Animal Farm (1954) User Reviews

Nice adaption of a seminal fable

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 26 May 2011]

George Orwell's novel 'Animal Farm' was a fable that worked as a bang-on critique of the Russian revolution and Stalinism. In it a group of mistreated farmyard animals rise up against their owner and overthrow him. They then briefly form a Utopian society that quickly deteriorates into something very similar to the old system that was in place before.

Different animals represent different people. The wise old pig Old Major represents Karl Marx and the beginning of communist teachings; Farmer Jones is Czar Nicholas II and represents the old regime; Napoleon and Snowball the pigs are respectively the ruthless Joseph Stalin and idealistic Leon Trotsky; the pack of dogs are the secret police and violent state enforcement; Boxer represents the hard working peasants; Benjamin, the wise but powerless individual; the sheep the unthinking masses. While Manor Farm itself is Russia and Animal Farm the Soviet Union.

The format of the fable works extremely well in illustrating the story of the formation of the USSR. This cartoon version of it is in the main a pretty impressive adaption. While the ending goes against the Dystopian one favoured by Orwell, it's not really surprising that it does this, although it's unfortunate. But it doesn't really damage the film very much as it's central idea remains intact. The animation itself is good enough, and even though there is a lot of narration I didn't consider this to be a problem. I thought that all things considered this was a good stab at an iconic bit of literature.

Still Relevant Animated Film -- Not For Kids

[maxlebow · 8/10 · 25 February 2006]

Animal Farm, based on a novel by George Orwell, is ostensibly about a group of animals who rebel against the drunken farmer who owns them, and abuses them. They begin running the farm themselves. Their revolution is corrupted into tyranny which eventually becomes worse than the human farmer's regime.

A not-so-veiled criticism of totalitarianism under Stalin, many events portrayed in the DVD correspond to real events that took place in the Soviet Union. However, the DVD may be understood as a critique of totalitarianism, no matter where or when it appears.

Maurice Denham, the Mel Blanc of England, performed the voices of all the animals in the film. It is worth seeing the DVD for that alone.

Orwell's political fable as 50s animation

[didi-5 · 8/10 · 25 January 2005]

Directed by Joy Batchelor and John Halas, and co-written by Batchelor from the renowned novel by George Orwell, this animated film benefits from a faithful rendering of the story and two talented voices - Gordon Heath narrates, while Maurice Denham does everything else (all the animals!).

The animals who were described in Orwell's text are all given cartoon form here - Boxer the horse, Napoleon the pig, the sheep, the chickens, and so on. The ending well-known from the book (where the pigs and humans join forces and you can no longer tell which is which) was changed for the film, but that's a small point when everything else is so accurate.

The atmosphere of the cartoon 'Animal Farm' is perfect - we see collusion, spying, killing, and a real sense of fear comes through as the animals' rules are eroded one by one by their chosen leaders, the pigs.

a warning

[Vincentiu · 15 December 2014]

for a viewer from East Europe, it is not exactly only a good adaptation. it is not just a cartoon. but support for memories. and a warning. the book of George Orwell is always a must re-read. but the movie - piece from the Cold War is little more important than only animation film. convincing, in clothes of children movie, it represents in large measure a bitter parable who has new nuances, special force, more perspectives about the dark frame of dictatorship. in its case, the message is more important than artistic virtues. because it remains a powerful warning. not a decent/admirable adaptation, not an old film. but an useful tool for discover and understand the past and, maybe, for transform the future as better script.

A Great Pity About The Ending

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 16 July 2010]

ANIMAL FARM is the famous allegory about the Soviet Union written by George Orwell . It's a timeless fable that has outlived Orwell , Stalin and communism itself which speaks of humanity's fondness of the tale of the state versus the individual. Strangely though this might be down of humanity's fondness of animals rather than its reverence of Orwell . One problem with the narrative is that if you know anything about the history of the USSR then its roots are a bit too obvious with Jones being the Czar , Snowball being Trotsky , Napoleon being Stalin etc

Christopher Hitchens wrote a legendary criticism n Michael Moore's FARENHEIT 9/11 in which he stated it is clearly unwise to quote Orwell when you're clearly out of your depth on the subject of moral equivalence . This is an ironic problem with Orwell's work . He's a popular author at primary Catholic schools with an agenda that Christianity = good and atheistic communism = bad . But is communism really atheist ? Surely it's a philosophy merely seeking to replace a godly religion with a secular one ? Is the misanthropic view that gives birth for a need towards a classless utopia any different from Christians believing in the original sin of humanity ? By a bitter irony lost upon both believers and communists Orwell himself stated that both Catholic and communists are alike in that an opponent can not be more honest and intelligent than themselves

