Add a Review

  • I was disappointed to find that this version of Animal Farm completely fails to convey the fundamental message of Animal Farm.

    George Orwell's novel is about the deception, the cruelty, and the hypocrisy of the pigs' control of the farm. The reason it is such a good book is that it shows the reader how the situations slides from a seemingly democratic revolution to a bloody tyranny.

    The 1954 animation of Animal Farm portrays this excellently; the scene where Boxer is carried away is often mentioned as being absolutely heart-wrenching. However, in the new edition, I remember trying to feel the same abhorrent turmoil but finding that it just wasn't there.

    The story seems to be told as if it were from a children's adventure book. It most certainly is not. Admirable filming with real animals counts for nothing when the whole reason for being of the story is not expressed.

    If you want to experience the sheer force of the story of Animal Farm, watch the old version.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is the second film adaptation of George Orwell's classic satire on the Russian Revolution. For those of you who slept through grade school, the story tells how the animals of the Manor Farm throw out their human oppressors, rename their home Animal Farm, and try to create a new society where they will live equally and prosperously without exploitation. Instead, everything rapidly goes wrong.

    Unfortunately, this film does not adequately convey the warning message of Orwell's superb novel. In the book, the corruption of the animals' revolution is subtle. Until the very end, they do not understand what is happening to them, so they are powerless to resist. In the movie, the pigs are far more open about their power seizure, and the other animals far more aware of what is happening, and thus the lack of resistance to the pigs is hard to excuse. The movie says from the start exactly who the villains are going to be, so the viewer is not allowed to share the animals' initial view of Napoleon and Snowball as heroes, or their reluctance to believe that their heroes are betraying them.

    The most startling departure from the book is Jessie the dog's new role as narrator. Orwell views much of his story through the eyes of Clover the mare, and he clearly sympathizes most with the pessimism of Benjamin the donkey. In this movie, Benjamin's role is greatly diminished and Clover is nearly eliminated to clear the set for Jessie. Jessie is a triumph of Jim Henson's Creature Shop, a beautiful, lifelike creation, superbly voiced by Julia Ormond, and she could have become the basis for a bold new interpretation of Orwell's story. Unfortunately, Jessie's narration is confusing; she delivers it entirely in retrospective, and it is hard to tell what she knew at the time and what she realized later. She ends up giving the impression that she saw the revolution being betrayed from the outset, and leaves us wondering why she didn't do anything about it. The dramatic potential of Jessie's feelings toward her puppies as they are corrupted into NKVD-like bully boys is unmined; after Napoleon denies her the right to see her offspring, she never mentions them again.

    Director Stephenson often forgets that this is the animals' story. He gives the humans much more camera time than they deserve. Orwell's first chapter, a masterpiece of economy, is bloated into about fifteen minutes of screen time by the irrelevant doings of the humans. Stephenson also wastes precious time on Farmer Frederick, who should have been written out of the script the minute the decision was made to exclude Frederick's attack on Animal Farm.

    Aside from the endearing Jessie, the film gets its greatest boost from Ian Holm's rendition of Squealer. Squealer here is so sinister that he often eclipses Napoleon. The creature design is good, but it is Holm's silky, menacing voice that really makes the character.

    The ending of the movie ultimately sinks it. Neither this film, nor its 1950s predecessor, has the courage to stick with Orwell's spiritually crushing conclusion. The earlier animated version merely repeated the revolution, with no explanation of how the same fatal course will be avoided. This version is even worse, simply destroying Napoleon's reign by a deus ex machina device. Orwell's supreme contribution to the world was his power to face unpleasant facts - a power that this movie lacks.

    Rating: ** out of ****.

    Recommendation: Don't hesitate to miss it.
  • I really do wish people would get that into their heads. Just because it's about barnyard animals with no sex or adult language, doesn't mean that's necessarily for kids. It's, as many people well know, a metaphor for the atrocities of the Soviet Union under Stalin. It's bleak, nasty and upsetting, but it speaks the truth on the hypocrisy of leaderships, corruption and fascism.

    And yet they decide to portray the story as though it's a children's film, with live action talking animals, with a special lighting to make it look child-like and family friendly. No! This is not what George Orwell's tale is about. The book is extremely depressing, but in this film, and especially the ending, they made it look like the things that happened were no big deal.

