Animal Farm Review: A Made-For-Kids Movie That Completely Betrays Its Source Material

by

Given its impressive voice cast and the enduring popularity of the original book, this film seemed like a guaranteed success. That’s why it’s so surprising that it fails in almost every way, ultimately misrepresenting the core message of George Orwell’s 1945 novel. Andy Serkis’ animated adaptation of Animal Farm started receiving criticism even before its release last December. While some viewers questioned the animation style, suggesting it looked artificially generated, the biggest issue was with the way the story was handled.

The trailer’s animation style and overall tone suggested this version of Animal Farm is aimed at a surprisingly young audience. While the book has been used in middle school classrooms for years – despite being challenged or banned at times – the new adaptation’s reliance on childish humor and exaggerated scenes makes it seem geared toward even younger viewers.

Right from the start, this new adaptation of Animal Farm misses the point. Orwell’s classic story, while using animals, is a thoughtful and complex examination of how revolutions can unintentionally lead to oppressive rule, even with good intentions. It’s far too serious for a simple children’s movie. A proper film version should show how a government, even one that seems free, can slowly take complete control and convince people to give up their power. Instead, this disappointing adaptation focuses on a celebrity pig, NaPoPo, who wears flashy jewelry and becomes a shallow, comical figure.

Animal Farm Fundamentally Misunderstands Its Source Material

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is closely based on the events of the Russian Revolution. In 1917, the Russian Czar was overthrown, and he and his entire family were later killed in 1918. This uprising, intended to create a better society, eventually led to the rise of Vladimir Lenin and then Joseph Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union. In the story, the pigs represent these Soviet leaders and create “Animal Farm” to escape the harsh treatment and exploitation they faced from human farmers.

The animals overthrow the farmer and create their own government, based on seven principles like equality and a ban on killing. These rules also cover seemingly minor things, such as forbidding animals from wearing clothes or drinking alcohol. However, the pig leader, Napoleon, gradually changes these rules to benefit himself, eventually breaking them completely by wearing clothes and walking upright. He then uses violence and intimidation, even executing animals who disagree with him – and no one, not even young pigs, is safe.

The book concludes with a disturbing scene: the pigs, now ruling over everything, are sharing a meal with humans, and the two groups have become impossible to tell apart. Many people doubted a children’s animated movie could capture the book’s complex themes, and this film fails to do so. However, the issues go deeper than simply omitting difficult scenes like the pig executions or the book’s bleak ending. The changes made by the filmmakers have completely distorted the original story and its intended message.

Instead of offering a thoughtful examination of dictatorship and how it takes hold, Animal Farm takes the easy way out, simply stating that power corrupts. It then reinforces this message by having Napoleon (Seth Rogen) explicitly say those words – a heavy-handed and unconvincing approach. The film doesn’t actually show how power corrupts; it just tells us.

This adaptation of Animal Farm offers a different take on Napoleon. Instead of portraying him as a power-hungry tyrant who twists ideals of freedom and equality, it suggests he’s corrupted by the humans. The main antagonist, Freida Pilkington (played by Glenn Close), is based on the book’s easygoing farmer, Mr. Pilkington, but is reimagined with modern trappings like sports cars and cosmetic surgery. This change hints at the film’s message, but ultimately, it’s the core problem: the movie sacrifices the book’s deep meaning for a predictable and rather dull critique of contemporary society.

The movie has a surprisingly strict moral tone, even using the phrase “naughty juice” instead of “alcohol,” which feels awkward for adult viewers. Strangely, while trying to make the story cleaner, it also adds unnecessary subplots, like a romance between Lucky and Puff – characters who aren’t in the original story. Lucky clearly feels like he was added to appeal to younger audiences, which makes the added romance even more confusing.

Okay, so if you’re familiar with Animal Farm, the four young pigs who dare to protest Napoleon and meet a grim end? That’s basically the fate of these little piglets, but the movie really softens the blow. Instead of a brutal purge, we get a super-sweet, almost saccharine ending about the power of teamwork and true freedom. Honestly, it felt a little preachy. And speaking of avoiding the harsh realities, there’s no actual battle, and definitely no on-screen executions. The closest we get to anything dark is when Boxer is hauled away in a helicopter with “fine glue” painted on the side – seriously, the filmmakers didn’t trust us to connect the dots ourselves?

The most troubling part of the film is an image in the credits that portrays protesters as pigs, suggesting they are the source of the issues. Ultimately, Serkis’ Animal Farm doesn’t ask the thought-provoking questions Orwell intended. Instead, it poses a different question: What happens when a lavishly animated adaptation of a classic novel, featuring a star-studded cast, misreads its audience, ignores the story’s 80-year-old message, and delivers a pointless and unhelpful narrative? It appears some adaptations are simply not as good as others.

Read More

2026-04-22 07:11