This is the problem with the animated version of ANIMAL FARM . For the most part it follows Orwell's narrative to the exact letter , then for dubious reasons changes the entire ending for something quite different . The reason for this change remains unresolved . Some claim it was because the financier of the film was the CIA hence wanted a " non communist " ending and some claim a happy ending would have appealed to a mainstream audience . Whatever the reason it does spoil what was a relatively effective adaptation of the novella . Of course it might a prophetic ending where the proletarian animals overthrow the pigs and impose their own perpetual revolution on Manor Farm that involves continually purging its leadership but I doubt if even Mao Tse Tung had come up with that concept yet never mind George Orwell

A fine transfer of Orwell to the screen

[Varlaam · 9/10 · 13 February 1999]

I don't understand why critics in recent years have never warmed to "Animal Farm". They believe it's "disappointingly flat" (Leslie Halliwell) or "an illustrated study aid" (Time Out). I remember when I first saw this film a quarter of a century ago. I found the betrayal of Boxer, the horse, horrifying. The description, "an intellectual film, not an emotional one" (Time Out), cannot be reconciled with my own recollections. Are British critics simply holding a British film of a British novel up to standards they would not apply to a non-British production? The film already contains evidence of a Disney influence, from adorable ducklings to a musical score with echoes of Prokofieff's "Peter and the Wolf", and an expiating ending that's not in the book. Any more of that sort of thing and critics would have accused the film of losing all of the book's bite.

George Orwell wrote a fable about revolution betrayed, and laced it liberally with references to the Russian Revolution. Much of this dimension is still visible in the film. A wise pig, Old Major, proclaims the revolution before dying. Old Major is sort of a Marx figure, although, to me, he seems to be drawn to look like Churchill. Proclamation made, nothing happens. However Farmer Jones is drunk and the animals don't get their feed. The Tsar's mismanagement produced his revolution as well. Russian parallels continue. Counter-revolutionary farmers (capitalist states) attack Animal Farm but fail. One pig, Snowball (Trotsky), tries to spread revolution to other farms (world revolution), but is murdered by his associate, Napoleon (Stalin), who prefers to consolidate his power at home. The film also has Five Year Plans, industrialization programmes, forcible collectivization, showtrials with quick executions afterwards, and historical revisionism.

But I saw this film perhaps three times long before I understood anything much about the political parallels. I liked it as much then if not more so. Knowledge of that side does tend to turn the film into an intellectual experience, but viewers who have no prior exposure to the historical facts receive the raw emotional jolt which more politically astute critics maintain the film lacks.

Regardless of whether you know a lot about Russia and her Revolution, or nothing at all, Britain's first animated feature is a film with a strong story which adults and mature kids should find absorbing, maybe even "devastating", as The New York Times once claimed back in the days when Stalin was still lying warm in his grave, if not in anyone's heart.

As for a rating on "Animal Farm", the sheep say, "Four stars good, two stars b-a-a-a-d!"

A Powerful Cartoon

[caspian1978 · 7/10 · 19 November 2003]

Not to degrade Animal Farm by calling it a cartoon, I am amazed that it was even made into an animated film back in 1954. Even though the story is a popular book in most junior high schools, it is a tough story to take, especially the ending. In this version, the ending is given a re-make. Having more of a positive ending with hope, Animal Farm doesn't end as powerful as it does in its original written version. Still, it is one of very few cartoons that address important issues and leaves its audience with a number of powerful images.

Dealing with dictatorship, communist theory, military warlords, the democratic process and political theories, Animal Farm throws so much at the viewer / reader that it is still a highly acclaimed story. Whether it is suitable for a young audience, that is up to the individual viewer to decide.

Worthy of the novel.

[Weather_lord_7 · 10/10 · 21 November 2006]

Why it is that people call this rubbish and dumb, the world has yet to know. I thought it was one of the greatest (if not the darkest) animated film I've seen in my days. The movie stays true to the book written by George Orwell, except for the song and the ending, which I will not spoil for you.

For Britain's first animated feature, it seems to have made quite a success, well, almost. It seems that the CIA has taken over here, and well, I shouldn't go into detail. All I can say is this, a wonderful, dark, mature film. A word of warning though, this film is pretty dark and has some scenes of blood the kids might find scary. Overall, a good film.