    It's true that in real life, Stalin's regime collapsed on itself, "a victim of its own malice" in the end, but it would have been better if it wasn't depicted in the movie. Jesse, the sheepdog, serves as a narrator, and seems to predict and see through the evils of Napoleon, and yet does nothing about it. All the animals in the book apart from the pigs could not see what was going on due their myopia and little intelligence. And the violence was also very subdued.

    If another adaptation should be done, it should be more gritty and truer to the novel, and to get the point the Orwell was intending point out.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    No, really... this movie confounds me. I don't know who this movie is intended for. I am a high school English teacher, and my kids wanted to see the "one with the real animals." (I teach in an inner-city school, mind you.) So I decided to show this one in addition to the 1954 animated version, which itself is a pretty mediocre adaptation.

    Wow. Just... wow. I had to do a frontloading lesson on what "heavy handed" means. We also talked about patronizing your audience. Now, if this is supposed to be a *children's* movie, which the simplistic and overbearing narration--along with an even more ridiculous happy ending than the animated version--lead one to believe, why is there the addition of the sexual relations between Mrs. Plikington and Mr. Jones. Why the graphic shots of meat being chopped up? It's pretty dark for a kids' movie. On the other hand, if it is for adults... Plus, to fully understand it, you really have to have read the book; but if you've read the book, the additions and omissions will probably infuriate you (as they did me). On a side note, Jim Henson's Creature Shop does phenomenal work on the pigs! What makes it more frustrating from that angle, too, is that what they adapt straight from the book, they adapt very well. Many speeches are word for word. Many subtle nuances remain in tact. There are some nice flourishes, too, like I very much enjoy the focus on media manipulation. The inclusion of TV as distraction and pig-made films (and their improving production values--look at the first Animal Guard spot versus the final Napoleon-in-clothes one) is a great connection to modern society.

    However, the way the story is framed kills it. The inane narration, the sappiness. I even prefaced with asking the kids what they knew about Hallmark, to which I got one response "that's that channel old people watch." The whole "we escaped to wait for this bad stuff to be over... then it was, so we went back... and things got better... and then NEW HUMANS bought the farm... we'll never let this happen again... now we are TRULY FREE." Um. Yeah.

    My only suggestion is to use this as a teaching tool of how Hollywood can butcher a good story.
  • Frankly, when I read the back of the tape container, and it stated something like, "...Your kids will squeal with joy..." or to that effect. My reaction was not good. This certainly wasn't the same Orwell story I remembered. The story, to me, wasn't just an allegory, but also a cautionary tale, as well. Whatever your feelings about the small, powerful book...I really doubt "joy" was one of your emotions during or after your reading.

    It's not an awful movie, just one that tinkers with the original classic. In this case, due to the popularity and in some schools, its mandatory reading...This was not wise to do so. Yes, it drags forth debate, but to what ends? Orwell is no longer here to give his biting opinion of TNT's efforts. TNT should be grateful for that, I would think.

    The special effects were good, and the vocal talent was excellent. The last minute resolution was tacky. The wide-eyed "here comes the rainbow" optimistic ending, was irksome and indicative of American films, in general. Yup, 89 minutes of blood, mayhem and carnage...then the cast ensemble sings "Put on a Happy Face!" as the credits roll...

    The "newsreel" concept was clever and novel. Yet, one couldn't escape the distance between the ending in the movie, as compared to the book. That divide is too wide. When in doubt, go to the source.
  • Currently, my High School Literature class has been reading "Animal Farm" by the brilliant author George Orwell (who also wrote another good story which was "1984"). I've enjoyed reading it, since it's a very intresting book. Any ways, we've also been watching the TV movie of "Animal Farm" which was made for TNT a few years back, and I'm sorry to say, it's a poor adaption...

    First off, a few of the things that happened in the book aren't featured in this TV adaption at all, and some of the scenes in the movie NEVER happened/Occured in the book for that matter. I think the folks who made this movie didn't put much care into the story such as other movie adaptions based on other pieces of literature such as the 1990 version of "Lord of the Flies" (which was a VERY POOR movie version to that story). The movie could've been better if it were more closely tied to the book.

    Any ways, I suggest you read the book, and skip the film. It's a monumental waste of time, and a slap in the face to George Orwell fans.

