The stop motion is always on point. Impressive, when you think about how much time goes into it.

If you work really hard, you can probably scrape together some respect for the production, but that might be the only feeling you can evoke. The voice acting isn't great, and not just because the original actors are missing. There's a strange disconnect between the animation and the acting, it feels insincere and forced.

The story is nothing new, and it should have been. It should have broke new ground just as the original did. It really feels like they put no effort into creating an original plot and just clung to the coat tales of the first film. Seems like a bad choice.

I want to write something positive about it but I don't really know what that could be. I guess Bella Ramsey was good casting. I'm only giving it 5 stars because I appreciate the time it takes to make stop motion.

I admit to having a soft spot for the original CHICKEN RUN. It's a family favourite around these parts, and one which holds up to repeat viewing today. This sequel, made without the involvement of Nick Park, feels like a cheap Hollywood cash-in and can't be mentioned in the same breath. The absence of Park and the ludicrous recasting of Julia Sawalha in particular didn't bode well for it, and Newton and Levi are both as bland as you'd expect. Where this really falls apart, though, is in the shallowness of the plot. It's one of those sequels where everything's bigger and fancier, but the humour falls flat and the non-stop action soon wears thin.

Looks like the creators didn't learn anything from the failure of Early Man (2018). A successful family animation needs to engage folks of any and all ages - the first Chicken Run did to a good extent. This one didn't. Ditto Early Man.

Audiences want to see relatable settings, characters with soul, plots that are realistically challenging (not pointlessly ridiculous). So we end up with a colourful bland bright happy island commune ... overdone, unrelatable and boring. Then we get a silly super high tech robots and gadgets filled chicken farm/factory - huh? And football matches in prehistoric Early Man? Huh?

From the short documentary on 'the making of' its immediately clear the creators and team spent a massive 99% effort on the puppeting, the sets, the lighting, the movements, the look of things - which is fine, except, where's the effort on the story, the characters, the soul of the whole thing??

The director even laughed at how fun it was to give Ms Tweedy a glam look - but hello mister - did you ask yourself what the viewers want out of a once iconic scary evil character like her? A glam up look? Really?

It does seem all the people involved in this - many very competent in their area of specialty - was more focused on putting out their best on producing their area of specialty than making an animated movie that truly relates to the audience.

For instance so much technical deal and effort was made of Tweedy walking down glass steps - if the story and plotting was better it wouldn't have mattered if she was walking down milk carton cutouts with average lighting and a less smooth gait.

Do please spend more thought and effort on plotting and characters and audience impact, and less on the visual razzle dazzle.