Animal Farm (2026)
Despite being required reading for many and generally considered one of the classics, George Orwell's Animal Farm lacks a definitive film adaptation. While there are a handful of animated and live-action titles that do justice for teachers trying to kill a couple of class days, none have taken off as the clear favorite. This has led to an opening for a new adaptation, with Andy Serkis stepping into the role of director for his own version of the classic tale. Adjusting the story in an effort to make it more accessible for modern younger audiences, Serkis' Animal Farm still follows many of the same basic beats as Orwell's original story, but falls flat with poor humor and a failure to capture the weight of the original story.
Even when it was only the trailer revealed for the film, Serkis' Animal Farm had people talking. While Orwell's story is bleak and serious, Serkis goes for a different approach, casting a crew of comedy actors, including Seth Rogen, in leading roles, and injecting cheap jokes such as fart humor into the story. In his Op-Ed responding to the criticism, My version of Animal Farm has sparked robust debate. Orwell would have approved, Serkis claimed that this criticism was unjust. Serkis declared that it was his goal to make the story speak to younger audiences, allowing them to have these important conversations at a younger age. At its core, this concept isn't awful. It is important to have texts where socially relevant conversations can be held for younger audiences on a level appropriate to them. However, there are a couple of glaring issues with Serkis' rebuttal.
The first is the outdated claim that younger audiences cannot engage in something unless its filled with fart jokes and annoying humor. This is the type of logic one would expect from Nickelodeon in the 2010s, not the logic that would be used in a time of renaissance for youth media. The biggest kids' film of 2025 was Netflix's KPop Demon Hunters, a layered look at identity that used smart writing to inject comedy, not Seth Rogen laughing while farting. The biggest kids' show of the last few years is Bluey, a show that does have the occasional fart joke, but ultimately uses this type of humor sparingly and never in the crude nature that Animal Farm does. The issue is not just the farts, but the overall writing and personality of the film that consistently feels the need to fill itself with dated attempts at annoying characters and comedy, creating a film of nightmares for the parents who have to sit with their child as they watch the film. This is such a reductive way to view the creation of kids' media that shows an incredibly out-of-touch production.
The bigger issue is the idea that this is the best way to adapt Animal Farm and use Orwell's original text. In his Op-Ed, Serkis mentions how Orwell's deeper inspirations for the book arose out of the real-life tragedy he faced fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Orwell saw his friends die in front of him, and politically, this woke Orwell up to be the activist he would become, producing works like Animal Farm. The story is one with direct ties to the Stalinist era and the pain and suffering felt at the time. Animal Farm is not a light collection of characters or plot; it is a heavy and weighted statement on real-world tragedy. It feels beyond disrespectful to take this weight and then transform it into something as shallow and crude as Serkis' version. How one can demonstrate a complete understanding of this weight felt in the original text but then act oblivious when someone takes issue with an adaptation of this nature is beyond questionable. This issue is not only noted because of the style of the film, but also the substance.
Serkis takes quite a bit of creative liberty with his version of Animal Farm, changing the story significantly. While some of the narrative beats remain the same, many are changed or removed, such as the tragic death of Boxer, voiced in the film by Woody Harrelson. These changes smooth out many of the story's most haunting moments, removing much of the weight and gravitas of the tragedy that exists within this story. This again feels like Serkis not understanding modern young audiences, thinking they cannot digest anything beyond a basic conflict. Worse, the film changes the role of the pigs. Rather than having Napoleon and the rest of the pigs slowly be pushed out of sight, only to reemerge later in the story completely transformed by greed, the film spends a lot more time connected with the pigs on this journey. At first, this feels like one of the few changes that actually works. The film has the potential to add a meaningful perspective on how even well-intended individuals can slowly lose themselves to power. This is a process that doesn't happen all at once, but rather is one that slowly grows and develops. However, as one follows this idea, the film makes the baffling move of removing much of the agency and wickedness from the pigs.
While Napoleon, despite the goofy performance from Rogen, is still far from being morally clean, the film adds a lot more about the humans who partner with the pigs being the real villains, tricking the pigs, and forcing their hands. The pigs come off as clueless, as they are tricked by the humans with concepts like debt that force the pigs into a position of desperation. This is the core power dynamic of the story, so changing this only adds to the question of why Serkis wanted to make an Animal Farm adaptation in the first place. He also transforms the conflict greatly, making the film resemble a more typical modern narrative with a third-act fight sequence that feels laughably out of place in contrast to the original work. Despite his efforts to make it seem like these complaints are minor or unreasonable, the idea that this adaptation is a disservice to the original text goes as deep as it can possibly go.
The presentation is also just poor. The voice actors beyond Rogen all feel miscast, with only Gaten Matarazzo feeling like he is actually delivering something of value as he plays Lucky, a new original character for the film, who the audience follows as a main character. As Lucky is torn between standing up for what he believes in and accepting the privilege of what the pigs offer as they grow in power, Matarazzo's performance does capture the conflicted emotions of his character, showing an improvement from his voice work in My Father's Dragon. The animation is also shockingly ugly, both in design and quality. This feels nothing close to what one would expect from animation in 2026, again feeling like a relic from work that would have been seen 15-years ago.
