pesar de algunos cambios que son mínimos. La película respeta la esencia de la novela y es una pena que la simplicidad en su producción haya sido la única limitación. Igual tiene secuencias interesantes, aunque la apertura con una voz en off en lugar de los créditos de inicio no es convincente. Aun así, es una buena película que como adaptación logra funcionar por respetar el material original y si hubiese habido en aquel entonces la tecnología que hay actualmente, hubiese logrado tener una muy buena apariencia futurista. Mi calificación final para esta película es un 9/10.

The greatest 01 hour: and 52 minutes of science fiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Part of the reason Fahrenheit 451 doesn't land as a film is because as the years pass, it becomes more and more apparent that Bradbury wasn't right, Orwell was; it's not that learning would be tightly controlled and forbidden, it's that people would no longer care enough to learn. Fahrenheit 451 represents a stepping stone for legendary director François Truffaut, in that it was not only his first film in color, but his only film not in the French language. It's a very matter-of-fact adaptation for a dystopian thriller, visually intense in both the color and the Brutalist architecture. Reading the original book describes the firemen as the rigid enforcers of intolerance and ignorance, a threat lingering around every corner, but in giving them form with their little helmets and uniforms, Truffaut makes them far less terrifying and omnipotent than they could have been (and were, in their original iteration). Plus the visual effects - mostly a series of jetpack-wielding firemen that come in towards the end of the runtime - are tough to look at. There are some neat pieces, particularly the retrofuturistic vibe and Julie Christie's concerned, distressed take on Linda Montag; the scene of the half-interactive television 'play', which operates like an adult version of Dora the Explorer to Christie's almost childlike delight, is one of the more engaging pieces of the settings alternative entertainment in a world without books. But for the most part, Truffaut's dry style doesn't really make the fear in the story pop, there's an exaggeration that the material demands. For some reason, rocking chairs are banned in this future alongside books? (2.5/5)

Low-key sci-fi dystopian by Truffaut. I personally liked the retro-futuristic style of 60s-70s, nothing look futuristic for now though.

It's not that Fahrenheit 451 isn't worth watching (because it is worth a look), but there is something odd about Francois Truffaut's adaptation of Ray Bradbury's classic dystopian novel that is hard to pinpoint. Maybe it has something to do with Oskar Werner's uncomfortable performance as Montag, a fireman whose job it is to destroy literature. It could be the strange mix of futuristic elements in modern-day life. Or maybe it is some technical issue, like the sporadically choppy editing. Or maybe it's something else entirely. Despite its flaws, whatever they may actually be, it is a fairly faithful adaptation of Bradbury's novel and an important cautionary tale of censorship and government overreach.

It's not a movie that get's good being old... not so good really, may be a classic, but really, nothing so good

If ever there were a reason not to burn books it'd be to prevent a society appearing like the one at the end of this film. An unsatisfyingly shallow sci fi dystopian depiction of tyranny.

I've never read the Ray Bradbury novel this film is based, though I plan to in the future, so I was judging it purely based on what I was seeing on-screen. The movie never feels as grand as it should, looking and sounding more like a made for 온라인카지노추천 project that was destined to be a double feature with another equally forgettable movie. The director and lead star didn't get along at all during production, and that might explain the robotic, even contemptuous way Oskar Werner delivers his lines, as if he's spitting them rather than saying them. The film looks like it was hampered by a shoestring budget, and its cheapness renders much of it cheesy and hard to take seriously. Our leads transition from wanting books destroyed to wanting them to be preserved happens with no build up, and while 1 character makes some interesting statements about the effects literature can have on the masses, we don't really hear much about it from anyone else. I liked the ending, and the idea of individuals memorizing a particular story so that it may be preserved for future generations, but the movie is mostly just observing the mundane daily routines of the people of the near future. Not a terrible film, just a very unremarkable one.

Without having read the book, I can virtually guarantee you this is a case of "The book was better." It's Ray Bradbury, so you know the story is good. The acting, however, is... of its time. Montag's transformation from fireman - burner of books - to rebel, keeper of literature, is pretty much immediate and unprompted. It makes for a flat second half of the movie after the first half had so much promise. It left me thinking: "This would be perfect for a remake." However the remake's reviews have me worried...

Doesn't quite reach the level of Bradbury's work, and it has the unmistakable '60's feel (I expected to see the Batmobile in the background), yet this effort by Truffaut still grabs your interest. More compelling is the subject matter, which seems to be more relevant with each passing year.

This movie speaks volume. It tells what happens when you let a government gain too much power.

The film Fahrenheit 451(1966) was directed by François Truffaut and featured Oskar Werner as Montag, Julie Christie as Clarisse and Linda Montag, and Cyril Cusack as Captin Beatty. The film was based on the famous book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury just 14 years earlier. The book and the film both discuss feelings of despair, a thirst for knowledge, and the failure of society. In the film, Montag is a fireman. Firemen burn books, as books are banned in this world. Montag is heading home to his wife and unhappy marriage from work one day when he meets Clarisse, a young teacher who is also his next door neighbor. Montag slowly falls in love with Clarisse, who convinces Montag to want to read books and seek knowledge. Montag starts stealing books while at work and reading them at night, which upsets his wife. As this happens, he also hears about Clarisse's trouble at work and starts directly disobeying the government, fully knowing the consequences for all his actions. The film, in general, is very dull and shows it's age. The dialogue is cheesy and awkward in most places. Clarisse's romance with Montag feels forced, as does his marriage with Linda. The set looks boring but is too suburban and nice to fit with the themes of despair and hopelessness. The end also does not fit with the rest of the movie. However, the film does do a great job with the burning of the books, as it's visually the best part of the film. The scene where the woman, the books, and the house go up in flames is a particularly memorable instance of the nicely done fires. In comparison to the book, the film is a poor and watered down imitation. The world the book introduced was bleak and colorless except in the screens, which were lively and colorful. The movie makes no distinction like this between reality and the parlor walls. The use of technology in the film looks cheap in comparison to the surprisingly accurate discriptions in the book. The film is also missing Professor Faber, who help Montag in the book, and completely changed Clarisse's character's purpose and arc. In the book, Clarisse died in a car crash, which added to the theme of the now foolish and reckless humanity, and was a seventeen-year-old. The film also unnecessarily changed the name of Montag's wife from Mildred to Linda. In conclusion, the book and the film are to very different works about a thirst for knowledge, despair, and society. The film, in all honesty, was not very enjoyable and even received poor reviews when originally released in 1966. If the book is avalible to be read, it is definitely a better experience.

kinda of boring... actually very boring sifi

Do not watch this movie it is literal trash. I am an 7th grader who does 8th grade ela and read the book and watched the movie in school. They changed everything, there is no mechanical hound, Mildred is now Linda, and Mildred and Clarisse are the same people

Brilliant, but they could have a spend a little more on the budget.

As a Bradbury fan and lover of the book, this first attempt was a boring train-wreck. There is zero chemistry between the characters and much of the nuance of the book is dropped. In retrospect, it is still better than the recent HBO travesty that managed to get ONLY the character names right. The rest was pure Hollywood garbage.

Classic, faithful adaptation.