User reviews

Ray Bradbury's disturbing vision of a possible future comes vividly alive in this film adaption of Fahrenheit 451. Reading for pleasure is now banned although I imagine you must have a certain degree of literacy to read food can labels and directions to operate all kinds of machinery. But read for enjoyment or for education about the world beyond the small space of earth you frequent, that's a big no-no in this future America.

Oskar Werner stars in Fahrenheit 451, he plays a fireman who have a different function in this society. Buildings and such are now fireproof so fireman have become the enforcers of the ban against books. They seek and burn books in whatever quantities they find. A good job in a police state, but not a good one if you have an inquiring mind such as Werner has.

Julie Christie plays two roles, Werner's pleasure driven wife and a schoolteacher whose unorthodox for that society's teaching methods have brought her under scrutiny. She does a good job in both characterizations.

Bradbury's themes are grounded in reality. Looking at American history it was a crime in many slave holding states to educate a slave. Let them be happy in their ignorance and they might not get ideas about a better life and won't rebel.

But this is a society that's beyond that kind of formal slavery so the answer is the old Roman one of bread&circuses. The circus in this case is television which has evolved into an interactive medium. The vast wasteland that Newton Minow characterized television as back in the day has gone beyond anything Minow was having visions about. Entertainment has really dumbed down and the circuses aren't too far from what used to entertain the Romans.

In the supporting cast you will remember Cyril Cusack as the fire brigade captain who functions as the spokesman for this new world and Bee Duffring as the book lady who martyrs herself for knowledge in an unforgettable scene.

The ending is not Bradbury's, but one written by director Francois Truffaut. It is very much however in the spirit of the novel and a tribute to mankind's unquenchable thirst for knowledge. Don't miss Fahrenheit 451 when broadcast.

Fahrenheit 451" is a strange film, hard to describe. No one could have interpreted the classic Bradbury novel in the same bizarre, fascinating manner as Francois Truffaut. It's a book, and a film, about freedom, choices, individuality, and intellectual repression in a future where books are forbidden; where Firemen are men who start fires...fires in which they burn books.

It was also the first color film directed by Truffaut. Although he by all accounts was not happy about making a color film and found it a bit unsettling, color is used to great effect here; sparingly, except for the extreme shade of red that is seen throughout.

"Fahrenheit 451" is supposed to be the temperature at which book paper catches fire, as the protagonist Guy Montag (Oskar Werner) explains in a scene at the beginning. Guy is a Fireman who seems happy enough with his life until he is approached by a young woman named Clarisse (Julie Christie) on his way home from work one day. She starts up a conversation with him, and the two become friendly. She bewilders him but challenges him to think and feel....and read. And when he arrives home we see his wife (also played by Julie Christie, with long hair), sedated and watching the wallscreen (TV of sorts)...we see what his life is really like, although he had told Clarisse he was "happy"...he is not.

As his friendship with Clarisse grows, he starts to secretly take home, hoard, and read some of the books he finds in the course of his daily work, and as he reads, he becomes obsessed with the books. They become his mistress, and are what finally make him feel affection and warmth. And when he starts to feel and care, so do we.

The two single best scenes are a passionate one involving an old woman who refuses to leave her books, her "children" as she calls them; and the wonderful ending of the film. The countless, painful closeups of books as they are being burned are beautifully done, and difficult to watch.

Truffaut was a well-known disciple of Alfred Hitchcock's films, so when Hitchcock fired his long-time music collaborator Bernard Herrmann during the filming of "Torn Curtain", Truffaut was thrilled to acquire his talents for his own film. The score for "F451" is beautiful, and the film would not be nearly as effective without it.

Writer/producer/director Frank Darabont ("The Green Mile", "The Shawshank Redemption") is working on a new film of "Fahrenheit 451" this year. He says it won't be a remake of the original film.

The Firemen take the knowledge, they won't permit, those with power make the rules, it's their remit, books are burned and turned to ash, as sparking kerosene arcs flash, if you're caught with contraband, they will commit. Montag works the fire, erasing texts, since meeting Clarisse he's increasingly perplexed, she's opened up a door, that's taken him to hidden floors, now he knows the flames he throws are all pretext.

