Animal Farm

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.

This movie was a gem of production with an amazing cast of voices. Ian Holm gave an especially convincing performance as Squealer, and Patrick Stewart was good as Napoleon. The movie was spoiled, however, by the Pat Boone/ Disney ending, with everything working out just fine. In this case, a tragic ending would have been much more convincing.

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.

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.

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.