Customer Reviews

Animal Farm

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(20)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(18)

 

 

"Animal Farm" is based on the novel by George Orwell, which tells the short story of a popular revolution gone wrong. So when I (belatedly) learned that a movie had been made of it, I could barely wait to take a look at it. "After all," I figured, "even Hollywood can't ruin Orwell's Animal Farm!" I was mistaken.

The good aspects of the film can be summarized relatively quickly. Hearing Patrick Stewart yelling 'Revolution!' as a pig was curiously satisfying. As in Orwell's work, I enjoyed considering the parallels between the revolution on the farm and the Russian Revolution. And that about does it.

If I'm not careful, I could rant on for a goodly time regarding what I didn't like about the film. A brief opening criticism is the way in which the story has been... popularized? dumbed down? ruined?... with long sections of junk appropriate for preschoolers. Singing ducks and pathetic 'action' sequences do nothing to advance the plot and are simply tedious by any (adult) standard. For some reason, this film's producers apparently decided to make children their chief audience/target, even though the themes and messages of Orwell's work are in no way meant for children - even if they do involve a lot of cute animals. As a result, anybody old enough to understand "Animal Farm" will almost certainly be bored or insulted (probably both!) by this film.

But the most disgusting sin of the filmmakers was the way in which they completely demolished the story's message. As a libertarian socialist, Orwell wrote "Animal Farm" to warn against popular revolutions being hijacked by their self-proclaimed leaders. The Russian Revolution, in which the Bolsheviks set themselves up as a new ruling class after destroying the old Tsarist order illustrates the phenomenon - and also serves as a blueprint for "Animal Farm" (the book). The climax of the story comes when the animals watch their 'leaders' carousing with neighboring farmers (read: oppressive tyrants) and are unable to tell them apart.

This episode is included in the film, but is almost tossed off as the filmmakers rush to their happy ending in which the animals run off and hide in the woods for a few years, returning only after Napoleon's/Stalin's dictatorship has collapsed and new owners have taken possession of the farm. For some reason, this is treated as a wonderful event, even though the whole point of the Revolution was to get rid of the humans and set up an Animal Farm. The filmmakers stage a celebration when the logic of the book (and to some extent the movie up until that point) calls for a revolution! The philosophy of "Animal Farm" is transformed from libertarian socialist to bourgeois-apologist. The ultimate message is that dictatorship is great - as long as it's benevolent.

I can clearly hear Orwell spinning in his grave. Read the book, but avoid this film at all costs.

Orwell's bleak fable about revolution betrayed gets the full sunny "family-entertainment" Hallmark treatment and the result, as you can imagine, is abominable! Pity, for it has a great cast and several scenes worth looking at, but, as a whole, this movie -as all TNT "adaptations"- is completely off the mark! 'Animal Farm' ...for kiddies? With a happy ending? So the entire family can "squeal with delight"? Just who the hell thought that out?! No one, it seems, and it shows. The film is too tame for adult viewers who'd like to see the grim little novel on screen, and too violent for children who certainly won't expect to witness a cutesy Babe-like talking piggie executing his brothers-in-arms legs. My guess is they'll both be horrified at the end, its patched-up "happy" conclusion notwithstanding: Kids, because they're not stupid and sure realize it's back to the chopping block for their furry & feathered friends the moment the "new owners" step in; and adults, not only for the outrageous "liberties" taken from the book, but because -come to think of it- the sugarcoated finale holds a new ominous moral in itself: No, don't worry, the future won't be a Communist dictatorship after all; the future will be one big, happy, postcard-looking Americana, owned by cool Ken and Barbie, whose kinder, gentler slaughterhouse still awaits your neck! "Hey! Whaddaya expect? We're running a FARM here!"

Animal Farm and 1984...along with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World...are my favorite books. So, naturally, I was ecsatic about TNT bringing this classic to life as a movie (TNT usually does better book-to-movie adaptations than Hollywood anyways)

Well, by the end of the film I had decidedly mixed emotions. As far as Orwell's story goes, the film was precise and to the number. The two warring philosophies of leadership, as embodied by pigs Napoleon and Snowball (Stalin & Trotsky) are voiced perfectly by Kelsey Grammar and Patrick Stewart. I think for megolomania, you can't do better than Stewart.

