Fahrenheit 451

Sometimes less is more. Truffaut knew this well, which is why the austere architecture and simple visual effects are not a bad thing; on the contrary, they perfectly illustrate the gloomy atmosphere of a uniformed Orwellian society. The unique atmosphere, Truffaut's inventive direction, and Bradbury's book, when things like this combine, the result will be nothing short of a compelling piece of cinema. (05/11/2003)

This was the fourth movie by François Truffaut that I watched and I was hoping it might surprise me a lot. The premise literally suggested it. But while watching, I quite quickly realized that it s more or less all about the premise. After all, the reviewer Enšpígl is right. The movie is quite emotionless. You can’t form a relationship with the characters. And that’s pretty bad, because in a world full of fascists I would need someone to hang onto and hope for the better. I didn’t see anything like that in the 112 minutes of this movie. I just glimpsed into a world that was making me sick. It was just as impersonal as the movie 1984, which introduced a similar premise. (09/21/2014)

What happens when we start to hate books and ban them? Well, most likely we will realize that without culture, without art, we cannot exist, that art is what shapes us, what makes us think and what is capable of making us live. Not just us, but the whole society. A great message conveyed in a meaningful way. Bradbury didn't have to be ashamed of this delivery. (02/20/2015)

The problem is that everything that is good, even excellent, in this movie is taken from the book. I'm having a hard time getting past the 60's American naivety and the expressively earnest acting. Even harder when I know that in two years Kubrick will make 2001 and Leone will make Once Upon a Time in the West. The joke with Ray Bradbury and Pride and Prejudice was a delight. On one thing, however, the film is absolutely right: "Aristotle's Ethics! Anyone who reads it starts to think he's better than someone who hasn't read it" -) (04/14/2010)

I don't know about the book, but this didn't impress me at all. I certainly don't blame Truffaut, who, in addition to directing, also wrote the screenplay, because the weak point of the film, and probably of the book, lies in the story itself, which maps a totalitarian society in a very marginal and indecisive way, failing to convey the atmosphere of the time, and in this respect its age does not add much. By far the most dramatic scene in those 105 minutes is the final book-burning, which contains most of the evil and mystery that was otherwise only faintly and coldly hinted throughout the film. So I leave my first encounter with Truffaut at a great loss – I'll see after a second viewing, which these types of films usually need. 65% (03/16/2013)