Galline in fuga: L'alba dei nugget

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.

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.

The film was amusing enough (lots of slapstick humour) and I enjoyed the fun details in the animations, e.g. A hot air balloon disguised as a cloud, and the factory "eye register" including a night-shift worker with very bloodshot eyes..

That being said, the storyline felt unoriginal and became flat halfway through; it was too obvious what was going to happen. Chat GPT could have written it - and given many industries' overreliance on AI, it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

I also have to agree with some other reviewers that the personality of main characters was watered down, especially Rocky. The original Rocky's bragging bravado was a big driving force and source of parody in the first film. The sequel's endless slapstick humour and flat characters didn't do enough for me.

There are some prequels or sequels that no one asked for, but end up being happy that they happened anyway.

This sadly isn't one one of them.

I was already upset by the fact that many of the core voice actors were being replaced. Mel Gibson I could understand for obvious reasons, but the excuse for Julie Sawalha's exclusion was not acceptable. I do believe the real reason was because Sawalha is no longer famous, while Thandi (or Thandiwe) Newton, her replacement, is a big name in the industry. This is a growing trend in modern animation where famous actors are favoured to voice cartoon characters rather than actual voice actors.

At one point Ginger fearfully says "that voice!" before the reveal of the return of Mrs Tweedy. It would have been extremely awkward if Miranda Richardson was no longer voicing the villain.

The story itself is a little too similar to the first Chicken Run and the animation looks too shiny and CGIed, despite most of it being clay-animation. The stakes were not really as high, and the characters were not as fleshed out as they were in the first film.

My favourite character is still Fowler, as he was still hilarious. And unlike the new voices for the other main characters, David Bradley does a great job here.

The humour in the first film was intelligent and witty. But despite most of the film still being proudly British (even including a chicken character with a Scouse accent) , the magic and the passion found in the first film has dampened down quite a lot here.

Kids will no doubt enjoy it. But after 23 years, I wasn't all that impressed.

Say what you want about the man but Mel Gibson is sorely missed, that was one of many mistakes this movie made. Flat, boring, pretty, but not fun. The original stands as a childhood favorite that I've watched with my kid many times but nugget of whatever, will be forgotten in a week. Yet another in a long list of agenda filled Netflix blunders. When will they learn? (Side note about Netflix as a production company: finally canceling my subscription after ANOTHER price hike, removing Christmas movies around the holidays, while other services put them behind pay walls is just a greedy, disgusting practice imo, streaming is out of control and people are finding alternatives)