{"id":764798,"date":"2026-05-01T00:52:24","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T00:52:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/764798\/"},"modified":"2026-05-01T00:52:24","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T00:52:24","slug":"animal-farm-review-andy-serkis-woefully-misunderstands-orwell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/764798\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Animal Farm’ Review: Andy Serkis Woefully Misunderstands Orwell"},"content":{"rendered":"

That\u2019s one small setback for the legendary George Orwell<\/a>. One giant leap for actor\/director Andy Serkis<\/a>\u2019 baffling use of free will. A passion project more than 15 years in the making, Serkis\u2019 animated new film<\/a> take on Orwell\u2019s revolutionary \u201cAnimal Farm<\/a>\u201d is just now hitting theaters in the U.S. \u2014\u00a0but it might as well have been made on the Moon.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This bizarre miscalculation isn\u2019t a cynical IP cash-in, but it is something stranger and ultimately more dispiriting from \u201cThe Lord of the Rings\u201d icon<\/a>. A deeply felt interpretation of a historic fictional work, Serkis\u2019 \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d seems to have lost its way somewhere between reverence and reinvention over the past decade. It\u2019s not the byproduct of a director who misunderstands Orwell\u2019s anti-fascist fable, so much as the result of an ambitious filmmaker letting this text\u2019s power warp in his hands.<\/p>\n

\"Pavel<\/a> \"THE<\/a> <\/p>\n

For a pioneering English thespian, whose career has been largely defined by a character consumed with obsession, this particular project carries an unintended symbolism. Whatever Serkis intended to do as a storyteller here, the movie he directed plays more like a misguided concept kept in a death-grip well after its execution had spiraled out of control. Even considered generously, watching Serkis\u2019 \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d feels like brain surgery \u2014\u00a0possibly performed by a sheep in the basement of an abandoned AMC.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"ANIMAL\u2018Animal Farm\u2019 (2026)Courtesy Everett Collection<\/p>\n

When a na\u00efve piglet named Lucky (Gaten Matarazzo) rises to farmhouse leadership alongside the cunning boar Napoleon (Seth Rogen), the revolution sparked by their human farmer\u2019s bankruptcy in the film<\/a>\u2018s first act takes a turn for the fascist worse. Lucky is forced to watch as the utopia he was promised crumbles under the weight of corruption. That collapse is spurred not just by Napoleon, but also outside pressure from the human-run Pilkington Corporation, intent on reclaiming the freedom that these precious cartoon animals just seized.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a disorienting, intermittently grotesque experience that crescendos into a finale that swaps Orwellian dread for a Marvel-ish spectacle (no doubt a side effect of past partnerships between Disney and Serkis\u2019 Imaginarium Studios). The structural problems reveal themselves early, as the revolution that defined Orwell\u2019s novella is dispatched by minute 6. By minute 46, the animals are no longer equal, and that leaves nearly half the film left to fill with new material. This includes an extended corporate war arc, and metaphor for dopamine consumption, that bloats the length while draining allegorical clarity.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"ANIMAL\u2018Animal Farm\u2019 (2026)Courtesy Everett Collection<\/p>\n

The issue isn\u2019t the narrative expansion itself, but what the changes reveal about the team behind them. The script, credited to screenwriter Nicholas Stoller (\u201cForgetting Sarah Marshall\u201d), fundamentally confuses what \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d was designed by Orwell to do as a work of literary journalism. <\/p>\n

In his 1946 essay \u201cWhy I Write,\u201d<\/a> Orwell explained that his storytelling was never meant to drift into abstraction or polite ambiguity, but to instead confront oppression with intent. He noted then, \u201cThe opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.\u201d That guiding principle, along with Orwell\u2019s stated desire to \u201cmake political writing into an art\u201d in the same piece, underscores how deliberate and pointed the author felt \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d was meant to be.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But in an essay sent to critics<\/a>, director Serkis describes his version as having \u201cno ideology,\u201d instead promoting a parable with mass appeal that he said was meant to apply in any context. It\u2019s a well-intentioned idea in terms of universality, but also the film\u2019s fatal flaw. Orwell\u2019s work doesn\u2019t endure because it is ideologically blank. It endures because it is both undeniably compelling and unafraid to be precise. More fundamentally, as a matter of genre, the \u201cfable\u201d is not something that can mean anything to anyone \u2014 but rather, a story that communicates so clearly it is understood everywhere.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"ANIMAL\u2018Animal Farm\u2019 (2026)Courtesy Everett Collection<\/p>\n

Sanding that motivation down into a more kid-friendly and open-ended spectacle, this adaptation doesn\u2019t broaden Orwell\u2019s message so much as empty it. That mistranslation is most visible in its tonal incoherence. The introduction of new younger characters, presumably designed to help guide children through Stoller\u2019s already simplified narrative, signals a desire for intergenerational accessibility. But Serkis\u2019 sweetly queasy film can\u2019t reconcile with the brutality of Orwell\u2019s original writing. A gag that reframes a slaughterhouse as a \u201claughter house\u201d turns one of the book\u2019s most chilling ideas into cute wordplay, and undercuts the stakes before they are driven.<\/p>\n

