The Movie Fahrenheit 451 directed by François Truffaut and published in 1966  is based off of the book, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. The film takes place in what is called a dystopian town. The year the events were set for was the twenty first century. In the book there are these fireman, but instead of putting out fires, they start them.
          

When reading the book, Personally I think that Bradbury was trying to tell us that society's getting too comfortable with relying on electronics and other people when it comes to them having to learn something new, and that their afraid of change. The story was basically about a man name Guy Montag who is a fireman, but the kind that starts them instead of putting them out. The burning of fire has two purposes, to destroy or to create. But living in the dystopian world he does,  Guy is confused about which purpose the fire he creates has. Books in this story are illegal. When found they are burned, they are erased from society so that the people can never know the knowledge each book holds.
          

It's a dangerous thing to break the rules in that town but there's always some wise guy who has the desire to break the law. In this story Guy is that guy. The book and movie both portray the same lessons, but for my opinion, I'd say they were two different stories with just the same title.

A couple reasons that I say that is because many of the main parts in the story were either cut or decreased into becoming a less important part than it was in the book. For some examples, some of the characters did not have the same names, One of the main characters were not in the movie, and the type of tools mentioned in the book were not used in the movie. I felt like the movie was just going from part to part too quickly, not trying to give the story a smooth layout. I understand that they could not spend a fortune to make one film, and that they could not a make a movie four hours long. It was not just because of how the movie was limited on certain supplies, but also things like the way certain parts were acted.      
        

Another thing I'm going to look at about the movie is the time period it was made. The film was developed in the 1960s meaning that they did not have the same technology that there is now in the movie production. A Lot of the lighting in the movie was mostly dim. The technology props they have in the movie aren't really good. And a lot of the sound effects weren't really appealing. I mean the movie being played in that time period was probably a great movement towards the movies getting better, but being played in this time period, I do not think would catch the eyes of many people.