Fahrenheit 451
  • Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: May 19, 2018
User Score
3.9

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 74 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 74
  2. Mixed: 22 out of 74
  3. Negative: 36 out of 74

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. eva3si0n
    Jul 11, 2018
    1
    The modern screen version by classics of anti-utopia causes in me only disappointment and despondency. This movie one big spittle in a face to all readers of the original.
    Why Monteg became black? Where his wife?
    What the hell the novel culmination in general another in difference from the original. Where nuclear explosion? The only light spot of this "work" - an excellent game of the    The modern screen version by classics of anti-utopia causes in me only disappointment and despondency. This movie one big spittle in a face to all readers of the original.
    Why Monteg became black? Where his wife?
    What the hell the novel culmination in general another in difference from the original. Where nuclear explosion?
    The only light spot of this "work" - an excellent game of the actor of Michael Shannon. For him it is possible and to give 1 point estimates.
    The worst screen version of the literary work that I saw.    … Expand
  2. AndrewBurge
    Feb 7, 2019
    6
    While watching Ramin Bahrani's "Fahrenheit 451", I could not help but cringe at some of its ridiculous ideas. Like Captain Beatty (Michael Shannon) the leader of the Cleveland Firemen, an organization responsible for burning books, hiding away and slowly taking out a pen and paper. Oh, the humanity! You would think masturbation is still a crime in that wanna-be utopic society. But theWhile watching Ramin Bahrani's "Fahrenheit 451", I could not help but cringe at some of its ridiculous ideas. Like Captain Beatty (Michael Shannon) the leader of the Cleveland Firemen, an organization responsible for burning books, hiding away and slowly taking out a pen and paper. Oh, the humanity! You would think masturbation is still a crime in that wanna-be utopic society. But the silliest one was an edited picture of Benjamin Franklin in a fireman hat burning books with a flamethrower.

    I found that pathetic. But "books are here to remind us what fools we can be". I realized that this society was so foolish that for them, something as ridiculous as that seemed true. It was a clever way for the film to tell us that we are a bunch of spoiled, privileged fools. Flat Earth Society and a measles outbreak in 2018? What the hell is going on? Who are we to call something ridiculous when the age we live in is ridiculous enough? But if this started to look like a subtle satire, it pretty much stopped there.

    Bahrani wanted to extract more from the book, but his focus is in the wrong place. Shannon and Jordan are too basic to deserve so much introspection and there are many quotes which of course are intelligent, they are from books, you uncultured swine! But their number are way too many, none of them standing out and dwindling their meaning. But this film is so pretentious that it thinks its intelligent just by randomly spewing them out. Its like the people who post quotes on Facebook. The problem is not that we do not respect the writers or that we do not think they were intelligent people (on the contrary), its just that throwing them out from a self-proclaimed pedestal of knowledge makes you look like an annoying wanna-be wisecrack.

    Then, of course, there is a slip there, something about DNA storage and some bird spreading knowledge by flying around and mating--this feels like hasted production but I am sure there is more to that Omnis thing that we have been shown.    … Expand
  3. Bertaut1
    Apr 23, 2019
    5
    An extraordinarily lazy adaptation

    I don't do remakes. They're a cancer of the industry. Where I am more flexible, however, is in adaptations of novels that have already been adapted. After all, my all-time favourite film falls into this category (Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line (1998) was the second adaptation of James Jones's novel). Fahrenheit 451 is also a second adaptation; in    An extraordinarily lazy adaptation

    I don't do remakes. They're a cancer of the industry. Where I am more flexible, however, is in adaptations of novels that have already been adapted. After all, my all-time favourite film falls into this category (Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line (1998) was the second adaptation of James Jones's novel). Fahrenheit 451 is also a second adaptation; in this case, of Ray Bradbury's 1953 novel, and, for all intents and purposes, it's a misfire. Bradbury himself has said the novel is not about censorship, as is often assumed, but was written in response to the Second Red Scare and the rise of McCarthyism. More specifically, it's a treatise on the dangers of an illiterate society unquestionably accepting the word of a monopolising centralised mass media.

