Rating: 
Summary: When you start burning books...
Review: Oskar Werner plays Montag, a fireman in in the future who, like other firemen, is in charge of finding books and burning them. Julie Christie stars as his bored wife AND also plays the school teacher who he falls in love with. The school teacher, Clarisse, who also collects books!
What happens when Montag himself becomes interested in the very books he is burning?
I like this film. It's crisp, with sharp colors, and a great cast of actors, like Cyril Cusack who is also in the film version of '1984'. He is a GREAT bad guy.
I also like the scenes in which, yes, you guessed it, they burn books. A rich, if twisted tale.
Rating:
Summary: Good adaptation of the classic dystopian book
Review: I do not understand people who knock this film. It is enjoyable for both those who have read the book and those who haven't.One of the good signs of a movie adaptation is if it follows the "spirit" of the film. Screenwriting should be simply ripping the pages out of the book, and stuffing them in the camera. It does not have to be exact, or have all the same events. It should capture the spirit and ideas of the book. I think this movie does it with flying colours. Although the acting is stiff, that is what Truffaut wanted. To make it seem removed and lifeless, like what the world would be without books. It becomes kind of unnerving, and disturbing. Which is the idea. Although there are parts of the book missing, this movie catches the spirit of the film. Although there are a couple of problems with the film i.e. "How can Montag be able to read when there are no printed words", but that problem is in the book too... For those who care, this movie contains footage of the SAFEGE monorail test track, which no longer exists. It was a revolutionary style of monorail, the most important feature being the escape ladder, which is used prominently in the movie. I think this is a wonderful adaptation of a wonderful book. F451 is probably my favorite book. It is thought provoking and makes you want to read the book, which is another sign of a good movie. Finally, Ray Bradbury himself liked this adaptation of this book, which should at least merit a watch of this movie. This is worthy of 5 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Truffaut's darkest hour
Review: The Truffaut Taste Police can say what they like, but this film is an abomination. It's not only a poor adaptation of a great book, it's an insipidly mediocre film in its own right. I count "The 400 Blows" and "Jules & Jim" among my All Time Top Ten. But I still feel embarrassed for Truffaut every time I see this one. It tanks.
Rating: 
Summary: Its no 400 blows, but intriguing nonetheless
Review: Anyone who would bother complaining about the inferiority of the movie compared to the book ought to locked in a room playing Armageddon continuously for the rest of their lives. Movies (good ones, at least) are a product of talented directors and use novels only for inspiration. If you want to see a literal adaptation of the book on screen, you might be better off developing a sense of imagination and picturing it in your mind. I'm sure Frank Darabont will be more than willing to turn this into a overly sentimental melodramatic waste of screen time like The Green Mile or The Majestic (I'll give him credit for The Shawshank Redemption, a genuine masterpiece, its not exactly a literal adaption of the source material). Questioning Truffaut is more or less the same as admitting to having no taste in movies. For those people I recommend the upcoming Matrix sequels, I'm sure they'll just be tired retreads of the original.
Rating: 
Summary: Looking forward to Darabont's remake
Review: This free-wheeling adaptation of Ray Bradbury's classic novel is intriguing, but doesn't quite work. By conflating the Clarisse and Faber characters, it halves the exposition but it also halves the story's power. For me, Faber is the novel's central character, and without his insightful defense of literature and freedom we only get one side of the argument. No one explains why books are important, why they matter. So given that Montag only becomes violent after he starts reading, Truffaut's version comes dangerously close to supporting Captain Beatty's argument that an ignorant society is a safe one. It becomes less a story about censorship and 'the forgetting of history' as a means of social control, and more about the repressed emotions that reading might unlock. While this does pick up on one of Bradbury's minor recurring themes (the importance of 'the natural') it isn't "Fahrenheit 451". Moreover, the relentlessly miserable look of this film misses Bradbury's point. His dystopian future isn't grim: it's a hyper-real America of neat green lawns and porch-less houses, a facade of state-sanctioned happiness masking the horror within. Truffaut's just looks like East Germany. Of course, adaptations don't have to be literal. The best ones are never a simple translation from page to screen, but a transposition from one register to another, making the film the occasion for a new imaginative experience without losing the qualities for which the novel is so loved. But Truffaut's fails on that count. At the very least, an adaptation should be faithful to the spirit of its source, but Truffaut's fails there, too. He doesn't do the novel justice, nor give us anything better. It's even more disappointing because it lacks the style and skill which distinguish so many of Truffaut's other films (and I love many of them). So I'm left wondering why he bothered. If you don't respect the source