*watches grimly as 0 to 1000 find this comment useful*

Animal Farm: Hard but great viewing

[Platypuschow · 7/10 · 18 September 2017]

I read George Orwells classic about 20yrs ago but was quite frankly devastated by it. For that reason I had no interest in watching any film adaptation but recently gave in.

Animal Farm is as relevant today as the day it was written and perhaps for that reason it is very difficult viewing.

For those unaware the entire story is an allegory for the events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union.

It tells the story of the overworked animals on a farm who turn on their human master and make it their own only to watch the same thing happen again when one of the pigs becomes the very thing they had revolted against.

The animation style is that of the early Disney cartoons, it's over the top wacky and charming. The trouble is even though the movie is heavily comical and jovial it has several very alarming scenes and a very unnerving under current throughout.

Animal Farm is great viewing and devastatingly relevant across the world,if you're reading this then you are almost certainly experiencing it whether an overworked animal or maybe even a pig.

I rate Animal Farm a tad low perhaps, not because of the quality of content but purely because it's so hard hitting and not in a good way.

The Good:

Charming animation style

In places very sweet

Extremely well written and narrated

Powerful social commentary

The Bad:

Very difficult viewing

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

The animators went out of their way to make every humans nose look ridiculous

Mankind can make a movie to reflect society and how downtrodden most are, but still won't acknowledge it enough to act

Entrusting film-making to intelligence agencies makes about as much sense as entrusting intelligence work to film-makers

[JamesHitchcock · 8/10 · 21 October 2016]

The British film industry during the thirties, forties and fifties had a fairly varied output, but there were a few genres in which we were unable, or unwilling, to compete with the Americans. Westerns, of course, were the most obvious example, but we also produced relatively few musicals and, until 1954, no feature-length cartoons, even though Disney had led the way in this area with "Snow White" in 1937 and a number of other countries had followed suit during the intervening period.

We eventually broke our duck with "Animal Farm" (and even here we needed some help from across the Atlantic. More of that later). George Orwell's story is too well-known to be set out in any detail. It is essentially an allegory of the Russian Revolution. Inspired by the teachings of a pig named Old Major (Karl Marx) the animals of Manor Farm (the Russian people) rise in revolt against their cruel, drunken and incompetent owner, Mr. Jones (the Tsar). Led by the pigs (the Bolshevik party) they drive Jones from the farm, which they rename "Animal Farm", and proceed to run it on the basis of Major's philosophy of "animalism" (communism). Dissensions arise, however, between the two leading pigs, Snowball (Trotsky) and Napoleon (Stalin). Eventually Snowball is driven out and killed and Napoleon becomes a barnyard dictator. (The allegory is somewhat simplified; there is, for example, no figure who corresponds precisely to Lenin).

The style of Halas and Batchelor's animation is quite different from that of a typical Disney cartoon. The animals are drawn in a stylised way, but are far less anthropomorphic than most Disney cartoon animals. Unlike, say, Micky Mouse or Goofy they walk on two legs, not four. The main difference is that their faces are stylised to make it easier for them to express emotions. Whereas Disney cartoons are typically dominated by vivid primary colours, Halas and Batchelor make use of a much more muted palette, especially in depicting the English countryside which forms the backdrop to the action. These differences probably reflect the fact that the film was primarily intended for an adult audience (who would understand the political references) rather than a family one. Indeed, some of the scenes could be quite upsetting for children.

The one major discrepancy between the film and Orwell's original story is the ending. Orwell's book ended with Napoleon and his fellow-pigs still firmly in control of the farm, having become virtually indistinguishable from the humans who still run the other farms in the district. In the film, however, the pigs' tyranny and hypocrisy so enrage their fellow-animals that another revolution takes place, led by Benjamin the donkey, and the pigs in their turn are driven from power. (In the book Benjamin is a much more passive, pessimistic character; he can be seen as representing that part of the Russian population which neither actively supported nor actively opposed the Soviet regime). The reason for the change is that the film was funded by the CIA for propaganda reasons; they wanted to see a film which not only criticised Soviet Communism (as Orwell had done) but also predicted its downfall (which he had not).

Orwell ended the book on a downbeat note for two reasons. Firstly, he wanted to make the point (as he was to do even more forcefully in "1984") that dictatorships, once established, are not easy to get rid of. Secondly, he was using the book to make a prediction about Stalinist Communism, which he believed would eventually become indistinguishable from capitalism. As regards the Soviet Union, in fact, Orwell was not quite right; it remained an essentially collectivist society rather than a capitalist one until the system collapsed in the early nineties. As regards the other communist superpower, however, Orwell was spot-on, even though Mao's revolution had not yet occurred at the time he wrote the book. In recent years China has transformed itself from a left-wing Marxist dictatorship into a right-wing capitalist one, without a revolution or even a change in the name of the ruling party.