Animal Farm is horrific. Not only is the film poor, both in narrative and style, but it is undoubtedly a terrible adaptation of Orwell's original text. The film feels grating to try and sit through, completely out of touch with where kids' media currently is. For anyone wanting to use cinema to show this story to younger audiences or simply to see the story through a different medium, 1954's animated adaptation by Joy Batchelor and John Halas remains vastly superior.
Even when it was only the trailer revealed for the film, Serkis' Animal Farm had people talking. While Orwell's story is bleak and serious, Serkis goes for a different approach, casting a crew of comedy actors, including Seth Rogen, in leading roles, and injecting cheap jokes such as fart humor into the story. In his Op-Ed responding to the criticism, My version of Animal Farm has sparked robust debate. Orwell would have approved, Serkis claimed that this criticism was unjust. Serkis declared that it was his goal to make the story speak to younger audiences, allowing them to have these important conversations at a younger age. At its core, this concept isn't awful. It is important to have texts where socially relevant conversations can be held for younger audiences on a level appropriate to them. However, there are a couple of glaring issues with Serkis' rebuttal.
The first is the outdated claim that younger audiences cannot engage in something unless its filled with fart jokes and annoying humor. This is the type of logic one would expect from Nickelodeon in the 2010s, not the logic that would be used in a time of renaissance for youth media. The biggest kids' film of 2025 was Netflix's KPop Demon Hunters, a layered look at identity that used smart writing to inject comedy, not Seth Rogen laughing while farting. The biggest kids' show of the last few years is Bluey, a show that does have the occasional fart joke, but ultimately uses this type of humor sparingly and never in the crude nature that Animal Farm does. The issue is not just the farts, but the overall writing and personality of the film that consistently feels the need to fill itself with dated attempts at annoying characters and comedy, creating a film of nightmares for the parents who have to sit with their child as they watch the film. This is such a reductive way to view the creation of kids' media that shows an incredibly out-of-touch production.
The bigger issue is the idea that this is the best way to adapt Animal Farm and use Orwell's original text. In his Op-Ed, Serkis mentions how Orwell's deeper inspirations for the book arose out of the real-life tragedy he faced fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Orwell saw his friends die in front of him, and politically, this woke Orwell up to be the activist he would become, producing works like Animal Farm. The story is one with direct ties to the Stalinist era and the pain and suffering felt at the time. Animal Farm is not a light collection of characters or plot; it is a heavy and weighted statement on real-world tragedy. It feels beyond disrespectful to take this weight and then transform it into something as shallow and crude as Serkis' version. How one can demonstrate a complete understanding of this weight felt in the original text but then act oblivious when someone takes issue with an adaptation of this nature is beyond questionable. This issue is not only noted because of the style of the film, but also the substance.
Serkis takes quite a bit of creative liberty with his version of Animal Farm, changing the story significantly. While some of the narrative beats remain the same, many are changed or removed, such as the tragic death of Boxer, voiced in the film by Woody Harrelson. These changes smooth out many of the story's most haunting moments, removing much of the weight and gravitas of the tragedy that exists within this story. This again feels like Serkis not understanding modern young audiences, thinking they cannot digest anything beyond a basic conflict. Worse, the film changes the role of the pigs. Rather than having Napoleon and the rest of the pigs slowly be pushed out of sight, only to reemerge later in the story completely transformed by greed, the film spends a lot more time connected with the pigs on this journey. At first, this feels like one of the few changes that actually works. The film has the potential to add a meaningful perspective on how even well-intended individuals can slowly lose themselves to power. This is a process that doesn't happen all at once, but rather is one that slowly grows and develops. However, as one follows this idea, the film makes the baffling move of removing much of the agency and wickedness from the pigs.
While Napoleon, despite the goofy performance from Rogen, is still far from being morally clean, the film adds a lot more about the humans who partner with the pigs being the real villains, tricking the pigs, and forcing their hands. The pigs come off as clueless, as they are tricked by the humans with concepts like debt that force the pigs into a position of desperation. This is the core power dynamic of the story, so changing this only adds to the question of why Serkis wanted to make an Animal Farm adaptation in the first place. He also transforms the conflict greatly, making the film resemble a more typical modern narrative with a third-act fight sequence that feels laughably out of place in contrast to the original work. Despite his efforts to make it seem like these complaints are minor or unreasonable, the idea that this adaptation is a disservice to the original text goes as deep as it can possibly go.
The presentation is also just poor. The voice actors beyond Rogen all feel miscast, with only Gaten Matarazzo feeling like he is actually delivering something of value as he plays Lucky, a new original character for the film, who the audience follows as a main character. As Lucky is torn between standing up for what he believes in and accepting the privilege of what the pigs offer as they grow in power, Matarazzo's performance does capture the conflicted emotions of his character, showing an improvement from his voice work in My Father's Dragon. The animation is also shockingly ugly, both in design and quality. This feels nothing close to what one would expect from animation in 2026, again feeling like a relic from work that would have been seen 15-years ago.
Animal Farm is horrific. Not only is the film poor, both in narrative and style, but it is undoubtedly a terrible adaptation of Orwell's original text. The film feels grating to try and sit through, completely out of touch with where kids' media currently is. For anyone wanting to use cinema to show this story to younger audiences or simply to see the story through a different medium, 1954's animated adaptation by Joy Batchelor and John Halas remains vastly superior.