User reviews

Almost but not quite as boring as Tarkovsky's "Solaris" (1972), Fahrenheit 451 is a trial to sit through. Dialogue races along at half the speed of light, and it's helped not at all by thick accents.

Characters are superficial, cold, and impersonal; I couldn't identify with any of them; maybe that was Director Truffaut's point; so be it, but they might as well have been stick figures. They are almost constantly in motion; their movements are annoyingly hyper. And given excessive dialogue, I can envision a script that must have been a thousand pages. The plot, because it is so simple, is highly repetitive. Yes, we get the point. In the future, a totalitarian regime will burn books to keep citizens from independent thinking.

Truffaut seemed to think this underlying theme offers some radical vision of the future. Actually, it doesn't. The Nazis, under Hitler, burned huge numbers of books in bonfires in the 1930s. So much for the science fiction theme.

As with most so-called "sci-fi" films, this one has aged poorly. What may have seemed so inventive and futuristic to some viewers in 1966 looks appallingly stodgy, fifty years later. What we have here is a film that tries to be daring and shocking, yet its underlying theme is culturally chronic. And the look and feel of the film reeks of old-fashioned 1960s James Bond.

I find "Fahrenheit 451" perfunctory, uninspiring, dull, tedious, and dry. Except for the poor sound quality and difficult accents, it fits perfectly into the stereotypical image of a cheap American made-for-TV movie of the week. At least the run-time renders it less pretentious than "Solaris" (1972).

This movie is honestly one of the worst movies ever watched. Reading the book twice before I realize it is not even adaptation to the original story with no connection to the actual book itself. Even for the 1960s the acting is very bad. Not only did he change the characters name around pretty much change the entire story and honestly the action and sci-fi inside the movies terrible, it should be considered a comedy rather than a thriller. If this movie wasn't based on the book, and it was an original story probably be good but the reason it's bad is because they change the entire story.

This is a laughable experience actually it's probably more funny than any comedy movie I've ever watched in my entire life the special-effects suck in during that time 10 years later Star Wars came out to considering that fact I'm pretty sure this movie sucks. I prescient the fact that they made it but considering they had about $1 million budget in the 1960s I shame on them.

The only reason that this is a two out of 10 instead of a one out of 10 it's pretty much just because they made it into a movie.

all in all the plot is slow the movies that the special-effects horrible and the story is not consistent with the book.

2/10

-Isaac

First off - What I'd like to know is this - Why-oh-why are so many SyFy stories that forecast man's future always so annoyingly bleak and the outlook so lousy? Eh? Why? Like - Are we really that doomed even before we get there?

When it comes to this particular sterile and dry vision of man's future where the reading of books is banned by law - It made no sense to me why people were still being taught to read and write. I mean - What the hell for?

Also - I found it hard to believe that what took place in this 1966 movie's storyline was how the law handled the ones who were outed for having books. Like - C'mon! Seriously!!??

And, finally - Speaking about French director, Francois Truffaut's screen adaptation of Ray Bradbury's 1953 novel - IMO - "Fahrenheit 451" played out like a super-cheesy "Made-For-TV" movie. It really did.

This film's drab plotline was as dry as dust. It was intellectually insulting. It was painfully predictable. And, overall, as a production, it came across like something you'd expect from the likes of shlock director, Ed Wood. I ain't kidding.