Jesse, the dog, is as I always imagined, the typical Russian citizen during communism, who realizes the evil of totalitarianism, but is too afraid to go against it. And the supporting cast, like Boxer the Horse, represent the many victims of a dictatorship, whose "uselessness" as judged by the state ends in their ellimination.

The makers of this movie put together a fine parallel to Orwell's novel. But the ending didn't sit right with me. Of course, certain imagery, like the rock wall collapsing, is an obvious metaphor for the Berlin Wall falling, and the end of communism. But I don't see why the filmmakers decided to tack on this happy, optimistic ending, with the "brave and free-minded" Americans coming in to take over the farm and save the animals. Why couldn't they have just left it the way Orwell left it, uncertain and hopeless?

Orwell probably knew when he wrote the book that communism would fall in the future, but he left that out because I imagine it wasn't his intention to be a prophet, or a bringer of hope to the Russians. It was his intention to show the evils of totalitarianism, which this movie does well until that ending. Oh well. In the end, it still remains a very good movie, both on its own and as an adaptation.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others!"

The acting and animatronics in this film are executed well enough, but the sappy, feel-good ending that these naive, well-to-do Hollywood clowns have herein introduced must have had George Orwell rolling in his grave; everything ends on a nice, viewer-friendly, hunky-dory happy note in this movie--COMPLETELY opposite to Orwell's ending, and his intended meaning. The only way these script writers could have even considered such a carefree butchery of Orwell's original ending is by falling into the naive perception that Orwell was ONLY warning readers about totalitarian Russia, and not warning readers about totalitarianism anywhere and anytime into the future; sadly, these Hollywood history dunces are not the only ones who have myopically accepted this unreality: I recently bought a paperback edition of Animal Farm which features a forward written by an educated fool of a writer by the name of Russell Baker who also limits Orwell's meaning to Soviet Russia alone!--the naivete is spreading, and Orwell's intentionally dark and profound admonition is being given a shiny new whitewash by these optimistic and heedless people; it is just such blindly optimistic stupidity which allows history and holocausts to repeat and repeat and repeat every so often. This movie was enjoyable up to that butchery of a happy ending, but that ending alone is enough to repulse me from ever recommending it.

I gave this movie 2 stars, because it is clear that a lot of attention and concern was put in the creation of the talking-animal effects. Unfortunately, one cannot say the same for the script. Orwell's "Animal Farm" was a thinly disguised allegory for the failure of the Russian Revolution. By 1999 the USSR was a thing of the past, so the scriptwriters must have felt they had to rework the story for modern times. Perhaps they assumed that their audience had never reads the book, menaing they could change it any way they wanted without opposition. The result was a badly thought out polemic that makes no sense, literally or allegorically.

For example, the characters of Moses the Raven (who symbolized religion) and Clover the mare (the refusniks) were written out. As a result the remaining animals seem to be little more than a faceless mob, differentiated by their species but remaining the same ideologically. When the mob starts to object to the pigs' rulership, they are pacified with television. Now, forgiving the supreme arrogance of a made-for-TV movie portraying TV as a pacifying force (I am sure the animals were not watching TNT, the producers of this film), this pivotal plot point makes no sense. Taken literally, how do you explain animals being interested in visual fare made by, for and about humans? Taken allegorically, the TV broadcasts were an outside force beyond the pigs' control, filling the viewers' heads with visions of unpartiotic decadence. Would-be dictators who permitted such things would have to be very foolish indeed.

Finally there is the ending, where well-intended humans take over the failing farm and become the benevolent guardians of the animals, with the animals' support. If this was an attempt to paste a happy ending over Orwell's cynical but powerful conclusion, it failed. If taken literally it suggets that the animals' sacrifices and efforts were for nothing, making the movie irrelavent. If it was meant to be taken allegorically, the message is that people should not even try to better their society, they should just submit themselves to benevolent masters an avoid this fuss of self determination (any nominations who said masters should be?).

