2081 (2009) User Reviews

Interesting Adaptation Of Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron

[meddlecore · 7/10 · 19 April 2011]

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.

Mostly Good

[jbenante-388-963917 · 7/10 · 1 November 2014]

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.

Love the book? You'll love the movie.

[bigboylive2008-1 · 10/10 · 7 February 2010]

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.

Wow. Just wow. I mean...wow.

[j-willbanks-1 · 10/10 · 25 February 2010]

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.

Excellent!

[Red_Identity · 18 June 2010]

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.

Lost in Translation

[jessi0031 · 5/10 · 13 October 2010]

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.

In my opinion, this is as good as film gets.

[thesaucepan · 10/10 · 24 October 2010]

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.

Not nearly as good as the short story

[leahcsykes · 5/10 · 8 December 2020]

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.

Chandler Tuttle, eh? Nice going, Sunshine!

[alphabetgreen1996 · 10/10 · 22 April 2010]

If that was a debut direction, I hope the above will be working again. I've never seen or heard such vision (and I've not read the story). A simple story with a great premise and near perfect treatment. I can quite honestly say that I had goose bumps watching and listening to the orchestra when it was being led by the cello soloist, which is saying something because as a composer myself, I'm not easily fazed. All the cast were magnificent, especially the Scottish actor, James Cosmo. There seems to be a lot of British actors affecting American accents and vice versa, which whilst seemingly unnecessary, works if the actor(s) can pull it off, and James Cosmo certainly can.

I really do hope to see witness more of Tuttle's work because what I just saw blew me away, and it will blow you away too, no matter how equal you are.

Eye Opening

[dayzeejoy-855-701017 · 10/10 · 2 July 2011]

This was an excellently written and executed piece that brings light to the absurdity of the battle for equality. Pure equality, which I believe, can never truly be reached. James Cosmo as the father is a picture of strength, pride, and hope even in his ultimately restricted state. Julie Hagerty as the mother gives the piece a feeling of home and serenity and even peace with living underneath the governmental thumb. Armie Hammer's role as the rebellion and one whose drive it is to enlighten others of the injustice of it all was powerful and engaging. The entire film is given a somber, yet beautiful tone through the eery sounds of the cello. This film leaves a person to think about our equality and how far we should reach for it. I loved every second and highly recommend this short film.

Pretty forgettable sci-fi flick

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 17 July 2015]

"2081" is a 23-minute short film and as you could probably guess from the title it delivers a dark vision of the future. It was made over 5 years ago and the writer and director is Chancler Tuttle. The short story that this is based on is by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and he died 2 years before the movie. For Tuttle it is to this day the only project as a filmmaker and I cannot say I am too sad about this. "2081" looked pretty generic to me (especially the idea of a n equal society was done so often already) and there was nothing that made it really stand out. The ballet scenes were an interesting idea to make it look artistic, but it did not work really well with the rest of the story. Oh wait there is a terrorist and he all of a sudden starts directing a ballet dancer. Seriously? Also the drama aspects did not go so well in my opinion and the addition of successful actors Hammer and Clarkson weren't enough to save this film. Not recommended.

It doesn't get better than this.

[Eli_Elvis · 10/10 · 31 August 2019]

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.

Nihilistic trash.

[jackbenimble · 1/10 · 18 June 2010]

This film left me with a sick feeling. If you enjoy the experience of a so called artist being sick on your face by all means watch it. Its only saving grace is it doesn't last too long and then you can go for a walk or something to clear your mind. I'm sure there are people out there will think this is deep, meaningful, artistic and profound but I suspect they wouldn't know profound if it hit them in the face. Of course there are plenty of 'messages' in here delivered without a trace of irony. They're the bleak, nihilistic, humourless, hopeless, depressing one's we see all too much on the screen these days. Who funds this crap? If you want to feel excited and empowered, have your imagination stimulated, be surprised and entertained I'd look elsewhere if I were you.

Yaaaawn.....

[scottj-29632 · 1/10 · 19 April 2020]

I've never read Kurt Vonnegut. Apparently, that would have helped me have some sort of appreciation for the attempt to turn his material into film. Alas, no appreciation. Yaaaawn. That's what I have to say about it. Boring. Lifeless. Non-sensical. Looks like a bored, half-assed attempt at anti-authority angst I could have scratched out in thirty minutes when I was in high school, if I was feeling entirely uninspired.

Watch Harrison Bergeron

[lodger-56981 · 4/10 · 27 August 2023]

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!