2081

While this film stuck closely to Vonnegut's story (which is why I give it five stars instead of one), I couldn't help but find it lacking. I'm not sure exactly what was missing, but I did not find it as moving as the original story of Harrison Bergeron. Most of the acting was flat and unemotional. The whole thing was overly dry and serious, yet somehow managed to seem overdone. It was like a delicious recipe for chocolate brownies that was baked until all the flavor was gone. Overall, I have to say that something important was lost in this translation. There just wasn't enough feeling. This film just sucked all the emotion and humor right out of the story.

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.

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!

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.

Sometimes in an effort to stretch a film out to 90 minutes plus or to show off or to pander to their audience or I don't even know what else, film makers lose sight of what film is - it is ART. Art should, at its essence, be a concretization of abstracts (themes, emotions, virtues). When the film is an adaptation of a work of literature, this common fault can become even more glaring. Harrison Bergeron is a short story with a single, universal theme. As a story, it is no longer than it needs to be to concretize that theme and it does it well. As a film, I can say the same of 2081. Combine the flawless simplicity with excellent casting, a moving score and good directorial choices and cinematography, and the result is a short film that I consider about as good as film gets.

This is not for the faint of heart, however. I am still shaking. Knowing the story before hand, I knew I would be moved, and I was. This film, this theme, is oh so relevant today. It's nice to see that some people understood this well enough to make this perfect work of art. To them, I say thank you.