Animal Farm Reviews Are Brutal — Critics Say This One Should’ve Stayed a Book

Riz Kh

May 1, 2026

Few literary works carry the weight and clarity of Animal Farm, a 1945 allegory that broke down power, revolution, and corruption into a simple but powerful story. Over the years, its message has remained relevant, making any new adaptation a risky move. With Andy Serkis directing a new animated version featuring voices like Seth Rogen, Woody Harrelson, Glenn Close, and Gaten Matarazzo, expectations were high. But early reviews suggest this version doesn’t just fall short — it misses the point.

The film follows the familiar premise of Orwell’s story. A group of farm animals rise up against their human owner, hoping to create a fair and equal society. But as the pigs take control, that dream slowly turns into a dictatorship, mirroring the same systems they once fought against. The new adaptation tries to update this story with modern elements and a more accessible tone, but critics say those changes weaken the core message instead of strengthening it.

The response has been largely negative, reflected in its low score on Rotten Tomatoes. Writing for Variety, Peter Debruge says that while the film is still recognizable, it’s “far too disorderly to substitute for the book,” pointing out how it loses the clarity of the original. At The Wrap, William Bibbiani argues that the changes don’t improve the story, but instead highlight how much stronger Orwell’s original work is.

From The Wall Street Journal, Kyle Smith criticizes the film’s attempt to mix modern references with the original story, calling it a “scattershot attack on modern obsessions.” Meanwhile, Alison Foreman of IndieWire describes the film as a “baffling miscalculation,” suggesting it confuses its own message. Richard Whittaker of Austin Chronicle adds that it “misses the point of Orwell’s masterpiece,” which becomes one of the most repeated criticisms across reviews.

A major issue critics highlight is the film’s tone. Orwell’s story is dark, sharp, and politically direct. This version, however, tries to appeal to younger audiences. Frank Scheck of The Hollywood Reporter notes that it is “geared to younger children for inexplicable reasons,” and in doing so, it loses the depth of the original story. The mix of childish humor and serious themes creates a disconnect, making the film feel confused about who it’s really for.

The film also tries to modernize the story with references to current technology and politics. But instead of making it more relevant, critics say these additions feel unnecessary. Kyle Smith questions why these elements are even included, while others feel they distract from the original message. Instead of sharpening the story, they make it feel unfocused.

There are also problems with how the story is told. Critics point out that important parts of the narrative feel rushed, especially the transition from revolution to dictatorship. At the same time, other parts drag on without adding much value. This uneven pacing makes the film feel both rushed and stretched at the same time, weakening its impact.

Even the strong voice cast doesn’t fully save the film. While performances are decent, many critics feel the characters don’t get enough depth. The animation also receives mixed reactions, often described as serviceable but lacking a unique style.

This pattern continues in the broader response from Rotten Tomatoes critics. Josh Bell of The Inlander says the film “drains [Orwell’s work] of any meaningful message,” pointing to its biggest flaw. Eric Goldman of Eric Goldman’s Cultured Pop calls it “modern corporate slop,” an ironic description for a story about power and corruption.

Brian Eggert of Deep Focus Review describes it as “a well-intentioned production… weighed down by a tedious pop-entertainment aesthetic,” while Mike McGranaghan of Aisle Seat calls it “so misguided that its existence doesn’t make sense.” Even more balanced views don’t fully support the film. Patrick McDonald of WBGR-FM offers only a mild recommendation, saying that while it follows the basic idea of the novel, the changes — especially the ending — feel like “a sacrilege” .

Overall, the criticism is consistent. The film has ambition — it tries to modernize a classic, reach a wider audience, and make the story more accessible. But those goals don’t come together. Instead, they pull the film in different directions, leaving it unfocused and diluted.

What makes this more disappointing is how strong the source material is. Orwell’s Animal Farm was never just a story — it was a warning about how power works and how easily ideals can be corrupted. Critics feel this adaptation softens that message too much, turning something sharp and meaningful into something safer and less impactful.

In the end, Animal Farm doesn’t completely fail — but it never fully works either. It has moments where you can see what it was trying to do, but those moments don’t connect into something powerful. Instead of offering a fresh take on a classic, it ends up reminding audiences why the original still matters more.

Read More Review Roundups on POF