It's not the greatest piece of filmmaking you've ever seen, and you can pull a wagon through some of the holes in the logic, but for its time, and as an example of how the few can control the many, it's still worth an exploration to benchmark where the world is all these years later.

In a future where books have been outlawed, firemen are paid to burn books instead of put fires out. However, one fireman realizes that what he is doing is wrong and decides to go against the degenerate society he lives in.

I have read reviews of this movie calling it "boring" and "outdated," and frankly I am amazed by how ignorant some people can be. Calling "Fahrenheit 451" outdated simply because the set designs look old and because there are no flashy computer effects shows that you have completely missed the point. The people who made this were not trying to give you a spectacle, they were trying to give you a message - a message that is even more important today than it was when this movie came out.

"Fahrenheit 451" is a fine adaptation of Ray Bradbury's classic novel about censorship. The movie changes many of the book's events, but the spirit of the book is preserved. The cinematography is truly great and the score is quite powerful. The acting is also great. Oskar Werner is right on the money as Montag the fireman. Julie Christie is wonderful playing dual roles as yin and yang: Montag's zombie-like wife, Linda, and Montag's friend, the young and energetic Clarisse. Cyril Cusack is also memorable as the evil Fire Captain Beatty - he isn't a cartoon villain, but a very realistic and human character.

You may think that "Fahrenheit 451" delivers an irrelevant message. You may think that book burning is a thing of the past, a relic of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Look around you - book burning happens every day! How do you feel about people trying to ban "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" because the word "nigger" is used in it? How about whole sections of "Doctor Dolittle" being rewritten so that they are politically correct? Did you know that school textbooks may not make any mention of Mount Rushmore because it is offensive to a certain Indian tribe? Meanwhile, we are watching our giant-screen TVs and listening to our Walkmans (two inventions that were predicted by Bradbury). We are constantly "plugged in" and never take any time to just sit and think. Look around you - Ray Bradbury's story is coming true. I advise you to watch this movie, and to read the book. (Read the book first. You will appreciate the film more.)

I hear that a remake is in the works. No doubt it will be filled with gaudy special effects and silly Hollywood cliches. I guess I should hold off judgment until I actually see it, but I doubt that it will contain any of the genius that can be found in this sadly underrated gem. It will be interesting to see what they do with the mechanical hound, though....

From Ray Bradbury's novel about totalitarian society that has banned books and printed words in order to eliminate independent thought; Oskar Werner plays professional book-burner who becomes enraptured with stories. Possibly a bit too thin at this length, but a fascinating peek at a cold future (which the times have just about caught up to). Didn't get a warm reception from critics in its day, yet the performances by Werner and Julie Christie (in a dual role as both Werner's wife and a rebel acquaintance) are top notch. I was never a fan of director François Truffaut's too-precious stories of childhood, but this film, curiously his only English-language picture, is extremely well-directed; the sequence with the woman and her books afire is one amazing set-piece, with tight editing, incredible and precise art direction, and the camera in all the right places. Truffaut lets you feel the agony of book paper curling up black in a mass of orange flames, and the proud defiance of the woman as she herself strikes the match. Unforgettable. *** from ****

This is a thought-provoking and poignant story happens in an oppressive and odd far world , a strange and terrifyingly mechanised society . It describes future Earth civilization with television a universal father-figure poring out messages , there a fireman whose duty is to destroy all books begins to question his task . This is the best adaptation of a Ray Bradbury book to hit the big screen , furthermore quite faithful to the tone of the story. It deals with a fire fighter named Montag ( Oscar Werner ) works in the line of duty as responsible for the destruction of materials , but he begins to question about the necessity of his job . Guy Montag is a veteran fireman who is much respected by his superiors (Cyril Cusack) from fire department and is in line for a promotion . Montag doesn't wonder what he does or why he does it until he deals with Clarisse ( Julie Christie in double role also as Montag's wife ). As his doubts enhance , he starts to rob some books he is about to burn . But a work's companion named Fabian (Anton Driffing) suspects about his hidden activity .

