User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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!

This movie is loosely based on Orwell's novel of the same name. The farm animals have been cruelly treated by the tenant farmer who neglects feeding the animals and treating them badly while indulging in alcohol abuse. To end the abuse, the animals meet in a barn and plot to take over the farm and expel the owners. The ring-leader is an old pig who commands respect of all the other animals. They manage to take over the farm and a sort of division of labour is established. Things move along nicely until the old pig dies and is replaced by a tyrannical pig named Napoleon. The animals are treated worse under Napoleon's rule than they had been under human ownership. Without giving away the ending of the movie, I will say that I kept thinking as I watched it that it could very easily scare young children, the animals being so realistic and the cruelty that is inflicted upon them so vivid and powerful. The movie would serve as an excellent teaching tool about totalitarianism and how people, or animals, can be easily manipulated to obey.

"Animal Farm" is definitely not for little children, in spite of the cute farm animals who are the main characters. After overthrowing their inept human oppressors, the animals of "Manor Farm" establish a new government for animals by animals. Unfortunately, the ideals on which they founded the government are trampled on, much like the case with many human governments, and the animals eventually return to human rule again.

There is much tragedy in this film. A pig is shot and butchered, a group of hens smash their eggs (a form of abortion), and a horse is tricked into voluntarily going to slaughter.

The question that the viewer may have is not whether Napoleon would eventually fall, but how far he would go towards resembling his human predecessors, and how much the other animals would take before they rebelled against him. In the end, there is no rebellion. Rather those who are able to escape "Animal Farm" simply wait for the "administration" to end.

"Animal Farm" is provocative because it asks us to consider why "Animal Farm" failed. George Orwell, on whose novel the film is based, was a Socialist who ironically truly believed that the society envisioned by "Old Major" could survive if it had the right leaders.

Teenagers and adults should read the book first, and then see the film. This is a colorful and well-presented adaptation, with nice voice work by some of today's most respected actors. See if you can pick out who voices each character before reading the credits.

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!

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.

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.

This movie does have a good message, but I found extremely weird. There is good representations in this movie about society and how a society becomes elitist and tyrannical. I also liked how it showed political stuff people talk about today; like the pigs using the TV to distract the other animals like people talk about how politicians use the media to control who gets the vote. It also had a healthy dose of satire, and a little bit of slapstick to lighten some of the dramatic moments.

On the personal level though....Bolshevik farm animals? Gestapo dogs? Dictator pig? How bizarre! It found it very weird to just see such on screen like its one of those kiddy talking animal movies. So I finish watching this movie and all I can think is "that was a weird movie!" Back to the message, more should watch this, definitely.

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.