2081

This adaptation of Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron is completely lacking and almost without merit. It's main interest now lies in the fact that Armie Hammer plays the main character here. He is horribly miscast. While Vonnegut's source material is a 7 page short story - there is room for interpretation here - and this film misses it - If you want to see a truly brilliant and thought provoking extrapolation of the Vonnegut story - seek out a film make in 1995 starring Sean Astin called "Harrison Bergeron." While this adaptation takes flight with the source material - expanding it into a 100 minute movie - it is far more honest to the feeling of the Vonnegut tale.

Harrison Bergeron, the film, might be hard to find - do yourself a favor - and find it!

2081 is certainly a very ambitious short film, and it is a wonderful, beautiful, and moving adaptation of a book that I had heard of before but never got around to reading it. After this great film adaptation I have to. The acting is great, the cinematography is stunning, the music score uplifting, and it's central theme is powerful. James Cosmo is the central heart of the film, and in the short length you will find you will have a connection with him. It is certainly a strong debut from Chandler Tuttle, and I am sure as a feature length film it would not have worked. The tone of the film is also not as bleak as you would think. This film is stunning, a must watch for anyone.

As the film opens we find ourselves in Vonnegut's dystopian world in the year of 2081: a world in which everyone is "finally equal". Society has taken it upon itself to make everyone equal....in every possible way. No one is faster than anyone else, no one is stronger than anyone else, no one is more talented than anyone else, and of course, no one is smarter than anyone else. As it is not possible to make stupid people as intelligent as others, to achieve absolute equality they have resorted to dumbing everyone down; making them mindless zombies bred to perpetuate mediocrity. The US head of state is no longer the President, but rather the "Handicapper General", whose job it is to dictate the handicaps that citizens must dawn in order to put themselves on an equal level with those who are deemed to not require a handicap.

As such, we find ourselves observing a couple: the wife is the mindless religious type, who never ponders on anything that may make her uncomfortable; never questions anything, let alone challenge authority; and who does not require any handicap as she is considered the standard of normalcy. Her husband, on the other hand, is heavily handicapped, and, via various cinematic techniques in conjunction with technical handicapping mechanisms, we are shown how these handicaps manifest themselves for the affected individual. In the case of the man we are observing, they seem to interrupt his reflections on past memories that the Handicapper General feels could lead to acts of dissent.

We find out more of what these memories are about when a "Breaking News" story interrupts the program he is watching to announce that "suspected Anarchist" Harrison Bergeron has escaped from custody. Arrested several years ago, Bergeron was charged with "propagandous vandalism, broadcast piracy, refusal to report for his handicapping evaluations, and blatant removal of his handicaps in a public place." The newscaster continues by stating that he is," an athlete and genius. Is extremely under-handicapped and considered to be dangerous."

When the regularly scheduled program returns, something is not right. Immediately the man whose room we are watching from whispers, "Harrison". Suddenly, a mech-Jesus-esque man that looks like he just escaped from a mental institution, but was unable to fully remove all the restraint mechanisms, takes over the stage, announcing that "there is a bomb in the theatre, and the detonator is in my hand". It's Bergeron; "the greatest man you've never known", and with a sense of utopian pride he rips off his handicaps after having orated a moving soliloquy meant to inspire the masses into throwing off their handicaps and joining him in a revolution against the oppressive system and Handicapper General.

In a last ditch effort to inspire the masses (while still being broadcast) Bergeron chooses a woman, gets her to remove her handicaps and together they show what can be done when given a chance, without handicaps. Subsequently we watch the counter-revolutionary police force move in, attempt to disable the broadcast, and the bomb.

Will Bergeron be successful in his attempt to catalyze an uprising, or will Counter-Revolutionary forces quell the revolution and maintain their debilitating stranglehold on power? At just over 26 minutes, Chandler Tuttle's interesting take on Kurt Vonnegut Jr's tale of absurdity- "Harrison Bergeron"- is well worth a watch, especially if you are a fan of dystopian films like I am. It's nicely shot with some funny moments, and worth it alone for Bergeron's rant. 6.5 out of 10.

A bit ago, I read the short story Harrison Bergeron. Good commentary on government, felt a bit angsty, good but not Vonnegut's best story. 8/10, easy.

When you're making a movie based on some sort of successful source material, there are certain questions you must ask yourself. Sometimes, it's not whether you can, but whether you should.

2081 should've been perfect, I'll give it that. I appreciate whoever made this movie for trying so hard, and getting so many others who were also willing to try very hard. I believe that with that kind of work ethic, you can go somewhere.

But when we look at the actual movie, we run into a bit into a bit of a problem, and you don't have to be a detective to notice it. Namely, that the concept is...kind of boring, honestly.

Kurt Vonnegut has never really gotten a good movie adaption, and I think I've run into the reason why. His concepts are just sort of ok. As much as I like his work, and I like the work of whoever made the movie, the film adaptions will always be hindered by the concepts.

The reason the stories worked so well is because of the way Vonnegut wrote them. If something wasn't as amazing or awe-inspiring or bleak as he wanted it to be, he could write it so that it was where he wanted it to be. Directors don't get that luxury.

My point is this: no matter how much work you put into it, this mediocre movie is as good as Kurt Vonnegut movie adaptions will ever be. Stop making them, and let the stories stand for themselves.

I've always been a fan of the Vonnegut short story. And I have watched other versions of this story as well - one of the most effective being one of the segments on the seminal "Between Time & Timbuktu" TV broadcast some 35 years ago. Sadly, that movie has been endlessly tied up in litigation for decades, or so I've heard.

2081 is an admirable attempt to update the story and modernize it by incorporating technology that is more relevant to OUR day. While it is doubtful that the technology will look anything like this in the real 2081, it's an acceptable approximation of what might be.

I enjoyed the performances. Julie Hagerty deserves more praise for her role as Hazel. She plays blank and clueless very well.

The soundtrack was pretty powerful. There were some nice touches throughout - such as the clumsiness of the ballerinas. And a misstep or two, as in having Diana Moon Glampers portrayed as an attractive middle-aged woman. The image of the Handicapper General I always got from the Vonnegut story was more along the lines of "Granny" from the old Beverly Hillbillies TV show. Regardless, that is a bit of nit-picking on my part.

Overall, I don't think this adaptation was completely successful, but I can't identify exactly why. As another poster said, there was something lacking. Still, it's a good attempt at fleshing out Vonnegut's story about the absurdity that would ensue if we took the idea that "all men are created equal" to ridiculous extremes. The "Founding Fathers" of course meant that we are all equal in the eyes of the Creator. But almost all of us know that we are not, nor can ever be equal in the talents and skills each of us possesses.