It's an intriguing type of story with Science-Fiction leanings and stretching rather far for some of the plot points . This cerebral picture is full of cinematic and literary references as Charles Dickens-David Copperfield- , Robert Stevenson , James Joyce and many others . The interesting story , generally slow-moving , mingles the genres of Dystopian science fiction and suspense film . It contains an intelligent and surprising ending , Truffaut's own invention , with the rebels wandering in idyllic exile by the edge of a glittering icy lake . Although set far in the future , there are no great special effects or elaborate sets ; despite , the movie was filmed in real locations by prestigious cameraman Nicolas Roeg , subsequently filmmaker , in Danebury Avenue, Roehampton, London, England, UK (opening sequence, block of flats) ,Linkway, Edgcumbe Park, Crowthorne, Berkshire, England, UK(Montagu's bungalow)Black Park, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire, England, (Monorail),Fortismere Secondary School, Maidenhead, Berkshire, England, UK and Loiret, France , though most scenes were shot in Pinewood Studios . It is colorfully photographed in bright and gleaming red . Suspenseful and thrilling musical score by the classic Bernard Herrmann , Alfred Hitchcock's usual . The flick is stunningly directed by Francois Truffaut , in his fist English-language movie treating the subject of literature and tyranny with a intelligence and dignity not found in other films . This is one of the best of his suspense movies along with ¨ La Sirene du Missisipi ¨ and ¨Shoot the piano player¨. Rating : Very good , above average and well worth watching .

L

Yes, the movie is slow. Yes, the sets and the costumes are very 60ish and very dated. But it has something to say.

Its depiction of a narcissistic, alienated, superficial, mass media lobotomized culture might ring true for more than a few of us. The movie also shows the fireman's wife as being addicted to downers/uppers. All of the "normal" human relations that are shown in the movie appear to be detached and lacking emotion.

People are not to trouble themselves with unpleasant thoughts or feelings. Hence, the banning of books and literature. They bring up unpleasant, sad, and depressing subjects. They depict too much of life as it actually is. This is troubling to people. Consequently, the government pushes drugs, emotion-free and sanitized sex, and witless mass media. There is more than a little resemblance to our society of the year 2000 and heaven knows what the future will bring.

Oskar Werner is one my favorites, so I'm very prejudiced, but I think he does an excellent job. I think both Truffaut and Werner wanted the audience to see the fireman's partial dehumanization. He recovers much of that humanity as the film progresses. The supporting cast was good, especially the actor who played the fire chief. Julie Christie was good in the film, too, although her self-conscious woodenness or manner bothered me more than Werner's.

Perhaps something less than one of the great films. But it is a very thoughtful film with a lot to say to its audience--although some viewers choose to focus only on its rather dated veneer.

Perhaps one of the greatest science fiction writers of all time is Ray Bradbury. He was able to look at so many different fantastical things from so many different fantastical angles. Many credit his novel Fahrenheit 451 has his greatest work. It is a book that depicts a future where learning is oppressed and conformity is expected. Government rules with no one ever questioning it. The masses are swayed by what the government wants them to see through television and pills. This adaptation of Bradbury's novel by French auteur Francois Truffault is effective in retaining the heart of Bradbury's work. Oskar Werner plays Guy Montag, a fireman who burns books rather than puts fires out. He is an expert in his field. He can find all the neat, out-of-the-way places people hide their books like in toasters or behind TV picture tubes. Books are outlawed as seen as corrupting forces in society. Only picture books are allowed. Montag goes on with his mundane life with his wife who is always watching television. The status of one is determined by how many TVs you have in the house. Montag doesn't like TV and has an undeniable quench for something more. Anyway, he meets a neighbor like him in spirit and soon decides to start reading. I loved this film because its message is so very clear today and so scary as we live in a society very different from Montag's yet not so far away. TV dominates our lives to some degree. Most of our news comes from it. Much of our bias comes from it. It is definitely a defining instrument in our lives whether or not we wish to admit it. Reading some argue is in a massive decline and our standards as a society certainly have much lower expectations as to what people should know. If you doubt this, just look at a show from the 1960s(even a show like Bewitched or Gilligan's Island) and compare the vocabulary to something made for a similarly aged viewing audience. We dumb down everything. Anyway enough sermonizing, Farenheit 451 will get your mind thinking. Truffault creates plenty of suspense and a wonderfully eerie new future. His use of color in particular really impressed me. It is of course the 60s, but he makes his world look very different. The acting is very good. Werner gives a more than competent performance as a man troubled with a life he finds to be false. Julie Christie excels playing BOTH Werner's wife and the neighbor girl that inspires him to find the true self. I also enjoyed a rare turn by crusty Cyril Cusak! This is indeed an underrated science fiction film and more importantly a film that should be explored as we move closer and closer to that society it showcases. Fortunately for all of us here, we understand the power, the joy, the fulfillment that reading and writing bring us each day. One last note(or two): this was Truffault's first film in English(may be his only one?) and the ending was wonderfully done!