    Adapted for the screen and directed by Ramin Bahrani, the film is set at an unspecified point in the future, after a second civil war has been fought. All aspects of society are rigidly controlled by the Ministry, an authoritarian government that believes unhappiness, mental illness, and difference of opinion come from unregulated reading. As such, all books have been banned, although simplified and edited Ministry-approved editions of texts such as the Bible, Herman Melville's Moby Dick, or, the Whale (1851) and Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse (1927) are available on the internet (known as "the 9"). Special units of "firemen" are tasked with locating and burning any remaining books, and estimates suggest that within 20-30 years, books will have become completely extinct. The film follows two such firemen; Cpt. John Beatty (Michael Shannon), the veteran and somewhat disillusioned mentor of Guy Montag (Michael B. Jordan), an idealistic rookie who believes unquestioningly in the firemen's work. That is until he meets Clarisse McClellan (Sofia Boutella), who educates him as to the real history of the US, the rise of the Ministry, and why they want literature destroyed.

    Now, you'd think that in this age of Trump's fake news and people using Facebook as a news source, something with this subject matter would speak volumes to a contemporary audience. And you'd be right. Unfortunately, this film isn't about sheeple and mass media. Apparently unaware of Bradbury's statements, the filmmakers have focused almost exclusively on censorship. But it falls down in other areas as well. Mildred Montag is absent, hence the theme of addiction to television broadcasting which tells people how and what to think. Additionally, the infrequent and scattered allusions to the importance of literary texts serve to undermine the absolutely essential nature of what a group of rebels are doing by memorising whole texts. This should be the film's absolute central statement, but instead, it comes across as a bunch of weirdos being quirky. Jordan plays Montag as a bombastic loudmouth TV personality. Shannon is, well, Shannon. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy. He's an actor of immense talent. But here, he's playing an identical character to the one he played in The Shape of Water (2017). It's an extraordinarily lazy performance. In fact, everything about the film is lazy. Bahrani's direction is flat and uninspired; the whole thing looks like Blade Runner-lite. It's all very conventional and safe, which neither the novel nor François Truffaut's 1966 adaptation was. And this conventionality and safety grind against the inherently rebellious subject matter, rendering it less urgent, and hence, less potent.    … Expand
  4. bfoore90
    May 27, 2018
    4
    Interesting premise, would probably have worked better as an HBO miniseries than a actual film. I never read the actual novel but I was excited for this film nonetheless just because of the cast and the stuff I had read about the book. The cast is great, though Michael B Jordan's character is given little character development, poor motivations and Sofia Boutella could have been utilizedInteresting premise, would probably have worked better as an HBO miniseries than a actual film. I never read the actual novel but I was excited for this film nonetheless just because of the cast and the stuff I had read about the book. The cast is great, though Michael B Jordan's character is given little character development, poor motivations and Sofia Boutella could have been utilized alot better than the way she was used. All in all, It's a mediocre film that could have been and should have been alot better than it turned out to be.… Expand
  5. Aproxx
    Aug 4, 2018
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This was a really poor Black Mirror episode. Like, of the really worst. The freedom of thought is a good premise, I guess, but its been done before too many times. Without a budget (clearly), at least you can write something new to the tale. You can make the characters more nuanced, or smart. And that's the problem with this movie, I just don't really know what I saw. Was the protagonist a repressed book lover doing what it was easiest or just doing what his father did or the opposite of what his father did out of fear? It's not clear. Was the villain Michael Shannon a secretly book lover, a selfish dude that play the part of books hater because it was easy but secretly loved to read and create? It's not clear. Nothing was clear in this crap… Expand
  6. JLuis_001
    May 23, 2018
    4
    I've been a reader most of my life but obviously when I was a kid I started with books according to my age. However when I started with more mature books I formed a trilogy with three novels that frankly had nothing to do with each other except that two of them were dystopic.
    Those books were the first adult novels I read and that's why I've always had a special appreciation for them. The    I've been a reader most of my life but obviously when I was a kid I started with books according to my age. However when I started with more mature books I formed a trilogy with three novels that frankly had nothing to do with each other except that two of them were dystopic.
    Those books were the first adult novels I read and that's why I've always had a special appreciation for them. The novels to which I refer are: 1984, Slaughterhouse-Five and Fahrenheit 451.

