Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

This is one of my favorite sci-fi films and my second favorite adaptation from one of my favorite authors for one of my favorite sci-fi books "Fahrenheit 451". Most live action adaptations of Bradberry's works have always been hit or miss, but to me this is one of the hits. Yeah, it's true it's not perfect (though same can be said about a lot of other live action adaptations from famous authors) but for what it was about to accomplish I felt it did well.There is a lot about the film I really like, production value is on par, I even like the music score which is solid though to me the best music was at the end which I thought was beautiful. The suspense in this film is pretty good though like the book this isn't so much a suspense thriller it's more of a drama. Acting was really good from Oskar Werner as Guy Montag I really bought him as a man that has been nothing but a drone for a corrupt power let alone having no real identity hence his name. But then after spending time with Clarise and reading a book or two it awakens things inside him that have been long dormant, we see he is slowly but surely becoming human because he's using his brain and heart. You really find yourself routing for this guy in not so much just to join in the cause to save humanity but to save his own soul.Julie Christie is very good as Clarise and Linda, it's a duel role but I bought into it I actually did believe the actress was two different people. This choice really adds into the film in fact makes it even more interesting which I'll explain latter.The plotline I personally think is terrifyingly plausible it's the kind of place I honestly wouldn't want to live in; when you think about our technological sub culture how rapid it's evolving and how our current reading sub culture is suffering a slight decline. A corrupt government finding the chance to take advantage of the public by outlawing the very thing that gives us knowledge and even joy in life books. That's a really scary thought, one scene that displays this is a harrowing scene, where a woman that has hidden books throughout her own house, sets herself on fire with the books. This didn't just show how there was something sacred about the books that she's die for then live in ignorance, but it was also to show how much of a living hell the society created truly is as it's a world with not just no place for books but intellects as well.It's true the future looks a little more like the 60's and 70's with some futuristic equipment added, this film was made around the 60's after all. But when you think about it more it does make sense, there was some sort of war sometime in the past which means certain resources would be scarce and due to the intellectual bankruptcy, it means very little invention and technological advancement, ok a few but like I said few and most of that tech is under government control.In a way this film along with the book was sort or prolific on Reality TV and podcasting as we see there is this interactive program they have going where people at their own homes they commutate with each other live, with whatever script given to them. Though the difference is at least with reality TV and podcasting, people actually had something to say and they were about something. These programs we see in this society are bloody boring because they're not about anything, no one is really talking about anything or even engaging in real conversation. It makes sense the program would be uninteresting because the people that created it have no imagination, they have no resources of inspiration to fuel its fire.What disturbs me about this society is how intellectually bankrupt and emotionally unbalanced it has become, we don't just see that books have been taken away, but all other resources of intellect as well. Despite all the technology they have we don't see anyone playing any video games or any board/party games of any kind. Or even watch reruns of any old TV shows like "Star Trek" or "Game of Thrones". This just makes the society all the scarier the inability to enjoy those things.The reason for the whole burning is to create peace and equality and based on the old dictum "ignorance is bliss". Now peace and equality are a genuine goal for every society but the problem is their methodology is perverse and corrupt because as it means subtracting basic important human freedoms, which makes the peace and equality achieved false. Also, bliss has a double meaning which is death, which you feel is something that will happen to this society somewhere along the line. We do see that most of the people in this dystopia are happy, but the happiness isn't genuine it's the kind where people are docile and dopped up which we see most are as there are certain drugs available, which in a way is a bit prolific on our own over the counter drug culture. This happiness isn't genuine because there is no love, it sorts of reminds me of what the Seventh Doctor from an episode of "Doctor Who" once said, "Happiness is nothing without sadness, two sides one coin." And that's the main problem with the populace they have no spiritual balance, no yang for their yin which means no harmony.There is a very interesting contrasting dynamic between both Montag's wife and Clarise and Montag in the middle. It's sort of a Cronenberg like dynamic as it's sort of a contrast and clash between two different duel identities. As well as a clash on the positive ideology of what women can be versus certain stereotypical and faulty ideologies about what women should be. Montag's wife Linda is a product of her society and time, she's like a fancy car but with nothing under the hood to really bring it up to speed. One thing about her that is disturbing isn't just that she's a druggie but how forgetful she's became, in a scene she mentioned how she's forgotten how many pills she's taken, which made me worried because at that moment she could've died. This just shows how truly dangerous the society is and justifies the double meaning of bliss, doing nothing to strengthen your mind leads to dire consequences.Clarise is an alternate version of Montag's wife she's obviously what she could have been. As we see her a person with a mind and a heart. One thinks I like about her is that she's curious about a lot of things in life, like what fire man use to do which is something I can emphasize with because even I'm curious about things all the time. In that society they would regard her as an outcast, crazy but she's not she's being human which is part of what humans in fact intellectually do which is to discover and seek truth out.I even like the interaction scenes with both of them, here it's a real health relationship because both are actually interacting, talking about things and sharing them. Unlike with his wife where they talk almost about nothing, in fact Montag can't even remember why they even fell in love and got married which I'll admit is kind of sad because it just shows how absent the concept of love and emotion is. This story is about the importance of literacy, and how important a role books and any other resources of knowledge really are for our lives. But also, the importance of being a person and never settling for less in life. Books may be destroyed but the human spirit never will along with the ideas with it.Rating: 4 stars

Although Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451 in 1951, the film produced in 1966 is as fresh as if Truffaut created today. François Truffaut is a master director and followed the many wonderful camera angles by Alfred Hitchcock. This is a serious dystrophic world and will grab you from the opening credits. I cannot recommend this film more highly. The film sends a ominous message to those that want everyone to think the same, a very relevant topic for today.

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.

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.