After reading several whinny comments about how the movie is so different from the book I just had to add my two cents. Hello people! These are two different mediums here, like comparing Katherine Hepburn to Audrey Hepburn. They are two different entities which stand alone on their own merits.

I read the book years and years ago, and frankly, I don't remember much about it. I'd seen the movie in years past, and it never knocked my socks off. But upon viewing it last night, I have to say I found myself thoroughly engrossed in it. The scene in the monorail where all the passengers are trying to stimulate themselves through their sense of touch is quite moving. As is the neighbor who declares, "They aren't like us, are they?"

It's never going to be a movie in which you want to see over and over again (like the fluffy Wizard of Oz, again a book that is totally different from the movie, where are the complaining people now?) but it's a movie that should be seen. I also wonder how many people will complain when the new version comes out? I can hear them now, "The first movie was so much better!"

As an avid reader and lifelong book lover, there's no way this movie couldn't affect me personally! A world without books??? NEVER!!! Whether paper, online or audio, they'd better be here to stay!!!!

The movie gets off to a good start, by showing the firemen off to what at first you may think is to fight a fire, when actually they're going to start one, by searching for and burning books! In this society, they're banned (why make people think and learn, when the soulless robots on what passes for TV can do your thinking for you and teach you enough to live in their one-dimensional society?)

The number 451 pops up all over: at the fire station, at the address of the fireman-turned-rebel, Montag (Oskar Werner), and of course, it's the temperature that paper from those outlawed books will burn! You see conflagration after conflagration of precious volumes and titles set to flame, all for your own good, of course!

Oskar does a good job as a dedicated servant of this braindead society, who comes to realize how wrong it is, and starts fighting back, even if it means committing an unforgivable crime.

Julie Christie also does good in a dual role; as Montag's wife, Linda, who listens more to the "family" on the TV screen than to her husband, and as Clarisse, a nonconformist schoolteacher that Montag gets to know while commuting to and from work. Through her, he learns there's more to life than he's been living, and much of that can be learned through those volumes he keeps destroying. When Clarisse asks if he ever read any of those confiscated books, he soon finds himself looking through a volume of "David Copperfield", and nothing's the same after that.

It's worth noting how something as simple as a hairstyle can enhance characterization. As Linda, Julie's hair is long and stylish (as are her clothes) and she gives a fashion model appearance. Her character, however, is vapid and bland. Aside from her addiction to TV and pills, she seems soulless and unfeeling. Even her seduction of Montag (not long after getting her stomach pumped) comes across as mechanical, without any real desire. She can't even remember when they first met, which gives you an idea of her true feelings for her husband!

As the short haired, plainly dressed Clarisse, Julie really becomes a whole other person, one who thinks for herself, feels strongly, and cries when a little boy at the school from where she's been fired (Mark Lester, two years before "Oliver") runs away from her. Unlike all the other modern, fireproof structures, she lives in an older building, that may be flammable but has a lot of character.

What stands out most is the solution a group of nonconformists found to the problem of destroyed books, a way to ensure they live on!! It gives what could have been a dismal film an upbeat ending.

Well worth watching!

