Whats with the sex scene? - Animal Farm (1999) Discussion

this is NOT a kid's film, or shouldn't be. read the book idiot.

reply

[–] jack1141994 17 years ago

It is a FAMILY-ORIENTED movie, I couldn't give two shishkebabs about the book, I'm talking about the movie.

reply

you are dumb. whoe cares about an adult scene in a family oriented film, when it is based off on an adult oriented book. i havent seen the movie, but if it really is family oriented, then they probably made a mess with the original plot.
anyways this kind of stories arent supposed to be made into films. the whole point about them being "animals", wasnt to make the story "cuter", it was to avoid censorships and make it be an allegory for any supresive regime, instead of only the soviet union.

reply

[–] jack1141994 17 years ago

Look all I'm saying is that I found this in the Family section, its rated PG for 'Low level violence'. It wouldn't matter if they said 'PG for Low level violence and sexual references.' So I guess I shouldn't be blaming the makers of the film but rather the OFLC. Also, I'm only saying it's Family oriented because it was under the Family genre in the video store, OK!? You're calling me dumb and you have no capitals and spelt 'who' wrong. Doesn't seem very smart to me.

reply

[–] albertdavin 16 years ago

lol, look whose calling somebody dumb for calling him dumb. first of all you capitalized family for no reason when speaking of the genre. secondly, look how you spelled spelled (spelt).

now on to your stupid comment. i wouldn't show it to any kids less than the teenage level. i had to read the book in high school, so i could see a family consisting of 1 or 2 high school students watching the movie with their parents. that WOULD make it a family movie RIGHT? you should think about your comments before you post. just as a few people have already said, this book isn't a children's book, so it's not classified as a children's movie. however, as i previously stated, it could easily be a family movie if the children are old enough to grasp it.

reply

[–] neko-neko-1 9 years ago

'spelt' is correct English though, it's how it's spelled in ENGLAND, you know where English originated?

reply

[–] queen2009 17 years ago

Dummy the movie was based on a book.
Some genius you are, if its about the russian revolution and stalin and trotsky, DO YOU REALLY THINK ITS A CHILDRENS MOVIE?

reply

[–] tommx 17 years ago

It was probably put in the family section because whomever catalogued it didn't understand that this is hardly a kid's movie. I personally would never consider showing this movie to children largely because I think they would be pretty bored by it. The movie (and the book) is about the rise of Stalinism. Maybe kids might get something out of it, but the allegories to various concepts of Communism as well as the fact that specific characters in the story are modeled after historical figures (Snowball->Trotsky/Lenin, Napoleon->Lenin, Old Major->Karl Marx, Boxer->the proletariat, etc) would be completely lost on a child.

reply

[–] jack1141994 17 years ago

Thankyou. Someone finally not criticizing me. That is a good point, but right now I'm angry at the freakin' OFLC.

reply

[–] HugOWar 17 years ago

I thought Napoleon represented Stalin?
But I only caught about 20 minutes of this film, and that was in the middle.
so I really don't know.

reply

[–] leaf_fan_02 15 years ago

your right, Napoleon does represent Stalin. Must be a mistake on his part.

reply

[–] mrmintanet 13 years ago

I 100% disagree. In my opinion, the story is illustrated in the manner it is so that younger minds can adapt and comprehend the message the story/film is trying to convey. I feel that this story was incredibly appropriate to show children. I let my son (6 years old) watch the film with me, and I was a bit upset regarding the awkward sex scene. It simply did not contribute to the story, and it most certainly could have been left out. Ultimately, the film WILL be viewed by children, and their parents will most certainly accidentally purchase this film completely unaware of the film's historical bearing.

reply

[–] albertdavin 9 years ago

There's a difference between family and children's. All children's movie are family movies, but not all family movies can be children's movies. If the novel is high school level reading material then it is family.

