Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

FAHRENHEIT 451 is a Dystopian science fiction drama film which takes place in a controlled society, in an indefinite future, where books and written texts are prohibited, while, individual thought has become a question of consciousness. The books have become public enemy number 1. The story has a demonstrative character, regardless of the lack of strong emotions. This idea is not well treated, because it comes down, in a rougher sense, on a fight between the books and the media. A kind of revolution is a excessive background of the story. It is based on the 1953 novel of the same name by Ray Bradbury.In the future, an oppressive government maintains control of public opinion by outlawing literature and maintaining a group of enforcers known as "firemen" to perform the necessary book burnings. One of the firemen, Montag, meets one of his neighbors, Clarisse, a schoolteacher who may be fired due to her unorthodox views. The two have a short discussion about his job. Montag begins to question the morality of his vocation. Curious about the world of books, he soon falls in love with a beautiful young member of a pro-literature underground - and with literature itself...Mr. Truffaut has edited the contrasts with a large dose of the enthusiasm. People are going to save the world, but only if they become books. The books will save the world, as soon as they become people. A world that rejects literature fits in a sad and depressing atmosphere. The direction is unclear and undefined. The characterization had to be better.Oskar Werner ( Guy Montag), Julie Christie ( Linda Montag/Clarisse) and Cyril Cusack (Captain) are carefree and pompous characters at the same time. A book brings unrest in their characters, which manifests itself through desire, fear, anger, pain and a kind of love in the end.Watching this movie, I have an impression that I was on a promising party, which has eventually become uncomfortable and depressing.

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.

For me the best science fiction films don't have to be multi-million dollar blockbusters featuring other worlds, spacecraft or aliens. My personal taste is for recognisably near-future films or TV series where it's easier to imagine yourself in the action and think that, yes, this is just possible in your own lifetime. Especially with older films, it's often interesting to see how accurate the writer or director's future predictions are. "1984" of course stands as the template for this dystopian future depiction but this fine Truffaut film of the Ray Bradbury book also put me in mind of its near-contemporary small-screen counterpart "The Prisoner".Of course the invention of Kindle-like reading tablets renders the premise of "Fahrenheit 451" somewhat useless, but there were several other recognisable motifs in the film which have reverberated down into today, like interactive TV show participation, the ever-present debate on state censorship and the dumbing-down of society.Stylishly directed by Francois Truffaut and superbly shot by the emergent Nicolas Roeg, it's a strikingly visual film, with Roeg's trademark use of the colour red evident everywhere. Red of course is also the colour of fire which is used to destroy the books discovered by the state-run "fire-brigades" sent out on informant tip-offs, one of whose crew, the rigorous, seemingly ambitious Oskar Werner, is the central character whose conversion (or reversion) to an appreciation of literature is the fulcrum of the film.His young wife, played by Julie Christie is deliberately based upon Dickens' child-like Dora in "David Copperfield", the book that turns Werner's character and in an imaginative twist, she also plays the "girl on the train" who seeks him out as a possible convert to the book-people cause. I understand the criticisms of the acting in the film, particularly by the leads as vacant, wooden and stilted but I can allow this given that they are representing almost automatons in the way they live ordered lives, are fed on comic-like "fake-newspapers", state-propaganda TV shows and travelling to work lemming-like in efficient sky-trains.I'm a great book-lover myself, so I lapped up the premise of the importance of literature in our lives but Truffaut never forgets he's making a thriller too. I particularly liked the idea of people becoming living repositories of banned books, although quite how they memorise whole books is one of the harder-to-believe aspects of the story. The ending was suitably enigmatic and reminded me of a similar trick Truffaut's hero Hitchcock employed to likewise striking effect in "The Birds" but there were many other memorable scenes which linger long in the memory in this fine, underrated feature with a now deservedly growing reputation as a genre classic.

There was a lot of exposition, especially with the monorail going back and forth, which showed the sheer monotony of the kind of lives the people were living, and could have been cut back.The movie never showed WHY Montag started reading the books that he burned. Was it just the curiosity that Clarisse started in him, or was he already dissatisfied with his life, and was looking for a way out of it? What was up with all of the oranges in the movie? On the breakfast table and in the break room at the firehouse? Plus the orange juice dispenser? I mean I like orange juice, but not THAT often? I don't recall a lot of meat being served in the movie. Was everyone a vegetarian? And just what was Fabian's deal? Was he jealous of Montag's promotion? Of Montag himself? Or was he simply an opportunistic jerk? Oskar I think, was hampered by the stilted dialogue, along with his really BAD relationship with Truffaut, and came across as a bit of a zombie in his relationship with his wife Linda; only really coming to life with Clarisse.I highly recommend the movie, but it does have its bad spots.