    This movie gets a 1/10.
  • texd3 October 1999
    This version had a great deal of potential, but managed to squander that potential in its quest to break new ground in gimickry.

    If you've read the book, it is worth seeing this movie to satisfy your intellectual curiosity. I think I would have been even less warm toward this movie (yes... it's possible... I gave it a 6) had I not read the book.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Well,to start things off, I'm a 13 year old and I read the book in class. After reading the book, our teacher showed us this movie and we watched it. The movie was very false to the book and the book was perfect the way it was written. The movie was often out of sequence with the book and many things that were in the book, such as the portrayal of Clover as Jessie, were taken way out of context.All in all, I think the movie is a disgrace and is not fit to be called "Animal Farm".The portrayal of Whymper as Mr.Pinchfield also threw my whole class off.I recommend that if you read the book and are unsure of whether or not to see this movie, you should definitely not see it.
  • I would have liked to have seen this version of George Orwell's classic, Animal Farm, to be animated rather than a live action film. I am not saying that the film is not worthy but I liked the older one with animation. I think anything with animals would be better off animated in the first place. They have a first rate cast including Kelsey Grammar, Julie Ormond, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Peter Postlethwaite as Mr. Jones in a noteworthy performance. I can see why Spielberg claims that Postlethwaite is one of his favorite actors or one of the best under-rated actors around. The film is satisfactory and updated enough for today's audiences.
  • Regarded as one of the best books of 20th century, Animal Farm is a funny fable about some animals that, inspired by an old and wise pig, decide to banish the men and take control of the farm where they live. The story is clearly linked to Russian Revolution and we can see that some of pigs represent the leaders of the revolution, as Major represents Lenin, Snowball represents Trotsky and Napoleon represents Stalin. After they take control of the farm, the animals state 10 commandments that must be followed by every one. In the beginning all seems good, but later Napoleon takes the leadership and some strange things start to happen. The movie does good in showing many aspects of the book, with good effects and funny moments. My only complain is the very ending, that is different from the book and very disappointing...
  • The ending in Animal Farm was not only a travesty to Orwell's original work, but made no logical sense. Certain animals supposedly had the sense and wherewithal to go into hiding on the farm until Napoleon's reign came crashing. Where did they hide? How did they survive? Most of all, why weren't they hunted down as traitors by Napoleon's dogs?

    But the real incongruity comes after Napoleon's fall. "The walls have now fallen," (a post-Reaganistic interpretation of the Berlin Wall) and now there is hope in the future. "There are new owners. We will not allow them to make the same mistakes."

    What new power and insights do the animals now have to prevent the same mistakes? And just who are these new owners, anyway? Why do the animals (who have proven themselves capable of running a farm, if they are not mismanaged) have to revert to human owners to be their masters again? And why are we to believe these new human owners are better than Jones or Pilkington? Is it because they look more "American," drive a sleeker, newer car, and play rock-n-roll?

    Orwell wrote this classic tale as an allegory of modern totalitarianism in general, and Stalinism in particular. TNT's production reeks of a post-modern, imperialistic, corporate-American view of Russia and Eastern Europe today, whose troubles would be over if they would just fully embrace their new owners, American multi-national corporations, with their hip technology and rock-n-roll culture.
  • orablon4 October 1999
    I saw the premiere of the movie on TNT last night, and I have to say I was quite impressed. You could obviously tell the animatronics from the computer-generated characters, but the story line fit the book pretty well. I am a George Orwell fan, but I believe this story was behind the times. It should have been made 15 years ago, but the technology just wasn't there. The producers, however, tried making the ending more modern by talking about the fall of Napoleon's (the main character, a pig) reign, but I believe young viewers - those that are not familiar with the paranoid associated with the spread of Communism throughout Europe and Asia in the 50's to the 70's -may miss the point of the whole movie. The book was wonderful - I read it 6 times - and the movie conveyed every major point Orwell was trying to get across in his 1948 political satire. But it was hard to make a 2-hour movie out of a 125-page short novel. The first 15-20 minutes of the movie before the oust of Mr. and Mrs. Jones were obvious filler, and had no bearing on the rest of the movie. Can anyone tell me WHY in the beginning of the movie, Mrs. Pilkington seduced Mr. Jones while her husband was awake downstairs? ANYWAY, I digress. In summary, the movie is for those that knew and understood the American fear of the spread of Communism, and has little bearing with the under-20 viewers. The animatronics and computer graphics were top notch for a TV movie, and I'd recommend seeing it; this is, AFTER you read the book.
  • This movie is a wonderful adaptation to the book. Many major elements are kept the same which is a real plus. Of course, the crowning achievement for this movie are the special effects. I can see much effort is put into this film and that effort is not wasted. A movie that shouldn't be missed.
  • If I had looked at the back of the video box, and seen that it was from Hallmark, I would have put it back on the fence. Thankfully, I checked it out from the library, so I didn't pay to watch this.

