--- title: "Chicken Little: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/chicken-little/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/chicken-little" critics_score: 41 critics_reviews: 10 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Chicken Little (2005): what the critics said Critics' score 41 from 10 reviews: 1 positive, 3 mixed, 6 negative. Most critics take a dim view of Chicken Little, finding its energetic comedy insufficient compensation for a derivative, overcrowded story. Praise centres on individual visual gags, with even some negative reviews finding moments of charm amid the bustle. The warmer reviews also credit the voice performances and the animation’s expressive body language. There is some agreement that it can be funny, but little that its characters or emotional scenes sustain that appeal. The sharpest division concerns the pace: some critics enjoy the screwball momentum, while others find the constant activity exhausting and the story stretched thin. Recycled plots and persistent pop-culture references draw repeated complaints, alongside reservations about sentimentality and mean-spirited humour. The spread is wide, from strong dismissals to qualified enthusiasm. Empire responds warmly to it as a silly children’s adventure, while Eye for Film offers a notably positive assessment of its comedy and character animation. ## Empire — Olly Richards Fi1m's normalised score 68/100 (inferred from the text). 27 January 2006. Richards finds the film charming and energetic, especially as a silly children’s adventure, though it disappoints by Pixar’s more adult-friendly standards. He praises its offbeat plot twists, lively background gags and strong voice cast. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/chicken-little-review/) ## Screen Daily — John Hazelton Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 31 October 2005. The page identifies this as a review but does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its praise or complaints are unavailable in the accessible text. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/chicken-little/4024919.article) ## Total Film — Total Film Rating 3/5. 10 February 2006. The critic finds it a funny, energetic film that succeeds just enough despite feeling derivative and emotionally thin. They single out its screwball pace as a strength, while criticizing its reliance on recycled plots and movie references. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/chicken-little-review/) ## Radio Times — Sloan Freer Rating 2/5. The review finds the film tries too hard to win admiration. It criticises its effort on every level, though the available text gives no specific element singled out. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-bq8fum/chicken-little/) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Rating 1.5/4. 29 October 2005. Gonzalez finds the film more insipid than outright bad, criticizing its hectic, overstuffed feel. He gives some credit to charming gags, especially the lemmings bit and the crop-circle origin story. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/chicken-little/) ## The AV Club — Tasha Robinson Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 2 November 2005. Robinson finds the film overstuffed and ultimately forgettable, despite some energetic comedy. She singles out its dated pop-culture references and stretched-out story as its biggest weaknesses. [Read the review](https://avclub.com/chicken-little-1798201171) ## Time Out — DA Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 6 February 2006. The review is strongly negative, portraying the character design as irritating. It singles out Chicken Little’s appearance as a major flaw. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/chicken-little-1) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 30 October 2005. McCarthy delivers a strongly negative verdict, calling the film derivative and under-nourishing. He faults its lack of originality, humor, and engaging characterization. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2005/film/awards/chicken-little-1200520598/) ## Los Angeles Times — Carina Chocano Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 4 November 2005. Chocano pans the film as anxious, overreaching, and tonally incoherent. She singles out its visual gags as a bright spot, while criticizing its relentless references and mean-spirited jokes. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-nov-04-et-chicken4-story.html) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 10 February 2006. The critic finds the film funny and its animation exceptionally expressive, though the father-son relationship gets too sentimental. They single out the voice performances and characters’ subtle body language for praise. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/chicken-little-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/chicken-little.md