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.

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!

I first read "Harrison Bergeron" in my ninth grade English class seven years ago and have re-read it every couple of years since. When I saw the mind-blowing trailer for "2081" last year I could not wait to see the film. After months of waiting the DVD was finally released. To say that it did not disappoint would be an understatement of epic proportions. I was blown away by the film, easily one of the best book-to-film adaptations I have seen. Every Vonnegut film is usually adapted terribly. This is probably the first adaptation that works. Every bit of the brilliance of Vonnegut's story shines through in the film, and the few changes from the source material actually improved upon it.

The cast is a dream team of some of Hollywood's finest character actors. Among the stellar ensemble James Cosmo's tortured and haunting portrayal of George Bergeron was the most riveting, and with a cast like this that is really saying something. The role of Harrison Bergeron is played by the memorably named Armie Hammer who delivers the best monologue I've seen in a long time. Patricia Clarkson's narration is also superb. The casting truly could not have been more perfect.

Lee Brooks' score is superlatively performed by the Kronos Quartet and is easily the best I have heard in a short film, putting to shame all but the finest big screen feature scores. I have not enjoyed a score this much since "The Dark Knight," or perhaps "Avatar." The visuals are mesmerizing, dark, and beautiful. Top notch in every regard. This film could not be more relevant to the national conversation today. I still can't believe this is a short film. Are short films supposed to be this good? First time director Chandler Tuttle is a guy to watch.

I wish there were more short stories put on film. Not everything needs to be a 2 hour formulaic, made by committee, check off all the right demographics, corporate made for the sheeple film.

This film and story is a masterpiece. Written in a time where the notion of equality was being pushed, filmed in a time decades later where the notion was resurrected by divisive losers, rewatched in an era where sick people are trying to tell healthy people they are just as healthy as they. A time in which New York ends their gifted education programs, because such programs are "racist". The racism of low expectations continues on.

We are not equal.

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.