    The grievances of the animals were valid. Orwell never repudiates Old Major's message, as does this movie. In the book, no animal wants the humans back. The movie shows that all the animals need is the right master, and everything will be happy.

    This ain't Animal Farm. Read the book instead.
  • It's been a while since I've read the book, but for the most part the show captures the feeling of dread, hopelessness, and frustration the animals felt on the farm. As with any condensation of book to movie details are lost, but the overall scope remains intact.

    The major problem with the movie was the ending. The book ends with the animals not being able to tell the difference between pig and man (a scene which is done pretty well, but could have been better). In this version, we still have ten minutes left. While I can't spoil the ending (though it's not much of a spoil), let's say it feels incredibly unrealistic and improbable given the situation. Then there is a final monologue about hope. Blech. All movies are equal, but movies with bad endings are less equal than others.
  • I won't rehash the comments of others too much, but as a high school English teacher, I was quite disappointed with this version. It could have been a superior film due to its casting and modern technology. But, no, instead we get so many plot changes that the film loses its main message.

    When I show selections to my classes, I only use the animated version. It sticks closer to the plot, even though the only animals that speak are the pigs.

    Rent this version. Don't waste your money on buying it. Instead purchase the animated version on DVD, which also features an interesting extra on the making of the film.

    Long live Animal Farm, but not the 1999 inferior version!
  • Despite being an enjoyable film in itself, the movie of "Animal Farm" cannot compare to the book by George Orwell, whose satirical comments and pessimistic yet brilliant description brings together a wonderful story with a funny novel and a true fact of life. The film however loses Orwell's bleak descriptions are lost and replaced with pathetic fallacies, and instead of the humour of his hilariously true satire, humorously fake animal characters to make us laugh- which does not work too well. One of the main problems with the film is that the character Clover is not represented in any way. Thus, the more feminine side of the book is cut down- not completely gone- but still ruined. And, for anyone who has read the book, the ending is completely changed. However I cannot fault the film as a film rather than a representation of the book. We are brought down to the animals level by well-placed cameras, the moods of scenes are well represented by "pathetic fallacies" and the computer-animated characters are well done. Some scenes are gruesome and graphic, but the effect is well kept throughout.
  • stefknet30 September 2007
    ... if you see it without blindfolds... if you see it just as it is, a fairy tale... just for kids... forget the story that supposed to be...If you take it serious like the most does, it is like a bad joke... Orwell have never been in USSR and what he knew about it was from stories that he heard from thirds... thirds like the traitors white Russians that escaped from Russia to england after Bolsheviks victorious revolution...So those stories were groundless and lies... After many years Orwell also proved to be a sting, that wrote down names of maybe communists, like Chaplin's and gave them at a semi secret British agency, so they could run them down... That was Orwell, just a big brother that put mad on the name of real heroes of the people, like comrade's Stalin...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Fans of the Orwell novel will be greatly disappointed. I saw this film at my local library and I thought "what the hell, i'm not paying for it". I watched it, and knew within five minutes that I hated it! However, I gave it a fair chance. And, in fact, it came really close to redeeming itself, and then it screwed that up too.

    Near the end, Napolean and Squealer start making propaganda films, and they make one that sums up the end of the novel well, with a great shot of Napolean standing and wearing a suit. They then go on and have a storm destroy Napolean and the farm, which is entirely contrary to the point of the novel. All in All, Stay Away.
  • judasfm29 August 2004
    People seem to slam this one down into the ground, although I can't see why (maybe it has to do with the unrealistic expectations people nowadays seem to have of films). As a massive fan of the George Orwell book, I found this gripped me from the start. Okay, so there are more than a few discrepancies, but these are more than made up for by the outstanding voice acting and the atmosphere. The musical score is one of the most apt and best composed that I've ever heard, and it's worth watching the movie for that.

