Aniventure

Animal Farm (2025): Four Legs Good, This Movie Bad.

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Animal Farm” is directed by Andy Serkis (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Star Wars: The Force Awakens). He also stars in the film as a rooster named Randolph and has an uncredited role as Farmer Jones. Joining him in the cast is Seth Rogen (Sausage Party, Knocked Up), Gaten Matarazzo (Stranger Things, Honor Society), Steve Buscemi (Miracle Workers, Fargo), Glenn Close (The Wife, 101 Dalmatians), Laverne Cox (Doubt, Orange is the New Black), Kieran Culkin (A Real Pain, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Woody Harrelson (The Edge of Seventeen, The Glass Castle), Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory, Hidden Figures), Kathleen Turner (Romancing the Stone, The Virgin Suicides), and Iman Vellani (The Marvels, Ms. Marvel). This film is based on George Orwell’s book of the same name and is about a group of animals whose farm-based revolution results in a pig-led dictatorship.

There are a few major texts I was assigned to read in my English class during my freshman year of high school. One of those includes Homer’s “The Odyssey,” which is being adapted into a film coming out this summer. Another one happens to be George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” which is now an animated film directed by Andy Serkis. What’s next? Is “Of Mice and Men” getting another film adaptation?

Regardless, “Animal Farm,” through its book and interesting to say the least adaptations, left an impression on me. When the book was a major studying point in school, the class often focused on Orwell’s material linking to the U.S.S.R.. The book presents a fascinating allegory on the dangers of leaders becoming power hungry and bending the rules to their benefit.

The idea of someone like Andy Serkis taking on “Animal Farm” left me intrigued. He has shown his talents in the VFX and directing spaces, and I thought “Animal Farm” would be a fine fit for his skill set.

Then I saw the trailer…

While I thought the trailer overall made the film look cheap, it did end with one note that left me interested, which is that it was recommended for ages 11 and up. While the MPA gave this film a PG rating, which can be seen as okay for many younger audiences, the marketers essentially sent a message saying this might not be for the youngest crowds. Having read “Animal Farm,” that makes sense.

Frankly, after seeing this movie, I have no idea who exactly this is for. It is definitely not for “Animal Farm” purists, as there are some major changes made to the material. For instance, Old Major is not in the movie. There are some characters who are not in the book. No, unlike the 1999 adaptation, the main character is not a dog this time around.

Despite the movie being recommended for ages 11 and up as the trailer suggests, the film has plenty of jokes that feel like they were designed for the under five crowd. I do not know what George Orwell would think of this movie, seeing as he is no longer with us. But I think he and I would agree that toilet humor and “Animal Farm” do not mix. Maybe the conversation would be different if the trailer said the movie was recommended for “all ages,” However, that’s not the case. I would let it slide if this movie resorted to one fart joke, but I remember counting at least five or six instances of jokes related to bodily functions. It would also be forgiven if those jokes made me laugh. But they failed to do so.

This is not to say that I do not think younger viewers should not be exposed to a story like “Animal Farm.” I think it is an important tale, and the more that we experience corruption in power the more it is going to matter. In the case of “Animal Farm” 2026, this is a more modern telling of the tale compared to its mid-20th century source material, as it focuses on capitalism as the big bad. Despite happily living in the U.S. all my life, I think this idea has potential to work. One of the core antagonists of the film is a boss lady who essentially owns all the land in her sight, but she is not satisfied, as she wants to add Animal Farm to her collection.

In this film, Napoleon is played by Seth Rogen. …Okay? What is it with Seth Rogen’s voiceover roles lately? I always thought he was a weird choice for Donkey Kong, but this is another level. And much like Donkey Kong, Seth Rogen often sounds like he is playing himself when sounding off every other line. In fact, one could argue the performance is kind of meta, as there is a scene where Napoleon does the infamous Seth Rogen laugh, and he follows that up with “please do not make fun of my laugh.” Is it just me, or is Seth Rogen’s laugh one of the most recognizable laughs of all time? If I had to make a top 5 list in that regard, Rogen would be up there with Jimmy Carr, SpongeBob SquarePants, Peter Griffin, and J. Jonah Jameson during that one scene from “Spider-Man 2” where Peter asks him if he can get paid in advance.