I love sci-fi movies, and especially those real sci-fi movies that rely on idea rather than action. I was looking forward to seeing this and finally caught it, but was really really disappointed.

I think this was the first Truffaut movie I've seen so I had no idea what his style is. I've seen some Nicolas Roeg movies, so in that department I had expectations.

The beginning is great, altho somewhat theatrical, but the idea of announced credits with some nice visual trickery and the concrete suburbs of 60s London was a great starter for the movie, I was really excited. Too bad it was all downhill after this.

First off, Oskar Werner is horrible in the lead role, just amazingly bad. I just kept thinking how the movie would've been if they'd cast someone with even a little bit of charisma in the role. Werner was so uninspired and tired all through the movie. Afterwards I read that he and Truffaut didn't really see eye to eye and it shows, it really shows. I was also distracted by his accent. I didn't know him before, so I thought he was french, but at times his accent was clearly German, I don't know if he was supposed to be British, German, French ...

Julie Christie does a good job, but the double role is somewhat weird. She's good as Clarisse, but the role as Montags wife is a bit so-so. There doesn't seem to be a clear idea behind the double role. Cyril Cusack does by far the best role in the movie, he's the only one who seems to have a clear idea of his character. Anton Diffring's main character is left as a shadow of what it could be and why was he cast as the headmistress also? It looked as a joke when he/she peaked from the window. I'd understand this choice of using just a few performers to portray many people if Truffaut had deliberately wanted to show that people are the same mass and alike, but this idea is not really executed very well.

The whole script is a bit lacklustre in my opinion. The idea and premise are very interesting, but what ended up on screen is just dull and uninteresting.

There are times when the movie looks good, I would've liked to see more of this early spring concrete suburbia. But instead you get to see the country side. Nothing really wrong with that either, but the locations don't really match, you get no idea how the world really looks in this dystopian future. The monorail gets amazingly lot of screen time, Truffaut must've thought it looked really futuristic. The scenes in the cafe in the city (or something, I don't know), look very much like a studio and are not that great really.

You also see a lot of the fire truck driving. This looks actually quite comical as the firemen are standing stiff and just holding a pole with one hand while the truck is driving really fast.

I wasn't too impressed by Nicolas Roeg's cinematography either. They must've had the worst dolly grip in the world as the camera was shaking like crazy when ever there was a moving camera. Then there's this one single scene that introduces a split screen kind of effect, covering the other side of the screen with black matte. What was that about?

Such a frustrating movie to watch. You want it to get better as it goes, but it never does.

Go figure that I had the privilege of seeing "Fahrenheit 451," for free, on a big screen a few years back (an independent Illinois art house had gotten hold of what was allegedly one of the last surviving prints), and at the time hadn't the foggiest concept of how PRIVILEGED an event it was. Sitting in a theater crowded with college students on a budget with nothing better to do, I watched this diverting little retro item, appreciated its subtlety, nuance, bold visual style, and 'got' the message that if we're not careful, we'll be mindless drones having our desires dictated by The Tube (in current times, that's hardly a profound statement).

Francois Truffaut's adaptation of Ray Bradbury's novel is a bold visual feast that presents a time that might seem 'retrograde' in the eye of a modern pop-culture snob, but ultimately projects what a conceivable 'future' might look like (and not that CGI malarkey served up in "The Matrix"). Interiors of houses are awash in odd colors and give shelter to appliances that don't look dissimilar from our own; TV screens embedded in living-room walls play programs which vacuous housewives interact with sometimes. The film is so relentlessly confident in its appearance that it withstands the test of time.

Though if "Fahrenheit 451" only had its storybook style to rely on, it would fade and be filed away as a mere technical achievement. Truffaut, working from strong source material, concocts a riveting parable about ignorance and the things we, as humans, take for granted. The story follows Guy Montag, an Everyman who is employed as a fireman--a connotation which entails ransacking residences in search of books (reading and writing have been outlawed in this world) and burning them. He has a medicated-smile wife (Julie Christie), a quiet home life, and is in line for a promotion, until a neighbor (Christie again) inspires him to question his motives for working such a sordid job.

