It's always fun to see how people in the past thought the future would look.

It's an interesting film, but maybe more so in the beginning. Towards the end it got a bit boring. There were too many (unintentionally?) silly scenes. I'm sure the book has a lot to say but some of it got lost in the adaptation into a film.

The original book is great; the movie most definitely isn't.

Still the best adaptation of a Bradbury book to hit the screen (big or small). This is Truffaut's first English-language film, and he treats the subject of language and literature with a dignity not found in most American films.

I refuse to believe that Truffaut actually directed this bland, unfaithful clusterfuck of a failure of a film. Cross your fingers and hope for a remake!

A competent but not masterful film, excluding the score by Herrmann, which is wonderful. The future could have been far more bold, and far more dystopian than it was; the horror the film did capture was largely based on the beauty of the novels being burned, not on the movie itself. Also, although it's a minor issue, I just want to state that Truffaut putting an issue of Cahiers du Cinema in a pile of classics can only be categorized as masturbatory.

Mostly faithful to the book but not quite dystopian enough to really shake your soul like Bradbury's masterpiece

Lacks the personal feel that most Truffaut films have. It drags a bit too long and Montag's motivation and character change came on much too quickly. Suffers cause it isn't faithful to the book but it's still a decent movie, just not great. Some of the special effects were done really well for the time. Would like to see this get remade.

The movie was terrible, which is a shame because the book is so good