That was an excellent one.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Animal Farm, directed by John Stephenson, and released in 1999, was based on a book called Animal Farm by George Orwell. Animal Farm, the film, is about book written to describe or set an example of Socialism and Communism. In the beginning of the book, Old Major, the old pig, begins the idea of a rebellion, and dies peacefully later. In the movie, Old Major, voiced by Peter Ustinov, after spreading news of the rebellion is shot by Farmer Jones, acted by Jer O'Leary. Throughout the movie and book, many evils are faced and in the ending of the book, the pigs basically turn into men and the animals are faced with slavery. In the movie, it ends when Clover, Jessie, and several of the other animals run away and come back after Napoleon, voiced by Patrick Stewart, the main antagonist, dies. Throughout the movie, there are multiple life changing choices made by the pigs to further confuse and take advantage of the stupid animals. Most of the plot follows the book, but there are quite a few additions. Besides the major ending change, the biggest and worst change was the "relationship" between Mr. Jones and Mrs. Pilkington. This was added very early on when Mr. Pilkington and Mr. Jones have a "get together" which ends up with Mr. Pilkington getting very drunk and falling asleep. Later, when Mr. Jones goes to his room, Mrs. Pilkington is in his bed. An extremely unnecessary, disturbing, and pointless sexual encounter ensues. This was very wrong to add considering it nearly ruins a film on a very powerful book. Another example is that Old Major is not shot, nor is his skull placed on display. Most importantly, the endings of the book and movie are drastically different considering the fact that the book ends very sadly, and the movie ends with hope. Also, the "traitors" who helped Snowball weren't hung, they had their throats ripped out. It's quite different. Even though that would have been very gory, it doesn't follow the book. Another example is when the pigs used the TV as a distraction and a way to film commercials instead of meetings. This is completely illogical even if it did happen in the book. Would a barn really have electric outlets? Or would pigs know how to film commercials, add music, and captions, and then put them on a TV? No, of course not. They don't even have thumbs. This was clearly just another badly thought out addition to the movie. The movie would have been better off sticking to the books plot and actual themes. Overall, Animal Farm, the film did not stick to the books plot, and added illogical, and even sexual content to the film which distracted and even ruined the books focus on Communism and Socialism. Animal Farm actors and actresses all acted very well, and the voiceover's sounded on top and matched the animal animation. The film quality was a bit blurry, but for a 1999 film it was decent. The animal mouth movements were cheesy, but effective.

The movie is great... yes it extended the story a bit and updated it a bit so as to extend the allorgy to today's Communist countries. But I think, if Eric Arthur Blair was living today, he would have done the same. It was still true to the book and the original message (as opposed to the 50's movie which sucked).Oh and fables have ALWAYS been regarded as being made for children when in reality they where NEVER made for children - it's just that some adults are too stupid to get what it is really about. So, no this is definitely not for children - well at least children should not be regarded as the target audience.Besides, I love Patrick Stewart and Peter Ustinov.

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.

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.