    If you haven't read the book, you'll probably enjoy the movie more than if you have, but either way this is a must-see!
  • a_baron10 August 2016
    Although this adaptation of the classic Orwell satire is extremely clever, it might have rendered better as a cartoon, but as that had already been done, someone decided to give it an original twist. This 1999 version follows the script fairly faithfully, although at the end, after seeing the transformation of pig into man, it appends a nod to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, which as he died in 1950, Orwell did not live to see and would probably not have predicted had he lived another decade.

    The film has more humour than the book - cynicism aside. The original score, largely by Richard Harvey, is thematic.
  • George Orwell's book Animal Farm had a dark, bleak atmosphere, but it still left room for some sly comedy and satire on Communism, as well as an absorbing, interesting story. The new film version doesn't really have these redeeming qualities. I'll admit those films that show the geese singing the praise of Napoleon, the Stalin-esque leader of the pigs, are a hoot, but otherwise there isn't much dark comedy. It also isn't particularly bleak; the music was really what ruined the atmosphere. Yes, I know people want everything to be more upbeat, but it just doesn't work with this kind of story. The film itself merely skims the surface of the story, floats through it really, and never goes below the surface to explore the deeper meanings. Everything just floats along, and you don't really get to know anyone, hear their stories or get much sense of what their motives are.

    The filmakers also really did not need to cut back and forth between Old Major's speech and scenes of the human farmer asking his neighbor for money, not getting it, and finding comfort under the sheets in the arms of the wife of the very same neighbor. There's no point to it (It wasn't even in the book!), and it downplays the impact of what Major's saying drastically.

    Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is downplayed, and it ruins the whole thing. You're much better off reading the book, believe me.
  • I do not think it was intended to be as funny as it is, but some artistic decisions made in this movie make it a perfect movie to just burst out laughing in certain moments.
  • jsimon05026 March 2002
    This movie should not bear the name Animal Farm. It is not faithful to the Orwell text and takes unnecessary liberties. It is unfortunate that the money and effort to make this version of the great book was not spent more effectively.
  • tedg13 January 2006
    Start this lesson with some basic economic facts. Movies are born and live only when three urges are satisfied.

    You need a reason to exist. Movies have become a being with its own existence in this regard. So if anyone just thinks about making a movie there are a collection of templates and economic channels to support the supposition. Usually, they all depend on the notion of entertainment, which everyone accepts but no one seems to able to understand.

    You need forces that pull creative talent into the thing. Sure, the economic channels will draw some people. Money will draw some to any enterprise. But most of the essential people involved are there because of the art of the thing. Or what they think the rewards of what they think art is.

    And you need in final mix, forces that draw audiences. Now that's where this movie can teach us something unless you think it is unique.

    Think those three forces above, first in terms of the book. It is poorly written. It is allegorical like hundreds of its brethren of the times and no more insightful. What gave it traction in society was that (like 1984) we had a cold war. We had an industrialized educational system that wanted to fight that war by introducing political notions in ways that children would understand. So this became required reading, a boon to the publisher and the talentless author.

    So we have both a film and a book seemingly driven by this educational need. The pull of simplifying complex human flows into simple narratives.

    You know, before the cold war educational initiative, the wisdom was that schools should teach the real stuff: history, how people think, ethics and morals. Then they could grow into complex political issues. Before the McCarthy era, no one would have dreamed of schoolyard propaganda. But in 1954, a besieged film industry subsidized films of "Animal Farm" and "1984."

    The result was as planned, we have two full generations of Americans who get their political views prepackaged, and of course obsolete.

    Watch this film. It is a remake of the 1954 animated version of the book.

    Watch it and try to put yourself in the context it was intended to illustrate: Soviet-style communism. Now watch it again in the current context. Still fits.

    Take your pick:

    -- We'll take any prepackaged political allegory and apply it to our own world regardless of fit.

    -- Today (say the US) really is as threatening as the USSR was.

    or

    -- This political allegory and perhaps all juvenile ones are useless -- only kept alive by a bankrupt educational system.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
An error has occured. Please try again.