Orwell had died before the film was made, so we cannot know what he would have thought of it. My guess is that he would have disliked the change in the ending, which he would have seen as a distortion of his message. Yet in other respects this is a very good film. It is visually attractive, the story is told fluently and clearly and Maurice Denham copes well with the task of providing the voices for all the in the film. I think that Orwell would have liked the film's version of Napoleon, a particularly well-developed character, reducing Stalin from a fearsome dictator to merely the biggest pig in the barnyard. Without the CIA's involvement I might have given the film a nine or even one of my rare tens. It just goes to show that entrusting film-making to intelligence agencies makes about as much sense as entrusting intelligence work to film-makers. 8/10

Remembering Animal Farm

[mariana_manso · 7/10 · 3 November 2005]

I saw Animal Farm, by the second time, two days ago. I must say that the first time I saw the film I was very young, certainly under 10. And I never forgot it. It was more than 20 years ago. So, this comment is intended to share my memories of the film, along with the feelings I felt when I remembered it. More like how a child can see the film.

I remember that I first saw it thinking it was just another cartoon movie with animals: nice pigs, nice ducks... But soon I was dealing with dark images and with an awful farmer, who represented mankind. I knew it was different than the other films I saw. Of course I didn't know, by then, who Geoge Orwell was, or what was the Russian revolution. All the politics in the film passed me by. But I was fully trapped by the atmosphere, at first admiring the union of the animals, then feeling sorry for the horse in the van, seeing how the animals were getting thiner, and being scared of the pig Napoleon, dressed in a suit, and his dogs. The conclusion is that what many people don't like about the end of the film was my good relief. At least I felt my tension disappear, because the evil of the pigs was destroyed. And it there was still hope in the future. I think that, even to a child, the film can "teach" values and feelings.

When I reviewed the film, I could see, of course, many more details and I could not forget the political part. But even then I was not shocked with the end. I will sort of write what was said in an extra, on the DVD: probably George Orwell would not like the end. But it kind of foretold what would happen in the future. We know now that the people managed to rebel against the communist regimes in most European countries. Finally, I must have a word to the music, which I found dark and hopeful, right according to the theme.

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

[ackstasis · 8/10 · 24 July 2008]

Eric Arthur Blair, who wrote under the pseudonym George Orwell (1903-1950), was undoubtedly one of literature's most insightful social and political commentators, and his unique brand of satire is most evident in his two famous novels, "Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)" and "Animal Farm (1945)." Cinema adaptations of the former, including Michael Anderson's 1956 film and Michael Radford's 1984 film, have been relatively competent, though none have yet to charm devoted Orwellians; Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil (1985),' while not a direct adaptation, arguably came the closest. "Animal Farm" proved equally problematic to translate to the screen. In the guise of a deliberately-straightforward children's fable, Orwell wrote a sharp and knowing satire of totalitarianism, particularly Stalinism, and the final result is obviously unsuitable for children. Stylistically, animation was clearly the most suitable medium for a cinema retelling of the story, but how does one tackle such mature and complex issues using a technique that is generally dismissed as children's fare? 'Animal Farm (1954)' has all the answers.

Manor Farm, despite the onset of spring, is struggling; it's drunken owner, Mr. Jones, has left the farm unproductive and its livestock ill-treated. One night, the venerable elderly pig Old Major calls a meeting in the barn, and he stresses the importance of revolution if they are to survive and prosper. Old Major dies shortly thereafter, but his ideals remain, and the farm animals band together to hound the drunken Mr. Jones from his farm once and for all. The most intelligent animals are, of course, the pigs, and a brave and idealistic pig named Snowball takes charge of the situation, decreeing that, in their new democratic society, all animals shall be considered equal. However, the dark and greedy Napoleon has secretly trained his own army of attack dogs, and he eventually unleashes them on Snowball, who is presumably mauled to death in the surrounding scrub. Napoleon steps forward as leader and dictator, and the other animals come to realise that their situation is now far worse than it had ever been.

