ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Irishchatter I mean, there are lots of scenes that involve betrayal, death, alcoholism, violence, politics, leadership and God knows, how many were involved in this film! The end part with the pigs wearing suits and are on their hind legs, reminds me of politics we are facing today with Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump going for an election in order to become the leader of state! The pigs in this film do represent this very well as politics is nothing but corruption. I couldn't believe that pig brought up those 7 puppies up when their mother is killed by the farmer, into becoming his dangerous bodyguards. It's very upsetting that they were properly "trained" as well behaved dogs. Then like, they are killed by the farm animals that were slaved and betrayed by the pig. Thank god we didn't see any blood or guts in the ending. However, I would say that was also probably the saddest part of the story also. I would suggest sensitive dog lovers not to see this film.Even though if I showed this to a child, they would be bored already but at the same time, it's best not to because of its sad theme around it. They'd even be very scared of the farmer too and by god, as an adult, I was a little frightened of him whenever he appeared!A good movie, it's nice that it was different but it does have anger and sadness mixed with it. Animal lovers & parents, all I can say is take caution before watching this!

James Hitchcock 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

Angels_Review This is done based on the actual book 'Animal Farm' by George Orwell that pretty much shows the ideas of Communism and why it doesn't really work. It starts out with a farmer who was actually down on his luck and treated the animals a bit poorly in his drunken state. A rather old pig pretty much makes the idea that he wants an Animal Farm for animals and by animals all working together for the greater good. But when he passes away, other pigs come up with ways that other animals aren't equal. It shows that no matter what, power hungry people will try to take over even something that was made for the greater good.The animation is actually not that bad for a 'propaganda film' and is done much the same way many other cartoons were created, although it's so not for children. It's not something children would be able to understand at all, so the show takes a rather dark turn. The story goes from brighter shades to a darker more saturated color when things turn for the worse. It keeps the tension rather high and doesn't give much for the funniness in normal cartoons. Even though the animation isn't bad, there are some problems seeing as this was done by hand back on cells. Some things feel like they aren't right and some colorings don't stay consistent.The voices work perfectly for the characters and show authority when needed. Again, they are not made for comedic affect since this isn't a funny topic.

david-sarkies This is an animated film based upon the book by George Orwell about a group of animals who revolt against the owner of the farm, throw him out, and then set up their own commune, complete with a constitution. This is one of those books that I never expected there to be a film made of it, however they have, and this particular one, despite the upbeat ending, is quite a good adaptation. Most of the film is narrated, though there are the occasional spoken parts, but they are very minor. It appears that the filmmakers have attempted to retain the nature of the animals.A number of people have suggested that this is an allegorical look at the Russian revolution and the establishment of the Soviet state. They have even suggested that a number of the characters in the novel are similar to persons within the Soviet hierarchy, and then generally point to Sunshine being Trotsky and Napoleon being Stalin. However I am inclined to disagree.The reason for this is that I have a feeling that there is a double allegory here. The reason I say that is because while the reader, who is versed in early 20th Century history, is going to immediately think Soviet Russia, when he reads the book, I have a feeling that Orwell was looking even further back when writing this novel. I do not think that he was writing about one particular revolution, but revolutions in general, and how in many, if not all cases, they end up going full circle. Russia is a prime example of this, which is why we keep on thinking of Russia when reading this book. The second revolution of 1917 installed the Bolshevik government, and after a period of war where the capitalists attempted to, but failed, to overthrow the Bolshevik government, the new rulers set about establishing a communist paradise. However that failed, and after Lenin's death, Stalin maneuvered himself into a position of power, and then proceeded to eliminate his rivals. Thus, but 1929 Stalin was in complete control of the country and Russia had returned to an autocratic state.However, I would also point to over revolutions, not just the Chinese revolution which installed a communist government in China, but also the American and French revolutions. The reason I say that is because there is a clear focus on a constitution in this book, and when I think of constitutions, I immediately think of the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. I will focus on the French revolution here.I do not think it is any accident that Orwell chose Napoleon to be the name of the antagonist in his story. In one way it represents Stalin, but in another way it represents his namesake, Emperor Napoleon of France. I do not believe Napoleon was anywhere near as much of a butcher as Stalin, but his autocratic rule in France is a clear indicator of what Orwell was on about. The French aristocracy was overthrown and executed. Then the allies of the aristocracy declared war against France. As a result, a government was formed to fight the war, and due to this war this new, democratically elected government became ever more autocratic. However, they were overthrown in 1795, and replaced by a more moderate government, which then resulted in the rise of Napoleon, who claimed the title of Emperor of France in 1801.I could go on to the American system, but I do not believe I have enough space to continue. I guess what Orwell is demonstrating here is that revolutions do not necessarily ever turn out the way we want them to, and in the end, all that happens is that one autocratic government is replaced by a new autocratic government. However, I still got the feeling that Napoleon (in the film) reminded me a lot of Winston Churchill.