One character argues that books cause depression, making people confront unpleasant feelings. "Fahrenheit 451" sometimes runs the risk of lending truth to that statement--in some ways, it is a bleak commentary on civilization, but at the same time grounded in a benevolent humanity that offsets Orwell's brutal, pessimistic world of "1984" (though both texts and films share similar themes). This humanity is underlined in an upbeat, even comic ending (the details of which I won't divulge here).

"Fahrenheit 451" is a spellbinding work of art, in good company with other incendiary works ("A Clockwork Orange" and "Fight Club" come to mind) that have defied the constraints of time and age.

Ray Bradbury's famous novel about a future society in which books are outlawed gets the movie treatment. And the movie doesn't quite live up to the standards of the book. The basic skeleton of the novel's plot is here but director François Truffaut takes Bradbury's story and makes it his own. And at times the movie suffers for it. Much of the nuance and detail of the novel has been lost. Many important plot points have been changed entirely. But a movie adaptation of a novel doesn't have to be exactly like its original source material in order to succeed. Many novel-based films have changed all sorts of things about the book and been very successful. The problem here is not necessarily that there are changes but that the changes are made to no good effect. The movie's story is not as engrossing as the book's. And certainly not as entertaining. What was a thoroughly captivating book has been transformed into a very dry, often downright dull movie.

Right from the beginning, with the first call we see the book-burning firemen go out on, the movie is curiously sedate. The thrill of the novel is gone. The drama just isn't there. The story doesn't grab you. Oskar Werner's performance as the central character of Montag is rather stilted. Either Werner was very uncomfortable in his role or he was going for some kind of effect which just didn't work. The result is the character of Montag leaves much to be desired. And for a movie which is all about that character that's a problem. Montag suffers from a serious personality deficit and so does the movie. There's very little life to it. What little life there is is injected by Julie Christie's character of Clarisse. In a future world where people basically float through life as mindless zombies Clarisse dares to live and it is she who critically, and fatefully, opens Montag's eyes to the possibilities of the written word. Speaking of mindless zombies the other main character is Montag's wife Linda. She lives in a drug-induced stupor, living only vicariously through her wall-screen TV. Christie plays this part too, a neat idea. The contrast between the two women is obvious and that contrast is largely what the story is about, Montag finally seeing another option out there. He sees the chance to actually live a life. He sees what society has become, what has been lost with literature's demise. It was a great story in its original Bradbury incarnation. But greatness eludes this movie version. The book was like lively Clarisse. The movie is more like zombie Linda. The life has been sucked out of it. The basic gist of Bradbury's story remains but with all the changes made the story as presented here is not as compelling and clearly not as entertaining. The book was a real page-turner, the movie is a slowly-paced slog to the finish. In this book-burning tale the best advice is both obvious and ironic. Read the book.

My first viewing of "Fahrenheit 451" since its initial relase ca. 1966 was last night, via DVD. I highly recommend this DVD version--it includes excellent bonus material, including a moving account of composer Bernard Herrman's role in making the film.

I rated the film a "9" despite not being a big Truffaut fan; there's something about the "feel" of his movies that makes me fidgety and leaves me dissatisfied. But that same feel seems just right in this atypical piece of his--he felt he had failed to make the movie right, and he had difficulties with it that are explained in the bonus material. I think what resulted was an unsuspected and unintended success, instead.

Now more than ever in recent history, we face problems with individual liberties that are uncannily reflected in this film. Watch it as a cautionary tale, as a visually stunning experience, and as an example of some of the best film music ever composed: but watch it. I think you'll be glad you did.

Fahrenheit 451 (1966)

Directed by a legendary director (Francois Truffaut) and featuring one of the scorching female stars of the time (Julie Christie) and based on a imaginative book by a great American fantabulist (Ray Bradbury) there really has to be something amazing here. And there is, at times, between the cracks.

But in fact, Truffaut and his wry, human touch might just be wrong for a futurist film dripping with old school nostalgia (both). Christie is a good, plastic presence, actually, so that's a good choice. And Bradbury may have liked the adaptation but I've read the book and it has some kind of flow and subtlety that the movie misses.