material as anything more than a vague inspiration, why adapt it? Why not just write your own story about book burning and call it something else? Adapting this novel isn't actually too difficult. I wrote an award-winning adaptation of it as a college screenwriting assignment and found that if you stick with the book's characters and structure, it pretty much falls into place. Bradbury himself has said: "My books are movies already. Just take out the pages and stuff them in the camera." While that isn't quite true (there are huge slabs of melodramatic dialogue to be culled, and plenty of anachronisms to weed out), there is a lot to be said for faithful adaptations of his work, especially this one. There are few writers in sci-fi, or in any genre, who combine Bradbury's native talent for visual storytelling with such an intelligent and abiding interest in big themes. "Fahrenheit 451" is crying out for a remake. The case it puts is resurgently relevant, and our digital technology makes screening its disturbing and beautiful images entirely possible, even easy. Frank Darabont is slated to write and direct a new version for Castle Rock sometime soon. Darabont has a good eye and a strong sense of story. If he can just resist his irritating tendency to "go Capra" and turn this into some kind of sappy, futuristic Norman Rockwell painting, I'm confident he'll pull it off. With its memorable characters, compelling plot and powerful themes, it has Oscar® written all over it. I can see it now... Keanu Reeves or Colin Farrell as Montag (both of whom can portray strength and the requisite sensitivity), Anthony Hopkins as Faber, Robert De Niro as Captain Beatty (although I guarantee Darabont will cast James Whitmore and Jeffrey DeMunn respectively), music by John Williams (with a nod to Carl Orff), and cinematography by Dante Spinotti or Darius Khondji.... in the right hands, it's a cross-category winner just waiting to be born.
Rating:
Summary: do yourself a favor and read the book!
Review: this movie was horrible. it did the book no justice at all. it's supposed to depict the future and yet it was made in the sixties which is obvious and makes it feel like something from the past. some parts are right on but too many are different from the book. read the book because there are some parts and feelings/ideas that you will miss out on by just watching this terrible movie. if you have read the book, don't make the same mistake as me and watch this movie! it will ruin the book for you!
Rating:
Summary: a subtly great classic
Review: It is a great film. I haven't read the book, but I let the movie stand on it's own merits. I think where most of the, would I guess, young critics, miss the point, is in the very subtle way it depicts human nature. No car chases here, or gee whiz effects. Just solid storytelling. Having spent a bit of time on the other side of the now vanquished iron curtain, I can see a lot similarities. Unfortunately, I also see a lot of similarities with our own society, where there seems to be an ever-widening disconnect with each other as well as a dumming-down (just like in 451) because of the very technology that we thought would liberate us and bring us together, which maybe it has, but just like our "cousins" on the big screen, in only the most superficial manner. It would be a travesty if they re-made this film, even with the updated visual effects. The problem with so much modern film is that they miss the very essence and nuance of the human condition. I have yet to see a re-make of a classic that I liked. Fahrenheit 451 is a genuine classic.
Rating:
Summary: Worth a look
Review: As with other reviewers here, I had not read the book before seeing this film, but I would recommend it on its own merits. For those with multi-region players, this is available as an extras-laden Region 2 DVD from Amazon.fr (albeit with French subtitles that unfortunately cannot be removed) for a damn sight less than what the out-of-print Region 1 DVD is going for.
Rating: 
Summary: Miserably Outdated
Review: So...to say I was a little let down after seeing this 1966 film version would be the understatement of the year. For starters, there was no robot dog in the movie...at all - bummer. Secondly, Clarisse is a school teacher who he's supposedly having an affair with in the movie as opposed to the innocent, 16 year-old non-conformist neighbor in the book. Thirdly, he never meets the professor until after he's already escaped. Oh yeah..and the firemen on rocket-propelled boosters looked like clowns in a freaking circus sent to provide comic relief! With the 60's fashion and women's hair styles in the movie I felt ill. And I'd be remissed if I failed to mention the ostensibly futuristic fire engine that looked like a cross between the batmobile(the old one) and a station wagon from hell that they painted red and decided to call a fire truck. The book is an amazing 5 stars and one of my all-time favs, but as for the movie - it's a real laugher - but for all of the wrong reasons. I'd love to see Spielberg make it with today's technology - it would finally do the book justice.
Rating:
Summary: It's good, but it ain't the Original
Review: Something is lost in this translation; one is advise to find the out-of-print 1974 London Phase 4 recording, THE MYSTERIOUS FILM WORLD OF B.H. as conducted by Maetsro, himself. It includes F451 in all it icy beauty as it was heard in the underrated film of 1966. It also includes 7TH VOYAGE and DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, and the fidelity is SUPERB. But as rerecordings go, yes, this is a good one.
|