    I'm not one of those crazy literature fans who get upset if the source material is altered when it becomes a film because I understand perfectly they are completely different mediums. Even so I must emphasize this film is a failure and I will not say it just because it wastes its cast, especially Michael Shannon, I say this because the film was unable to adopt even a little of the subtlety of the novel and far from being able to call it a successful adaptation it's rather the idealization of something that never materializes and therefore it's inevitable to judge it based on the book because the story was too good to be wasted this way.

    A sad misfire coming from HBO.    … Expand
  7. GrantD243
    Jun 12, 2018
    5
    In Fahrenheit 451, Michael B. Jordan plays a fireman in a future in which all books are banned and are often burned to ash by firemen. He eventually starts questioning what he's doing, and that's what this film is ultimately about. He wants to read books; he's curious. The problem with his character is that in the beginning he is portrayed as being all about the cause (burning all booksIn Fahrenheit 451, Michael B. Jordan plays a fireman in a future in which all books are banned and are often burned to ash by firemen. He eventually starts questioning what he's doing, and that's what this film is ultimately about. He wants to read books; he's curious. The problem with his character is that in the beginning he is portrayed as being all about the cause (burning all books left in existence), but then he switches sides rather quickly without too much of an internal struggle. His level of commitment is always a bit murky, and I wasn't sure exactly what to think about his character. Michael Shannon's character is what I'd equate to a dumpster fire. He's curious about books, he reads books, he writes, but he is completely committed to burning books. It appears that he's meant to be a complex villain, but his character fails to achieve what he's meant to be. In fact, none of the characters are given enough time to develop. The film is entirely too short and by the end I didn't care about any of the characters. It also doesn't help that it never feels like the story has left the first act. It's as if it should take off at some point, but the boosters failed on take off...so we're left with a story where it doesn't seem like a whole lot happens.

    The script is also very inconsistent, and Michael B. Jordan is given some awful dialogue at times.

    However, I will say that this film does have a high quality look to it. It looks good. The cinematography is solid. It's just a shame that the story and characters don't measure up.

    Overall: Fahrenheit 451 isn't the worst film you'll watch this year, but given the actors involved and the material it's based on (which is highly regarded), it's simply a disappointment.    … Expand
  8. EdenR
    Jun 3, 2018
    7
    The most trenchant criticism of HBO's reimagining of Fahrenheit 451 is that it might make you read the book.

    Probably these reviewers have not sat through Truffaut's 66 version which resembles an episode of "The Prisoner" rather then what we see everyday in 2018. Director Ramin Bahrani has obviously been given access to some of that Game of Thrones money because the film looks    The most trenchant criticism of HBO's reimagining of Fahrenheit 451 is that it might make you read the book.

    Probably these reviewers have not sat through Truffaut's 66 version which resembles an episode of "The Prisoner" rather then what we see everyday in 2018.

    Director Ramin Bahrani has obviously been given access to some of that Game of Thrones money because the film looks gorgeous in the way all BladeRunner 2049 films do - all flatscreen and neon. Except that flatscreens did not exist when Bradbury invented them in the original book.

    The screenplay takes huge amounts of leave to retell the story which makes this a less challenging work but much easier to consume. The acting is great - all three leads are knockouts. Jordan brings his Hollywood charisma, Boutella all eyes and intrigue but as usual it is Michael Shannon who just blows everyone off the screen. On top of "Shape of Water", there is no actor who best portrays toxic conflict then Shannon. I found his descent into heretical thinking while maintaining orthodoxy absolutely compelling.