That said, there is something there with Seth Rogen’s material. As immature as the writing often sounds, there is one scene between his character and a gender-swapped Snowball (Laverne Cox) where the latter is explaining her plan concerning the farm that stood out to me. Every other second, Napoleon, who is not afraid to showcase his opposition to the plan, is constantly mocking Snowball, sometimes calling her boring while they are in front of a large crowd. Again, the material itself comes off as borderline cringeworthy, but the more I think about it, the more it reminds me of the current state of politics in the U.S.. I try to keep my mouth shut in regards to that topic on here, but Napoleon is essentially Donald Trump. He is loud and quite limited in his vocabulary. He calls others names to their faces. And as we have seen in the 2016 and 2024 elections, his biggest rivals tend to be, whether you agree with their policies or not, well-meaning women.

Although there is one woman that Napoleon tends to get along with, and that is the recently mentioned “boss lady,” Frieda Pilkington (Glenn Close). A billionaire who essentially wants everything and will stop at nothing to get it. She owns a giant company that I would perhaps sum up as this universe’s equivalent to Amazon, as it seems to have their fingertips in just about every industry. Her character is by no means broken, but her one-dimensionality definitely stands out.

In fact, this movie is chock-full of big stars. From Jim Parsons to Kieran Culkin to Steve Buscemi. One rising star who I am glad to see in this film is Iman Vellani, who I adore as Ms. Marvel in the MCU. Her roles, and yes, she has more than one, does not give her as much to work with compared to Marvel, but I am glad to see she is getting more work.

Another standout in this film is Woody Harrelson as Boxer. While the film does have its many differences from the source material, the way Boxer was written and executed feels similar to how I would have imagined reading the book as a teenager. Harrelson is a good pick for the role. It is hard to say that “Animal Farm” is one of the most heartfelt films ever made, but I would not deny that Boxer is perhaps the emotional core of the story, even if he is a supporting character.

While this is based on a famous text, “Animal Farm” is not the best when it comes to screenwriting. By the way, it is written by Nicholas Stoller, whose “Muppets” films I did enjoy, but I will also acknowledge his resume also contains duds like “Sex Tape,” “Dora and the Lost City of Gold,” and “Zoolander 2.” Despite Stoller’s best efforts, the jokes do not work. I do not mind “Animal Farm” having jokes, as long as they stick the landing. They did not. Some of the jokes play a part in the film’s clashing tones. At times this film tries to be ridiculous and go for a laugh, and at others it tries to pull the heartstrings or make you shed a tear. Pixar has proven that their films can both be funny and emotional. “Animal Farm,” which is a collaboration between Aniventure and The Imaginarium, tends to fall flat in both categories. The end of the film feels kind of like a Marvel movie, almost as if the climax is aiming too high.

I have nothing against people making changes to source material. I think “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is one of the greatest movies of all time, even if it made some significant alterations from Roald Dahl’s classic tale. This adaptation of “Animal Farm,” like the others that have been brought to the screen, has its differences from the book. Although I went back to watch the other two adaptations and those tended to maintain the tone and spirit that the book was going for. Neither one was particularly groundbreaking or IMDb top 250-worthy, but they did their job in more ways than one. This movie does not feel like “Animal Farm” in the most accurate sense. That would be fine if I liked the movie, but between the bad comedy, several characters lacking dimension, weird editing choices, and some scenes feeling rushed, “Animal Farm” reminded me that not all movies are equal. Some are just plain bad.

In the end, “Animal Farm” is not as bad as I hear other people claim it to be, but to call it good is definitely a stretch. There are parts of the movie that exceeded my expectations, and I am probably being generous with that statement. While I definitely found Rogen’s interpretation of Napoleon to be rather annoying, I do think the way he was written worked in terms of matching the current political climate. He is not the smartest, nor the most calculated leader. But if you ask certain people today what they think about the current U.S. President, they would probably say the same thing. The animation was passable, but not exactly revolutionary. The soundtrack of this film is also kind of weird. Including a rap version of “Old McDonald Had a Farm” is most certainly a choice. The book is definitely more serious than this movie, and I thought when this film tried to be funny, it did not always work. Although there was one gag involving E=mc² that did make me chuckle. This is probably not going to be my least favorite movie of the year as there are glimmers of positivity to be found, but I hope to see a superior version of this tale brought to the big screen one day. I am going to give “Animal Farm” a 4/10.