Even by this brief synopsis, it's evident that young children should approach this film with caution. Like Martin Rosen's 'Watership Down (1978),' another marvellous animated film with mature themes, the story is purposefully presented in its most simplistic form, as a basic animal cartoon, so that we may easily interpret its ideas and extrapolate them into our notions of human society and nature. 'Animal Farm' was the first widely-released feature-length animated film produced in the United Kingdom, and elements of Disney, like the humorous little duckling, are quite noticeable, while still maintaining the generally-dark tone of the material. As an adaptation of Orwell's original novel, the film is largely very loyal. Having first read "Animal Farm" last year, my recollection of narrative details is broad, and so I was able to enjoy the adaptation without getting anxious over the most minor details, as is often prone to happen. The optimistic ending, of course, is the one major deviation from Orwell, but I'm relatively unbothered by it. In fact, I couldn't help thinking: which animal will next rise up to become Stalin?

Not a bad adaptation, could have been better

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 19 April 2015]

George Orwell's novel ANIMAL FARM has long been a favourite of mine, ever since I was forced to read it for English class in school. I admired its depth and simplicity, two things that don't necessarily combine very often. This 1954 animated film came out soon after the novel was released, and it has its moments but is a bit of a disappointment if you've read the book.

The animation is probably the best thing about it; ANIMAL FARM has a distinct look to it and the animals are all well drawn and complement each other nicely. I admire the viciousness of the production; the darkness of the book is well retained here with lots of gory mayhem. It's also an ultimately depressing production, which is as it should be. One thing I didn't like was the ponderous narration, constantly telling us what to think and feel; films which show instead of tell are always better.

The main problem with ANIMAL FARM is that the CIA co-financed the production and, unfortunately, interfered with the material. Thus the portrayal of Snowball is different to in the book; he's less sympathetic here. Also, for whatever reason, that ending is just wrong. It's not enough to spoil the movie, but it's no classic because of these changes.

A faithful adaption to Orwell's novel.. Except when it isn't.

[neenahhh · 5/10 · 28 July 2011]

"Animal Farm" is a story about how the animals in Manor Farm revolt against Mr. Jones- their owner. The animals have had enough of him and decided that they didn't want to serve humans anymore. The pigs of the farm leads the others barnyards animals a revolt against Mr. Jones. Together, all the animals fight against humans, in hopes for a better future. However, an unexpected tyranny occurs, led by one of their own kind.

First of, this is NOT a children's movie. It is very dark and touches upon some sticky topics. To be honest, this movie freaked me out. Well, the book did. Thinking about it, the movie felt very lacking for me. I don't think I would have understood the movie if I hadn't read the book first. If you really want to watch this film, I suggest maybe reading the book first.

I must say though, the movie was a very good summary of all the important parts in the book. However, I found that I missed the little details. I had wanted to see some characters, but was disappointed to see that they weren't included in the movie. For me, there felt to be no character/animal development. How sad. I also did not like the ending. Creative license or not, I still believe that they should have stuck to the book's original ending. The movie would have made more impact that way.

Viewed on: July 28, 2011

A good story of course and thus worth seeing but the narration-heavy delivery makes it more like an audio book than a film

[bob the moo · 2 April 2006]

Fed up with the treatment from farmer Jones, the animals of Manor Farm gather in a meeting to listen to Old Major tell them of his hopes for a socialist revolution to improve their lives. Sadly, mid-song, Old Major dies of a heart attack but by then his message had been passed on. The next morning Jones is met with resistance and driven off his own land and, when he returns with friends to take it back, a great battle ensues that the animals win. Thus begins the new, fairer farm where all animals are equal and everyone shares the work as well as having a share of the profits. However this equality soon starts to have exceptions as leaders rise up from within the ranks.

There is no doubting the value of the story or the intelligence of the source material and the decision of the film to stick closely to Orwell's book is where its strength comes from. I love the story and always have, it is well written, sharply judgemental and a cautionary tale that is rightly used heavily in schools. The socialist system rises up but soon some want more rights than others and soon the leaders of the rebellion start emulating the habits of Jones and the, once proud standards are gradually watered down. The broad characters are well written and, although they don't have any depth, they fulfil the requirements of the story telling.

The animation looks dated but given that it is now over 50 years old this is no real surprise, nor a problem. No, the problem with the film is the delivery. Heath is the narrator while Denham does the voices of all the animals; now this sounds like Denham will be carrying the majority of the film but in reality he has little to do because the film is mostly delivered in narration. This is all well and good but it does make the film feel like it is more an audio book with pictures rather than a film. As a result there isn't the emotional impact that there should have been and, although you feel sorry for the characters it is more a general feeling rather than a genuine care for the "people".