Failed allegory, cheesy animal flick or greedy attempt to cash in on the success of "Babe," the movie version of "Animal Farm" fails on every level.

This film was pretty much inevitable after the success of Babe, and the overall look is simply wonderful. Up until the last 5 minutes, I would say it approaches perfection, for a telefilm. However I had to cringe when I saw the new, Hollywood ending, which is the only major departure from Orwells short novel. These two screenwriters, were they to get their hands on Orwell's 1984, would have Winston single handedly defeating Big Brother, followed by a group hug. If they had adapted Moby Dick, the viewer would have seen Ahab and the white whale embracing and brushing back tears, followed by a jaunt down to the pub for a pint. The only possible justification for the sunshine and flowers ending, is that these two gentlemen interpreted Orwell's allegory strictly in terms of Communism ( the inclusion of the line about the wall coming down is certainly no accident). However, this justification doesn't hold up, because we as citizens must always be on guard against the traits exhibited by the people (and animals) in the book. Certainly that is what Orwell intended, and it's a shame that a film so beautiful to look at , with such an amazing abundance of voice talents, should be ruined by a system that generally lacks the courage to exhibit truthfulness over pasteboard sentimentality.

I loved Orwell's "1984," but I was never a fan of "Animal Farm." It's my own quirkiness that didn't allow me to enjoy the well written book... I just couldn't stomach the evil perpetrated by these animals... being an animal lover, myself, it was very hard to imagine animals behaving in this way, even though it was clear that this political tale had no intent of replacing "Charlotte's Web."

I knocked off a star for the Hollywood ending that altered the original story... but seeing the book performed by the excellent animitronics really helped me "enjoy" this story in a new light. The real shame is that this film will probably never be re-made, with the correct ending.

Any film with talking animals is going to attract children, even though they are not the targeted audience. No child should see this film... it is rampant w/ violence, betrayal and evil acts perpetrated by manipulative animals against weaker farm animals... young tender-hearted kids can be easily traumatized by this film intended as an allegory of politics and bureaucracy for adults. Because of this, it would be counter-productive to re-create this film in the future to correct the changes in the original story. A literary classic is a classic for a reason. To make the ending a "feel-good" movie really cheapened the previous hours of the show. Excellent voice-overs by Patrick Stewart and others. If you have pet pigs or just can't stand animals being hurt, this is a film that probably won't settle well with you... but no real animals were harmed in the making of this film... and except for the cheesy faux ending, it is well executed.

Orwell's novel was about taking spectacular ideas about life and co-operation and morphing it to fit your own greedy desires, losing all purpose and ultimately ending in a futile, corrupt dictatorship. It made fun of dictators then and still makes fun of dictators today, and though an easy read it went deep in speaking politically about man's actions against man.

Sadly, none of that is in this film. In fact, this movie is a travesty to the original novel.

One major problem is that it renders Orwell's novel cute, probably due to the release of all the animal films during this time ("Babe", "Gordy", what have you). Old Major's speech is a great speech, and who better to perform it than Peter Ustinov? Unfortunately, this speech is ruined by being talked over by Julia Louise Dreyfus as the horse complaining that she will lose her ribbons if man is overthrown, among other animals and their minor problems. Imagine Katie Couric talking over Winston Churchill's "We Will Fight on the Beaches" speech and you'll understand how I feel.

It gets worst later on. The main character is not the farm entire, but instead a female dog that annoyingly whines and complains the whole time and tries to narrate what is going on. Does this sound bad? It gets worst. In the end she leads the animals out of the farm, and then tells us everything lived happily ever after. Napoleon's animalism fails (we're never told how or see it happen, they basically throw it at us and say "Take our word for it!") and then a white, middle-class family of four moves in and takes over the farm. The End.

Did Orwell's point just fly past these people or what? Orwell was always a master of the closing line to me, and "Animal Farm" is no exception. Even the British animated film managed to sneak in Orwell's metaphor before closing with a happy ending.

This was such a waste. Peter Ustinov as Old Major, Ian Holm as Squeeler, Patrick Stewart as Napoleon...all these talented names being wasted sounds horrible, but it is true. Such a great book with serious representation being treated in an amatuerish fashion may not bother some, but for others it is a big deal.