There are interesting stylistic comparisons with The Prisoner television series (a semi-nostalgic, futurist cult favorite of its own), which came the next year. Both the movie the t.v. show make great use of small budgets, which is partly where the slightly creaky, slightly endearing, slightly cheesy qualities come in. So what you really end up with, overall, is the story, or even better, the germ of the story--that books are so dangerous to the big brother authorities, they are outlawed.

It's a brilliant premise, and the movie is fun, for sure, and interesting. I remember being moved by it (really disturbed) as a teenager, and maybe that's where it resides best. I've tried reading Bradbury as an adult and have some trouble with the emphasis on idea over elegance or depth of character. In fact, as you can see in this movie, there is no depth of character at all. Or, to go an obvious step further, everyone's character is subsumed by something greater, either by choice or by force.

This might be the bigger point, implicit throughout, that we are always something lesser than the requirements of life and death around us.

Montag, with the help of the beautiful neighbor, had just started reading novels and the poll at the fire department he worked for refused to take him up. Because the poll accepts only those who obey with the law: Burn any book you find. Books are enemies, books are bad, books may cause suffering, distraction, chaos, disorder, rebel...Books make people anti-social. They'd better watch TV (numbing and dumbing interactive shows mostly). So, some time in the future, the government bans any kind of reading, and firemen are from that moment in charge of putting fire on the books, not putting fire out.

So what are the consequences? People lose identity: they are similar to each other with nothing to distinguish oneself from the other, they live in their unreal and artificially happy(!) little worlds, alienated and detached from one another, they lack love and passion, they lack emotion...they rub their cheeks against the fur of their coats continuously, feeding their need for love probably...they have very short memories, they take sedatives daily to keep their emotions under control... This is the reason for all this. They think humanly emotions are the main sources for humanly suffering and unhappiness. So, to avoid this, they ban books which have proved to wake emotions, to convey the most intriguing, challenging feelings to people. TV is harmless, of course without much complexities. After all, TV can change people, too, so they keep it simple, allowing for people to become as robotic and as cold and as dumb as possible. So that their memory together with their intelligence (especially emotional intelligence) is disabled. Memories make people unhappy, too. The wife does not even remember when she first met Montag...

And on the other hand, there are the ''book-people''. Each is a book him/herself, having memorized his/her whole book verse by verse, trying to survive illegally in the woods. They are so few, and so sad...

Truffaut's cinematography is immensely good. Especially in the first half of the movie there are great shots. Reverse movements, cleverly used close-ups, jumps, great editing...The decoration is kept as simple and cold as possible, with straight lines dominating, pale colors and all are well in line with the theme. And of course the credits with words and no writing -that was perfect! Also, as the credits were being told, the focuses on the TV antennas on the roofs of the houses were very cleverly done.

A 10/10 for me. I watched each moment of the film, amazed.

In a future totalitarian and oppressive society, where books are forbidden, Guy Montag (Oskar Werner) is a fireman. The mission of firemen in this society with fireproof houses is to burn books at 451o F, the temperature of combustion of paper. Montag is married with Linda (Julie Christie), a futile woman that joins "The Family" through the interactive television. When Montag meets Clarisse (Julie Christie, in a double role), she questions him if he has never read a book, and Montag become curious. He decides to steal and read a book, twisting his view of life.

François Truffault is one of my favorite directors, and his unique English-spoken film "Fahrenheit 451" is a masterpiece and one of my favorite movies ever. The first time I saw this movie, I was a teenager and I was very impressed with such clever story about this fascinating oppressive society. The visionary Ray Bradbury frightens the viewers with this dramatic sci-fi, not far from the reality in many parts of the world almost forty years later. The awesome Julie Christie, as usual, and Oskar Werner from "Jules et Jim", have magnificent performances. The optimistic conclusion closes this adaptation with golden-key. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): It is a shame, but this movie has not been released on video or DVD in Brazil. Many years ago, a cable and a broadcast television presented "Fahrenheit 451", but this masterpiece was forgotten by the Brazilian distributors. The unique alternative for Brazilian movie lovers that speak English is to buy the American DVD.