Many reviewers have commented on the ending and they are right to do so because if even an ending felt tacked on to produce a "happy" conclusion then it was this one. I understand that no producer wants to try and sell a negative product but the end of the book was fine as it was – it made a firm point and left a memorable impression whereas this one just feels wrong. Overall though it is a good film that is worth seeing due to the source material but the narrative approach lessens its value as a film and made me think that I should have just reread the book.

War, Death and Totalitarian regime.

[kristianaprenclava · 6/10 · 16 December 2022]

Recently I watched a critically acclaimed movie directed by John Stephenson and written by Alan Janes. Based on the 1945 novel of the same name by George Orwell, Animal Farm. The movie begins by showing a farm full of animals and how they are all mistreated and abused by the farm owner, Mr. Jones. The owner, Mister Jones, had found a liking for alcohol and left the farm in a miserable state as he was not taking care of it. Perhaps not feeding the animals and only using them for their products and the monetary worth he can get out of them. One night the oldest pig on the farm had made a speech addressing the farm animals about their current situation and how they should fight for their rights, making the animals hope and fight for equality and a better future. The morning after, when the animals started getting hungry and feeling neglected as always, they decided it was time to fight back and proceeded to break down the farm shop's doors to eat the crops within the farm shop. Alarmed, Mr. Jones had taken a whip to defend his crops, trying to scare them away, but they collectively fought him off. The animals had made Mr. Jones flee from his farm, they started jumping around with joy in celebration. Now the farm is under the animal control they made new regulations to ensure safety of the farm, to make sure the animals all are equal. But as time went on, and the animal farm grew, the pigs had gained more control, slowly but surely changing the rules, and then becoming like previous owners, making the farm animals feel neglected and used again.

The film made me think about power and how in the wrong hand, someone would use power selfishly and for their own gain. Perhaps how in the film, Mr. Jones and pig Napoleon, had both used their power selfishly, using the farm's occupants for their own selfish reasons, selling what they could to lift themselves out of poverty, whilst the animals on the farm worked tirelessly and were treated horribly yet remaining poor. This movie brings to mind current situations in the world, like what is happening in North Korea where one man has all the power and controls what happens within, leaving the average citizen to suffer in poverty whilst he can sit on his 'golden throne'.

I feel as if we can take this story and apply it to everyone's lives like many of George Orwell's works, where if power is not distributed effectively and the wrong misguided individual gains power they can make life intolerable for those around them. This doesn't only apply to massive roles such as a president or prime minister but can also apply to smaller roles such as a manager in a business.

In turn I enjoyed this movie as it made me think about the power struggles of the world and how they can be compared to the movie, and how these power struggles often follow the same path in the movie. Where one group does not like the rule of another and takes over just to become as equally bad as the previous group. I recommend watching the movie, it is an excellent thought provoking experience.

An underrated adaptation

[Rectangular_businessman · 9/10 · 17 April 2013]

Honestly, I just don't see why this great film keeps receiving so much unfair criticism. It is true that that it does change the ending of the book in which it was inspired, but for most part, it very respectful for its source material, keeping all the dark elements and themes from the novel.

In many ways, "Animal Farm" managed to be away too ahead of its time, being much mature than other animated films produced in the same decade. Even when the animation wasn't as polished as the Disney classics, it was reasonably well made, with appealing designs and a good level of quality from beginning to end.

But it was the marvelous plot from this movie what made "Animal Farm" a worth-watching experience. This movie was made in a time when animation was considered a medium that only kids could enjoy (A sad misconception which unfortunately still exist in the present) and yet, it managed to be just as complex and interesting like novel, without changing the plot in order to make it much more "family friendly" (Now, if you want to see a terrible desecration of Orwell's work watch the terrible "Animal Farm" live-action TV movie from 1999, which tried to turn the story into a "Babe" clone. Yes, it was that bad.)

"Animal Farm" is simply one of the most underrated animated films ever made, being a brave effort to show the possibilities that the medium had, predating the existence of masterpieces like "Watership Down" and "The Plague Dogs". I think that this movie deserves much more appreciation and recognition from viewers.

Great adaptation, sans the ending

[christopherborne · 8/10 · 1 October 2006]

I love the animation style. It's so early Loony Toons. This film, unlike the 1999 film, realizes that the novel is an allegory. That is, one story is being told on the surface (Snowball and Neopolean), but another is being told below the surface (Trotsky and Stalin). As such, all of the film can be interpreted in those two ways. The ending, although not the same one from the back, is very near what happened to the actual Soviet Union. Considering this film was made in 1954, that's damn good. Of the two film versions of Animal Farm, this is the best, by far. The voice acting is good (and anonymous, unlike in the 1999 film). The book was a story of rebellion, revolt, and revolution betrayed but told in the manner of a children's novel. THe film is a story of rebellion, revolt, and revolution betrayed, shown in the manner of a children's cartoon. That alone makes this a good version. Fans of the novel should be pleased with this version, despite the ending change.