If you like Orwell, if you loved the novel, if you enjoy great stories, and if you enjoy good films...don't watch this movie.

I missed the debut of this movie on TNT, and had been wanting to see it ever since but the local video stores never bothered to stock it. So I ordered the DVD. Animal Farm was one of my favorite books from years ago in school and I was excited about this movie, being produced with a decent budget and an great voiceover cast (Patrick Stewart, Kelsey Grammer..). After seeing it, all I can say is that the movie fails to deliver. I was very dissapointed. It feels like te movie is made for a very young audience - it got too "cartoony" throughout the movie. The human actors seem like they were taken out of a bad slapstick-comedy. Some of the animatronics were OK, but others (like in the closups of Old Major & the other pigs), wern't remotely believable and just didn't fit in among the live animals. The story was reasonably close the book as I remember it. But the movie wasn't able to get me emotionally attached to the "good" animals, so by the end of the movie, I really didn't care what happened. And as far as the ending goes, it's totally abrupt. There is a scene where Napolian appears to be in his greatest moment of power, and then the movie cuts away to "several seasons later, the system was breaking down, and we would be free again..." The ending like that made me think they had simply run out of production money! The picture and sound quality itself was decent, a little above average. There were some extra goodies on the DVD but after watching the movie I really didn't bother with them. I guess I was hoping they would steer this movie more towards an adult audience. For my $.02, I would suggest you skip this movie and read this wonderful book again.

Reading some of the other customer reviews, it seems this DVD runs the gamut of emotions for many viewers. Some liked it; while others felt that too many liberties were taken with the book. I recently showed this DVD to my Sophomore English class after reading the novella with them. I think my students probably would have rated this DVD higher than I did; however, there were far too many differences from the text for my liking.

For starters, the story is told from the perspective of Jesse, one of Mr. Jones's dogs. While this may not seem like a major flaw, I feel it overly inflates the importance of a minor character in the book. Secondly, while there is no nudity in the DVD, there is an implied sexual encounter between Mr. Jones and Mrs. Pilkington about 15 minutes into the movie. Mr. Jones finds Mrs. P in his bed; Mrs. P assures Mr. Jones that her husband is fast asleep; camera pans up to headboard; Mrs. P says "Oh, Mr. Jones" and then the headboard begins knocking. Some of my studetns did snicker at the scene; most were nonplussed. (In fact, an earlier scene were Old Major's carcass is being butchered elicited far more shock than this one.) The "sex scene" was not an issue with my class, as I'm sure most have seen far more suggestive things on regular TV. However, USE YOUR OWN DESCRETION. You may want to fast-forward scene. While I did not find the scene overly objectionable, it was yet another deviation from the text. Lastly, and more importantly, the DVD does alter the ending of the novella. Whereas the book ends with the pigs playing cards with the humans and everyone looks the same, the movie continues on with Jesse and the animals running away from the farm upon this discovery. Eventually the farm is bought by new owners (a young American family), and Jesse and her pups return. I feel the "happy Hollwood ending" runs counter to the spirit of the novella, as did many of my students.

On the positive side, the effects were (for the most part) rather clever. I think there was only one scene (Squealer painting "Animal Farm" on the front gate) that seemed hokey and cartoonish. This updating, by itself, overcame most of the flaws in the adaptation and is why I chose this version over the earlier cartoon one. I remember seeing the cartoon version when I was in high school 25 years ago; I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. (I feel the very fact that it IS a cartoon belittles the importance of Orwell's message. I mean, who takes a cartoon seriously?) The movie also does a good job showing how governments use the media to control public opinion. Particularly haunting was the black-and-white newsreel toward the end of the DVD which was highly reminiscent of Hitler's Nuremburg rallies. This particular scene is a microcosm of how I feel about the movie: While it is beautifully shot and imaginative, it is reminiscent of Hitler (not Stalin) and goes for far too long. Some editing and a more literal rendering of the book would have gone a long way in improving this movie.

Overall, this version is better than the earlier cartoon one. However, "better" in this case does not mean "good", just "OK".