\"ANIMAL\u2018Animal Farm\u2019 (2026)Courtesy Everett Collection<\/p>\n

The humor only grows more erratic and unpleasant from there. Fart jokes, an \u201cOld McDonald\u201d rap, and dialogue like \u201cglue de gras\u201d (used to describe the fate of Buster, a hard-working horse voiced by Woody Harrelson) collide with scenes of exploitation and authoritarian control. The story is only \u201cupdated\u201d for 2026 in the sense that every totalitarian pig in this thing wears a Silicon Valley-type hoodie. And watching Minion-esque farm animals ride around on hoverboards and play beer pong creates the uncanny sensation of watching something that feels like A.I. slop,\u00a0even as its authors proclaim years of human effort.<\/p>\n

At times, the tonal clash introduced by those pops of ultra-modernity borders on absurdism. But a sharper satirical movie never breaks through, and in the end, \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d feels caught between impulses. It\u2019s unsure whether it wants to provoke, entertain, or simply get away with existing \u2014\u00a0and its star-studded voice cast spoils in a similar way. A lineup that includes Glenn Close, Kieran Culkin, Laverne Cox, Kathleen Turner, Jim Parsons, and more should be an asset. But instead, for \u201cAnimal Farm,\u201d they blur into a sort of bleating celebrity noise.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"ANIMAL\u2018Animal Farm\u2019 (2026)Courtesy Everett Collection<\/p>\n

Close is saddled with an overextended subplot as the film\u2019s main human antagonist, who adds semi-stylish layers without much meaning. And meanwhile, Rogen\u2019s Napoleon gestures toward contemporary political caricature,\u00a0without ever fully calling out Trump. The result leaves nearly every performer fumbling for traction in Serkis and Stoller\u2019s muddy-yet-gutless cinematic sty. That sense of aimless moral drift seems to have inspired many of their most baffling choices.<\/p>\n

The climactic credits sequence for \u201cAnimal Farm,\u201d layering painterly images of pigs reenacting real human conflicts (from the French Revolution to World War I) pushes the overextended allegory to a feverish level of insulting confusion. The dagger comes to an insufferable point in a final post-credits gag that directs viewers to a pay-it-forward initiative via a literal QR code. Released regionally by Angel Studios,\u00a0widely known for conservative and Christian content, the movie\u2019s last moment is framed as partisan generosity. But after the catastrophe that precedes it, the moment feels like passing around a collection plate at a funeral.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"ANIMAL\u2018Animal Farm\u2019 (2026)Courtesy Everett Collection<\/p>\n

For better or worse, that disconnect between intention and outcome is what makes the odor of this \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d linger. Serkis clearly reveres Orwell. His accompanying essay to critics, dense with biographical detail and (possibly misapplied) ideological framing, suggests an admiring artist who understands the challenge he attempted. And yet, Serkis\u2019 \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d itself reflects a shameful reluctance to commit to the courageousness that defined Orwell\u2019s life.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

At a moment when media literacy feels increasingly fragile worldwide<\/a>, that hesitation from someone as beloved as Serkis matters. \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d wasn\u2019t written to invite interpretation. It was penned to expose the mechanics of corruption at a point in time when Orwell believed the issue of fascism was of the utmost urgency. To flatten that into a more palatable, PG-friendly vision risks destabilizing the text itself and opening Orwell up to potentially deliberate misreadings that feel less like individual interpretations and more like cultural erosion.<\/p>\n

\"ANIMAL\u2018Animal Farm\u2019 (2026)Courtesy Everett Collection<\/p>\n

There\u2019s too much effort, too much time, and too much sincerity apparent behind this film to dismiss it outright. That\u2019s what makes it frustrating, and maybe even tragic. A version of \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d that tried and failed to say something specific might have been worth engaging. But a version that insists on saying nothing, particularly through such a politically-loaded distributor, is far harder to defend.<\/p>\n

Early in the movie, the animals debate what to do with the farmer\u2019s abandoned house. \u201cMay it sit empty,\u201d Snowball suggests, \u201cas a symbol of what we must not become.\u201d Serkis would have done well to consider that advice. Some works don\u2019t need to be reimagined to remain relevant, and their singularity should be reason enough alone for the people most inspired by them to leave them untouched. And yet, this new \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d doesn\u2019t just reopen the door to Orwell\u2019s genius. It yanks at it, kicks at it, and leaves Serkis, Stoller, and their cast hanging from its hinges.<\/p>\n

Grade: D+<\/p>\n

Distributed by Angel Studios, \u201cAnimal Farm\u201d will be in U.S. theaters on Friday, May 1. <\/p>\n

Want to stay up to date on IndieWire\u2019s film\u00a0reviews<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and critical thoughts?\u00a0Subscribe here<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to our newly launched newsletter, In Review by David Ehrlich, in which our Chief Film Critic and Head Reviews Editor rounds up the best new reviews and streaming picks along with some exclusive musings \u2014\u00a0all only available to subscribers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"That\u2019s one small setback for the legendary George Orwell. One giant leap for actor\/director Andy Serkis\u2019 baffling use…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":764799,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[28],"tags":[90849,314077,171,1020,56817,53,11853,67,132,68],"class_list":["post-764798","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-movies","tag-andy-serkis","tag-animal-farm","tag-entertainment","tag-film","tag-george-orwell","tag-movies","tag-reviews","tag-united-states","tag-unitedstates","tag-us"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116496587744794353","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/764798","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=764798"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/764798\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/764799"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=764798"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=764798"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=764798"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}