Gutsycurene
Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.
Candida
It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.
jakmanuk99
I love the book and it may even be one of the best books I've ever read with complex characters and a interesting storyline that becomes even greater when you remember that it's a satire on the Russian Revolution. This captures none of that, focusing on Jessie (A character that plays no part except for giving birth to Napoleon's bodyguards) and while I don't like that, it is quite interesting as the book is told from the point of view of the animals. The ending is completely changed which also changes the whole meaning of the story that the government always becomes corrupt with the workers rebelling but soon becoming the same corrupt government that they had despised. The whole film feels rushed and wouldn't if they didn't dedicate around 60% of the film to the humans who have nothing interesting but to make fun of Mr Jones with their painful accents. There are so many moments where I actually burst out laughing at how badly made it is, that it's actually quite depressing. I was further shocked to learn that it had stars like Kelsey Grammar and Patrick Stewart in it! I bet they regret that now. The death of Boxer feels rushed to hell, it should be sad and disorientating, instead it's funny. I know it's going to be near impossible to capture the Orwellian feel to it, but they could have tried. This film is a joke to the film industry. Going with the whole metaphor, if this film was an animal, I'd put it down. Seeing the animals speak with the horrendously obvious CGI is excruciatingly painful and don't get me started on how bad the pigs look. To conclude, this film is awful. If you liked the book, avoid this film. If you loved the book, AVOID THIS FILM. The film's only good quality is that you can joke about it with friends
mcalester66
First of all, I am going to say that my opinion of the book - which is terrible - does not alter my opinion of the film. The film is too far from the book in my opinion. There are too many differences. The beginning of the film presents Farmer Jones as an extremely drunk looser, which he is. If this movie is intended for kids, then the creators don't have any kids. Within the first ten minutes, there is an implied sex scene, and countless frightening images. I got stuck watching this in a literature class. Don't bother watching it if you have the choice.No number of lines in this review can stress how boring and stupid this film was.
guenzeld
To me, the saddest thing about this dreadful film is the presence of genuinely fine actors like Paul Scofield and Peter Ustinov. What these artists saw in the script that would make them want to accept it is something I simply cannot understand. It is understandable that non-talents like Grammar and Stewart would wish to be in anything, but Messrs Socfield and Ustinov?Everything went wrong with this, from its surprisingly poor script, to charmless direction, the uninteresting and unhelpful music and camera-work that may work all right on a TV commercial for mouthwash but not in what is supposed to be a serious production. A woebegotten attempt and a farrago. I could not recommend it at all.
david-bacon
I actually started to like orwell watching this movie. I was still a bit young (14), but had always liked history, so the picture was appealing. When I watched it, the message was very clear and despite later I formulated my own ideas about communism, it showed me the difference about this system and a dictatorship disguised. Was a good adaptation and in my opinion, the end was a conclusion about what really happened in the real life. The fact that they go back to the human control is more like a trauma to what they remember about their "freedom" with Napoleon. People tend to run away from the more recent trauma, having short memory.