“Animal Farm” is now playing in theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I am happy to announce that the next guest in my ongoing web series, Movie Requests is none other than Brian O’Halloran! You may know him from several of Kevin Smith’s films, including the “Clerks” trilogy! By the way, he is not the first guy from said trilogy I featured in the series, as a couple months ago I took a request from Jason Mewes, AKA Jay of the Jay and Silent Bob duo. As for Brian’s request, that review will be available on Sunday June 7th! You can check it out here on Flicknerd.com, but if you want the fastest method of watching the review, do yourself and I favor by subscribing to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “Mortal Kombat II!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, I will be sharing my thoughts on “The Sheep Detectives,” “In the Grey, “Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu,” “I Love Boosters,” and “Backrooms.” If you want to see these review and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Animal Farm?” What did you think about it? Or, did you read the “Animal Farm” book? What are your thoughts on it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank (2022): A Catastrophically Legendary Failure That Will Make You Hate Cats and Dogs

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” is directed by Rob Minkoff (Stuart Little, The Lion King), Mark Koetsier (Kung Fu Panda, Big Hero 6), and Chris Bailey (X2: X-Men United, Kim Possible) and stars Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The LEGO Batman Movie), Ricky Gervais (Night at the Museum, The Office), Mel Brooks (Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs), George Takei (Star Trek, Kubo and the Two Strings), Aasif Mandvi (The Daily Show, The Brink), Gabriel Iglesias (Magic Mike, Space Jam: A New Legacy), Djimon Hounsou (Guardians of the Galaxy, Shazam!), Michelle Yeoh (Crazy Rich Asians, Everything Everywhere All at Once), and Samuel L. Jackson (The Avengers, Pulp Fiction). This film centers around Hank, a dog who aspires to become a samurai. Once given the first glimmer of this goal, Hank is taken under the wing of Jimbo, a once great samurai, as he aspires to fulfill his destiny.

I am going to start off this review by stating something that may piss off some of my readers. I have never seen “Blazing Saddles.” I just have not had the time. In fact, as I started doing this review and refreshed myself through the cast on Wikipedia, I found out that this film is a loose adaptation of Mel Brooks’s well-known western comedy. To add to the similiarities, Mel Brooks even has a role in this film as The Shogun. I cannot confirm how many similarities and differences there are between this film and “Blazing Saddles.” Sure, there are some obvious ones I could make without having seen both films.

“Paws of Fury” is animated while “Blazing Saddles” is live-action. That’s the obvious difference. “Paws of Fury” is more focused on samurai whereas “Blazing Saddles” takes a more wild west approach with its story. In a way, this is almost a reversal of what “The Magnificent Seven” did as a redo of “Seven Samurai.” Because there is a solid chance that “The Magnificent Seven” would not be what it is if it were not for Akira Kurosawa’s creation. There is also a consensus that “Blazing Saddles” would not be made today due to the current climate and there being a greater strive to be politically correct in comedy. Obviously, this movie is mostly meant for families and children.

But children, mostly.

God help us all.

Some make the claim that “Blazing Saddles” is a movie that can not, and maybe should not be made today. They’re right. That is, if you are going to make it into something like this. “Paws of Fury” is the worst animation of the year.

I should not be too surprised that this movie is lacking in any and all luster. Because in my animation reviews, I often talk about Pixar as the gold standard on how you make an animated movie. Literally, this year, they released “Turning Red,” which slaps. And they followed that up with “Lightyear,” which is inferior by Pixar standards, but better than many movies could ever hope to be. They are a tough act to follow, but one thing that often separates Pixar from the competition is the studio’s ability to tell mature stories that do not rely heavily on cheap comedy gags that appear as if they were written for infants.

This movie is from Nickelodeon Studios. I have some nostalgia for Nickelodeon as “SpongeBob SquarePants” was my goto cartoon when I was younger. As I look back on the series, the early seasons had great writing, gutbusting comedy that ages like a fine wine. However, as we get through seasons 4, 5, 6, and so on, all of that trickles down. Every other joke is disposable, some character motivations and feelings come off as over the top, and they sometimes rely on sight gags that go too far. Similarly, this movie is no stranger to toilet humor. You want to know how much this movie relies on toilet humor? The main villain’s motivation literally involves the use of a super-sized toilet. I wish I were making this up. I’ll remind you, there is literally an animated movie called “FLUSHED AWAY,” which literally involves the use of toilets to further the plot, that takes itself more seriously than this when it comes to humor and writing. I think that toilet humor can be funny in doses and depending on the execution. As an adult, it is a bit hard to take it seriously however. Part of it is because it feels like the cop out of comedy. Fart noises can get a laugh, but fart-related jokes are so easy to write. All it takes is one noise. There’s very little effort involved. This movie tries to get creative with fart jokes by the end, but it did not change the fact that the whole concept of the joke felt lazy and forced. As much flack as they get, I think puns have more thought put into them than fart jokes. You might as well say that fart jokes can sometimes be… A pain in the butt.