Worth watching

[ragweedfarmer · 7/10 · 1 June 2006]

I think the 1999 version was better myself, but this version is well worth watching. Of course the theme of the movie is the same as the book by George Orwell, a political message against communism. Because of this it has a rather brutal theme and I would not recommend this for small children.

My copy was made by Digiview and sold for $1.00 at WalMart. Well worth the buck.

In the movie a drunken tyrant farmer loses control of his farm when the animals revolt and take over. A benevolent pig, Major, leads the revolt and eventually pigs become the ruling class. The revolution is a success at first. Oppressed animals on other farms have their own revolutions too. As time passes corrupt, evil, pigs take over and the other animals end up more oppressed than ever.

Brutally honest and educational...

[Cephyran · 8/10 · 13 September 2004]

I saw this film in my senior Social studies class. It was intended to create a paradigm of our history and how politics can turn ugly.

It did the job very well. If nothing else can effectively demonstrate the failures of our past political systems, it is this film. The parallels drawn between past governments is brutally honest, and the outright indication of the evils of communism and such. This is not so much a movie for family or children; it is best to be utilized as an educational tool. I think it would be a critical work in any social studies program. I also think it's unusual that when the film was released, it got an x-rating for the mature subject matter. Better you learn this kind of thing sooner, and not contribute to repeating the mistakes of the past.

A decent adaptation of Orwell's work.

[Java_Joe · 7/10 · 19 May 2019]

George Orwell wrote several influential books back in the day. Possibly the best known of these is "1984". It's a book that most people have claimed to have read but when pressed on it they don't really know the story and generally miss the message. Part of this reason is that George Orwell was a satirist. Not necessarily the "ha ha" kind of satirist but one that instead took existing social norms and well known events and spoke about them in a satirical way. Such as what he did with "Animal Farm".

It is, at it's heart, a satire of the Russian Revolution, communism and the totalitarian system that it imposed. Many characters are representative of actual individuals involved in the revolution while others are more subjective concepts. For example Old Major is seen as a combination of Lenin and Karl Marx, Snowball is obviously a stand in for Trotsky and Napoleon is Stalin. Other characters like Squealer could be seen as Prada, the propaganda newspaper of the regime, Mollie the cow could be seen as the bourgeoisie and Boxer the horse as the Stakhanovite movement.

The story follows the revolution as the animals, tired of the conditions on the farm and how farmer Jones mistreats them, rise up against him and take over the farm for themselves. At the start everything is great. The animals all work together to achieve their goals, they all share equally in the harvest and everything is put to a vote. But like in all movements one person, or pig in this case, decide that they need to be in charge. Soon the pigs are running the farm, trading with the outside world for resources they can't get themselves and punishing those who stand up against them with swift and brutal violence.

The animation is decent as is the voice cast. It's nothing award winning but then this isn't exactly Disney here. It's definitely a product of it's time.

For a more overt message there was a puppet / stop motion film made in 1999 which is even more obviously mirroring the revolution. The voice cast is much better known and doesn't have the optimistic happy ending that this movie does.

I would recommend this to anybody who's read the novel or wants an overview of the Russian Revolution without wanting to actually learn the names and events that took place.

A masterpiece! More dark than light. Not for children.

[Growlyted · 9/10 · 16 January 2007]

Just watched this masterpiece again! It's a wonderful blend of dark & light. The ending might differ from the source material, but in the film it works. The first half contains some lighter moments like the antics of a cute duckling & animals improvising their own style of farm work. Don't be fooled though. This isn't for children. It contains several scenes of violence, both on screen & off, that young or sensitive children would find upsetting. I'm surprised at the Universal rating. It should be PG at least. The artwork is impressive & the narration, voice work & music is superb. The revolution is powerfully conveyed by the animals' song. Of course the plot is simplified from the text & only a few characters speak, but the transfer is a success. One of Britain's finest & an important work. 10/10

Great adaptation for those who don't like to read.

[amandaavetisjana · 7/10 · 16 December 2022]

This animated movie is based on George Orwell's written book classic "Animal Farm".