    The conventional aspects of the film do take it away from the wider messages in the book as the film tries to shunt it into a structure of a modern thriller but if that allows the book to have a new audience it is worth it. It is a noble experiment even if tinged with mediocrity but its discussion of what is meaningful, what is true and the struggle against an idiocracy rings truer in 2018 then in 1953.    … Expand
  9. Queen7
    May 20, 2018
    7
    Interesting at times, boring most of the film. Great actors, amazing performances and some good action. It could have been way better but they decided to make it medium.
  10. MasterRiley
    May 23, 2018
    6
    Fahrenheit 451 has good casting and performances from the main leads, some good action and tense moments, but otherwise lacks an engaging and memorable story.
  11. TheQuietGamer
    Jul 3, 2021
    7
    Tried to capitalize on the last wave of the YA dystopian craze by updating a piece of classic literature for the Hunger Games crowd. Yes, some of the depth and nuance was lost in the process, but this isn't an entirely brainless adaptation. That's because the source material's themes are still relevant to this day and even in this altered form paints a picture of a future that feels likeTried to capitalize on the last wave of the YA dystopian craze by updating a piece of classic literature for the Hunger Games crowd. Yes, some of the depth and nuance was lost in the process, but this isn't an entirely brainless adaptation. That's because the source material's themes are still relevant to this day and even in this altered form paints a picture of a future that feels like all too real a possibility.

    Following a second civil war the government decides that the best way to keep America from tearing itself apart with infighting (while giving themselves greater control over the populace) is to destroy any means of artistic expression that could create differing viewpoints and therefore conflict. Primarily books in this case. In a time where cancel culture is running rampant and nobody can handle someone else having a different opinion than them, it's not hard to see how this level of censorship could come about. What's really scary though is that it almost seems like a preferable alternative to the point where you can somewhat understand why the society portrayed here would be so willing to accept it. I mean, wouldn't you like to live in a world where you didn't have to worry about another racially, politically, or religiously charged riot or other act of violence (or Twitter feud) taking place?

    Of course, books and other types of media aren't the problem here. It's people's inability to accept or at the very least ignore the beliefs and lifestyles of others they don't agree with. This is something the movie never really addresses. It certainly shows how we should celebrate and protect our texts through the heroes' efforts to preserve them, but it doesn't cover why they aren't at fault for how the country ended up in that state. Essentially failing to dive into the real meat of the matter.

    In an effort to spice up this now decades old story, Ramin Bahrani and Amir Naderi did things like cast attractive young actors in the lead roles, made Montag and Clarisse lovers, and took the setting further into the future to incorporate modern technology such as the internet. All of which do a good job of making an entertaining experience out of a novel that's not very exciting in the traditional sense, even if there are still a few dull stretches. That doesn't quite make up for how hollow the script can be though. For example Guy's desire to go from burning books to reading them comes completely out of nowhere and the romance aspect is based more on a physical attraction between the two characters as opposed to an emotional connection because one is never developed. The groundwork was clearly in place for both of these to have played out in a more satisfying manner. I don't know if constraints with the budget or running-time got in the way, but whatever the case some things aren't as fulfilling as they otherwise could have been.

    Coming off like a made-for-TV version of Divergent the whole thing may feel kind of pandering, and that's because it totally is. Yet, it's pandering in an attempt to reach an audience that typically wouldn't give the work of Ray Bradbury a second look. So despite all its flaws if this new take has a better chance of passing on his still important message to a wider group of people then even in this watered-down state I'm here for it.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

83
#83 Most Discussed TV Season of 2018
39
#39 Most Shared TV Season of 2018

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
47

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 19
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 19
  3. Negative: 4 out of 19
  1. Slate
    Reviewed by: Keith Phipps
    May 22, 2018
    50
    The world of Fahrenheit 451 is often more interesting than the film itself, which, after a brisk start, gets bogged down by sluggish pacing and a confusing new addition involving DNA storage.
    Read full review
  2. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Darren Franich
    May 18, 2018
    25
    The dialogue sounds tin, near-parodic. ... Fahrenheit 451 has it heart in the right place, but its head sure crawled up somewhere.
    Read full review
  3. Uncle Barky
    Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    May 18, 2018
    42
    A disappointing film that can’t seem to rise above room temperature.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »