La fattoria degli animali

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.