A short synopsis of the story: A farm owned by an unfriendly and aggressive farmer Mr. Jones. The oldest farm animal, a boar named Major who's basically on his deathbed, initiates an animal revolution and takes over the farm. The reason why the revolution was made is to stop mass labor and production for humans and build a strong community accepting all kinds of animals making it a safe and peaceful circle. Throughout the story, it was revealed that not all animals on the farm had the same intentions of building a safe community; rather , it was something far more miscellaneous and destructive for their farm's future.

This movie was directed by Joy Batchelor and John Halas. It premiered in New York at the chic Paris theater, in December 1954.

This movie is one hour and twelve minutes long and covers pretty much everything that has happened in Orwell's novel. Though there were some changes made in the movie which are pretty noticeable if you have read the original workpiece. For example, there were a few characters missing from the movie. Mare named Clover who was Boxer's companion, Mollie a white mare who escaped the farm embracing life with humans, and Mr. Jones' wife Mrs. Jones who played a really minor role at the start of the novel. Even though these three characters weren't mentioned or shown throughout the movie it didn't change the actual pace of the story. Because of the three missing characters from the story the movie was shorter.

In my opinion, this movie is a pretty good adaptation of Orwell's novel if you're not way too keen on reading books.

Storyline-wise, it was almost the same though some parts were overly violent. Showing lots of alcohol abuse and aggressive behavior, as well as animal cruelty. Can't forget to mention how obnoxiously loud and scary it was sometimes. This could make this movie not suitable for kids under the age of ten or thirteen since it could lead to distress.

The quality of this movie is surprisingly good for being sixty-eight years old. The animation is smooth and well-made. The art style is really pleasant and the character design was very fitting to the actual character description in the novel. The voice actor for the movie narrator was Gordon Heath from the US. He did a very good job, his speech was clear and sound, and easily understandable. The music was written by Mátyás Seiber, a British composer born in

Hungary. The songs and sound effects were well-fitting for all of the scenes in the movie. The animal sound effects were especially great and sounded quite real.

Overall this movie was well made and done well as an adaptation using the actual lines from the novel as references. This could be a definite lifesaver for those who don't enjoy reading books or if you are having a hard time imagining what the characters and the scene look like. Anyhow it could be more suitable for adults or an older audience than the novel itself.

CIA propaganda! Read the book instead!

[wiseone2147 · 1/10 · 20 June 2006]

I first saw this in ninth grade English after we read the novel. We all saw that things were changed, but at the time my classmates, teacher, and I assumed it was just Hollywood trying to tack on a "Happy Ending." A few years later I'm in college doing research for a paper on Orwell and I happen to stumble upon articles from the New York Times and other places talking about how it was the CIA who bought the rights from Orwell widow and changed it around to make better propaganda. Just look at the trivia section! The CIA also funded a BBC production of 1984 where they deliberately omitted all of Orwell's criticisms of capitalism and changed the ending in a similar fashion to what they changed in Animal Farm. I know this sounds like tin foil hat stuff, but it's documented. So unless you're interested in studying cold war propaganda, stay away from this movie, and if you haven't already go read Animal Farm and 1984. It's available in every library so you don't even have to pay for it.

FASCINATING

[KatMiss · 19 May 2001]

"Animal Farm" doesn't seem like a candidate for animation, but after seeing the lackluster live-action feature last year, this animated British film looks better and better each time I view it.

Oh, I've heard the complaints about it not being wholly faithful to the source material. I'm going to apply the same defense here that I gave to "Gulliver's Travels": the film is the last place to look for accuracy. A wholly faithful adaptation would have no doubt turned everyone off, but what they have left behind is fascinating: despite an upbeat ending, the flavor of the novel remains intact. How many films can you say that about? The stinging satire is there, the political parallels are there, but a certain entertainment value is there that wasn't in the novel.

The ultimate message of the film leaves the viewer somewhat sad, according to my experience. But that's a good thing, I think. The film was animated by the British animator John Halas, whose short subject "The Christmas Visitor" is widely available on public domain but hardly seen. He retains much of the same style as he did in his earlier short and makes a strong and honorable film.

The box and ads say "Not for children." I think enlightened children will enjoy this film on one level and adults will enjoy it on an entirely different one.

If there's one thing wrong with this film, it's the ending. Orwell wrote an ending that was biting and necessary. By giving the film an upbeat ending, it somewhat undermines a first rate film. But I can't ignore the power of the previous 73 minutes, so I'm still recommending it.

***1/2 out of 4 stars