2081

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.

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!

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.

As an avid reader of much of Kurt Vonnegut's work, I found myself thrilled to hear the news of a short film adaptation of one of my favorite works of his being made. I watched the website for ages wondering when I can get my hands on a copy of this gem. After waiting for many months, the website changed and the "buy it on amazon.com" button appeared. Within five minutes, a copy was on the way to my house.

If you have never read the story, or seen this yet, I will reveal nothing!

I say, buy this as soon as possible. It was very accurate and didn't disappoint. The CGI really hit it and gave the story a great look off the page.

Writing: 5/5 Cinematography: 5/5 Audio/Music: 5/5 Acting: 5/5 Overall: Get this movie.

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.