
Most critics find Farmageddon a warm, funny family adventure, with praise centred on the painstaking stop-motion animation and precisely timed visual comedy. The reviews repeatedly single out small background gags, tactile detail and wordless storytelling that works across ages and languages. Its science-fiction references are generally welcomed as a playful addition to Shaun’s farmyard routines, with the Spielberg homages drawing particular approval.
The reservations concern familiarity and character more than craftsmanship, with responses ranging from enthusiastic to mildly disappointed rather than hostile. /Film finds the science-fiction parody predictable, while Vulture considers the character details more routine and the sequel less memorable than its predecessor. Several reviews also question the music cues or find that musical montages interrupt the pace. Even among the less persuaded critics, the animation and sight gags retain admirers; the disagreement is chiefly over how much invention supports them.
E
Empire
14 October 2019 · John Nugent
85*
Nugent finds the film a sweet, effortlessly likeable, reliably enjoyable adventure. He especially praises its stop-motion craft, visual gags, sci-fi references and witty wordplay.
Read the full review →V
Variety
17 October 2019 · Guy Lodge
85*
Lodge finds the sequel delightful and cheerfully offbeat, with its gentle sci-fi twist refreshing Shaun’s familiar farmyard antics. He especially praises the stop-motion slapstick, comic timing, and witty incidental gags, though the pop-heavy soundtrack feels out of place.
Read the full review →I
IndieWire
11 February 2020 · B+ · David Ehrlich
83
Ehrlich praises the film as charming, funny, and appealing across generations, calling it a delightful continuation of Aardman’s handcrafted style. He particularly singles out the tactile stop-motion detail and Spielberg homages, though music montages briefly disrupt the story’s momentum.
Read the full review →L
Little White Lies
17 October 2019 · 4/4/4 · Trevor Johnston
80
Johnston finds the film a warm, amusing success, with enough gags to entertain across generations. He praises the beautifully timed slapstick and the carefully crafted stop-motion details.
Read the full review →T
Time Out
19 August 2019 · ★★★★ · Phil de Semlyen
80
The review finds the sequel cheerful and successful, carrying forward the series’ jolliness and English eccentricity. It especially praises the Spielbergian sci-fi twist, delivered with characteristic Aardman charm.
Read the full review →G
The Guardian
18 October 2019 · Cath Clarke
75*
Clarke finds it a charming, daft family adventure that successfully raises the stakes with a Spielbergian sci-fi story. She praises the frequent sight gags, though she feels some of Shaun’s world loses personality in the sci-fi setting.
Read the full review →L
Los Angeles Times
13 February 2020 · Kenneth Turan
74*
Turan finds the film charming, lighthearted and consistently amusing. He especially praises its playful sci-fi references and the distinct personalities conveyed without spoken words.
Read the full review →N
The New York Times
13 February 2020
65*
The page is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be verified. No specific praise or complaint is available from the page text.
Read the full review →S
Screen Daily
30 September 2019 · Fionnuala Halligan
64*
The visible page confirms this is a review, but its verdict is behind a paywall. No praise or complaint from the critic is visible in the supplied text.
Read the full review →A
The AV Club
12 February 2020 · C+ · Ignatiy Vishnevetsky
63
The critic finds the film a mild, inoffensive but underwhelming Aardman outing. The handmade stop-motion and farmyard antics work, but the film lacks the zaniness and intricate action of the classic Wallace & Gromit shorts.
Read the full review →V
Vulture
21 February 2020 · Bilge Ebiri
55*
Ebiri finds the film entertaining but blunter and less memorable than its predecessor. He praises its winning sight gags, while criticizing the more rote character details and reliance on signs and pictures.
Read the full review →F
Film Stories
17 October 2019 · Film Stories
85*
The critic finds the film a lovely, accessible treat, even if it does not reach the heights of Aardman’s best work. They praise its tactile stop-motion craft and playful science-fiction references.
Read the full review →The critic finds the sequel an enduring, feel-good family film that can charm audiences of all ages. They single out its silent storytelling and painstaking stop-motion detail for praise.
Read the full review →P
Polygon
15 February 2020 · Karen Han
85*
Han finds the film exceptionally charming, praising Aardman’s meticulous craft and wordless visual storytelling. She especially singles out the small background gags that reward close attention.
Read the full review →The critic finds the film a quick-witted, uproarious animated winner, despite a minor complaint about music cues. They praise the meticulous stop-motion details and the clever sci-fi references.
Read the full review →C
Collider
14 February 2020 · Dave Trumbore
80*
Trumbore calls it a laugh-a-minute, easygoing family adventure. He especially praises how its wordless, silly storytelling makes the film accessible across languages and enjoyable for children.
Read the full review →/
/Film
11 February 2020 · 6/10 · Josh Spiegel
60
The critic finds the sequel cute and fun, but a lesser and more predictable entry than the original. The stop-motion animation and visual pleasures earn praise, while familiar science-fiction parody is singled out as a weakness.
Read the full review →E
Eye for Film
15 March 2021 · Jennie Kermode
55*
Kermode finds the film charming but lighter and less inventive than Shaun’s earlier adventures. She praises its animation and adult-friendly humor, while noting that the alien character is too flimsy to engage with deeply.
Read the full review →Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate