IMDb रेटिंग
6.0/10
6.8 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंThe animals of a farm successfully revolt against its human owner, only to slide into a more brutal tyranny amongst themselves.The animals of a farm successfully revolt against its human owner, only to slide into a more brutal tyranny amongst themselves.The animals of a farm successfully revolt against its human owner, only to slide into a more brutal tyranny amongst themselves.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- 1 प्राइमटाइम एमी के लिए नामांकित
- 2 जीत और कुल 5 नामांकन
Kelsey Grammer
- Snowball
- (वॉइस)
Julia Ormond
- Jessie
- (वॉइस)
Paul Scofield
- Boxer
- (वॉइस)
Patrick Stewart
- Napoleon
- (वॉइस)
Peter Ustinov
- Old Major
- (वॉइस)
Charles Dale
- Moses
- (वॉइस)
- (as Charlie Dale)
- …
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाIn a revised first draft of the script, co-Writer Martyn Burke had Jessie set to be a six-month-old male Border Collie. This idea was later dropped, and Jessie was made an adult female instead, to give the audiences more sympathy for the main character.
- गूफ़When the laws painted on the side of the barn are read for the first time, in the close-up shots some of them are already in the altered forms they take later in the movie.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Secrets and Mysteries of Animal Farm (1999)
- साउंडट्रैकBeasts of the World
Written by Richard Harvey
Performed by Peter Ustinov, Kelsey Grammer, Patrick Stewart, Ian Holm & Cast
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Колгосп тварин
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $2,30,00,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 31 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.33 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें