Georgi Boorman devotes a Federalist column to explaining why she likes the new “Fahrenheit 451” movie, perhaps even more than the book.

In judging the film, one must start with the admission that Bradbury’s book stands apart from other novels because of its message, not its clever plot or deeply interesting character development. Even back in 1953, he saw how television would revolutionize the world — a revolution of shallow entertainment to fill our time, nationwide and at first an inch deep, but filling up until society happily, dreamily collapses under the weight. His prediction of immersive entertainment — entire rooms made of screens from wall to floor — was as close to a picture of virtual reality as one might expect from a mid-20th Century novelist.

But more importantly, of course, he realized the significance of what we were in danger of losing: Human knowledge, diversity of thought, and the power to act on those thoughts. The monologues peppered throughout the novel drive home the power of the written word to sway minds, gain followers, and start revolutions. …

… [A]s a novel, “Fahrenheit 451” was not very good. Its main weakness was in how flat and uninteresting the characters were. …

… Bahrani’s film is better than the book in the sense that it isn’t just an adaptation, it’s a reimagining of both the characters and the plot. He is not so much retelling “Fahrenheit 451” so much as borrowing heavily from Bradbury’s work to create his own story. Montag (Michael B. Jordan, of Creed and Black Panther fame) is not the dull dinner guest, he’s a zealot for the book burning cause, getting the firemen wound up with chants and songs about their task. “D-mn, it’s a pleasure to burn!” he declares as he shoulders his hefty flame thrower at the burn site. Little emojis float up along the sides of all the surrounding buildings as he speaks — all the department burns are broadcasted and he’s a celebrity on social media.