I’ll see myself out. I have two working eyes.

Overall, “Paws of Fury” is very much that typical hero’s journey structure we’ve seen many times before. The potential hero is an unlikely one, but for whatever reason, the hero will do whatever he can to achieve his goals. On the surface, “Paws of Fury” feels like “Kung Fu Panda” if it were more samurai-based as opposed to martial arts-based. Except that “Kung Fu Panda,” while I remember it having maybe one joke that felt kiddy, did not treat its audience like morons. I already talked about the fart jokes, but this movie also has meta humor infused at times, part of which includes the notion that the flick “is only 85 minutes long.” I noticed over the years that there is a tendency amongst some people, and I include myself in this on occasion, to watch a film on the shorter side. It’s a time-saver, it helps with the attention span, and if you have extra time on your hands, it means you can possibly bang out a couple movies in a single Friday night. Given the frequency in which it appears, I am assuming that meta humor was always the intention from the film’s writers. But when I heard the “85 minutes long” joke, it only made me assume that the writers wanted to rush the project to its end. Like, okay, here’s a throwaway line! Let’s get to that pristine runtime!

This film has a stacked cast ranging from Michael Cera to Samuel L. Jackson to Ricky Gervais to even Michelle Yeoh. This film is not short on big names, and it’s almost as if they prioritized these names to get butts in seats over the story. Don’t get me wrong, just about every cast member plays their part to the best of their ability. Samuel L. Jackson does his best not to get in trouble with the parents who will be dragged by their kids to see this movie. Michael Cera is convincing enough to play a lanky dog hero who kind of sounds like a dork. Ricky Gervais does his best channeling his inner annoyed Golden Globes host personality as Ika Chu, a feline who wants to rid of a nearby impoverished town. Overall, the cast does their best with the stiff and sometimes lazy writing. But it does not change the fact that they are in a movie whose characters are mostly given stiff and sometimes lazy writing. This movie is not offensive, but it is almost uninspired. It feels crazy to say because it has an awesome opening sequence that had joyful Saturday morning cartoon vibes. After that, it’s all downhill. It goes to show that even when you have the competent direction and animation, it is not enough to hide a terrible script.

The one positive I can give this film is that it somewhat reminded me of something I learned in school. It may as well be the film’s takeaway for its younger viewers. There are films out there that unveil unlikely heroes, and this one is no exception. It’s the whole expect the unexpected cliché, but there was a scene that reminded me of a picture where a bunch of animals are given an examination to “climb that tree.” Of course, the monkey is the only one in the group who seems enthused by this order. The penguin, the elephant, the fish, the seal, and the canine are noticeably more hesitant. This idea could be applied to the entire film because it is about a dog who is assigned to watch over a town of cats. The dog is also trained by a cat to become a samurai. This leads to a particular moment in the training montage where we literally see a climbing course. I won’t say much more, but this scene is executed in a way that reminded me of “climb that tree.” It goes to show that there is more than one way to teach or learn something. Although for everything else in the movie, it pales in comparison. The movie is not funny, some of the characters are occasionally annoying, and it is full of clichés that have been done better. Do not waste your time. I have seen other animated movies this year that are better than this one.

In the end, “Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” is certainly legendary. More specifically, a legendary failure. Will kids like this movie? Yes, they probably will. And fortunately, as far as kids movies go, this is better for them than “Tom & Jerry” given how the protagonist is probably a more positive influence on younger minds. But I found myself more annoyed by this movie than anything else. I do not have kids, just to be clear, but would I let my kid watch this movie? Maybe. But I might have to leave the room because I can only take so much. But at the same time, I would worry, because given the movie’s script, it might only dumb down my kid should they keep watching it. Maybe they will grow up with the film, but not watch it past say their teen years. I did not know going in that this was an adaptation of “Blazing Saddles,” but I do know that I am going to give “Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” a 3/10.

“Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have another one coming soon! Be sure to stay tuned for my thoughts on “The Gray Man!” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank?” What did you think about it? Or, did you see “Blazing Saddles?” What did you think about that? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!