PG means exactly what it says. Parental guidance is needed with the content of the film. Did they leave out sexuality? I haven't looked but a previous comment said it only mentioned violence. So in that regard I can understand the gripe.

reply

[–] ruggedplant 17 years ago

What sex scene?? I don't remember it either in book nor the film - ? Please describe it to remind me.

peace

reply

[–] jack1141994 17 years ago

It's only mild, but you see the farmer escorting his boss's wife to the bathroom, but then she changes routes into the bedroom. He is hesitant, but then begins to unbutton his pyjama shirt. Later on, you see the bed shaking violently, and the farmer screams, "Oh Miss Jane!!!"

reply

[–] Demon_Paladin 17 years ago

I watched that part in my English 10 class today. We all thought The woman screamed, "Mr. J!"

"World Domination.I'll leave that to the religious nuts or the Republicans, thank you."

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aeternus_proeliator 17 years ago

You are a MORON.

This is NOT a kids movie. If you actually think that Animals = Kids Movie, then theres no argument here (over a non-existent "sex scene", you see the bed shake, we can see Lindsey Lohan naked at 12, but shock and horror if we see a bed shake!). That is YOUR stupidity, and nobody elses fault.

reply

[–] random-crystal-shadows 17 years ago

I don't know why this movie would be in the kids' section, because it is definitely not a kids movie. It should probably be rated pg13 for the creepiness factor. I thought the sex scene was unnecessary and badly done, (it had our whole class laughing) but even without it I wouldn't consider this a kids movie. It was just too freaky.

It sounded like she said "Mr. J" to me too.

reply

[–] jack1141994 17 years ago

OK, get it right. Kids movie because:

PG RATING
FAMILY SECTION

Thanks to the non retards that understand this.

One man and his dog took a walk on a beach. The dog said, *beep* this."

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jack1141994 17 years ago

I don't get it... What are you trying to prove?

One man and his dog took a walk on a beach. The dog said, *beep* this."

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Samuraibro 16 years ago

lol i don't know, but everyone in my English class were
laughing so hard, and they were like,
"uhh is this appropriate?" XDD

it shouldn't have been in the Family Section
i went to Hollywood Video one day and saw it there,
i'm like "wtf? this isn't a kids movie!"

it was really wierd...

reply

[–] hrsluvrevr 16 years ago

I know! What is up with that? seriously? come on... and really like we watch this at school in 7th grade! (ps. this movie made me cry :( )

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Skimjim180 16 years ago

Why should children be sheltered from sex? There is nothing wrong with it, it is a natural thing. I know I would rather see my younger siblings seeing a stimulated act of love than a stimulated act of hate and violence.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Skimjim180 16 years ago

I understand the point that they are trying to make, I read the book and I loved it and there really is no point to the sex scene, it really takes away ferom the point they are trying to make, in my opinion.
I was merely referring to those who freaked out about there being a sex scene in a children's movie. Just because they see it doesn't mean they'll all of a sudden start humping the nearest thing they can find.

It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards.
Lewis Carroll

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] albertdavin 16 years ago

everyone look at the original message. he said it was in the family section not the children's...there's a big difference between the two. children's would be dora and spongebob. family would be movies like this, and batteries not included...

that way you can have discretion as to what family can see the movie. just cuz it says family doesn't mean the whole family can see it. if you have 4 kids that consists of 2 teenagers and 2 toddlers, you would rent one children's movie, one family movie to appease both sets of kids.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Melpy 16 years ago

Still this doesn't really fit into the category of family in my opinion. I saw this at 15 or 16 (now 24) and honestly was distrubed even though I had reaad the book already. I think actually seeing this play out was more powerful than you would think. While some middle schooler might be interested in this sort of plot I think that family is strong. I would say family would be like Arsenic and Old Lace or Fiddler on the Roof perhaps. This is very dark. The animals are an allegory and child wouldn't understand. If you want a family movie with animals go with Babe. Entertainment for both kids and their parents.

reply

[–] paige1357 15 years ago

One of the front covers for the movie does make it seem like a children's/family movie. There are a bunch of cute,happy animals in a sunny setting, and it says, "There's a new day dawning on the farm." (While that is true in the book in a very unhappy way, by looking at the cover it makes it seem like something good.)

I'm not surprised that it was put in the wrong section.

reply

[–] alternate_realities 15 years ago

The sex scene was so random, and pointless. Although it was funny.

reply