The difference between Who Framed Roger Rabbit and this was that it was made out of love for the classic cartoons while using original main characters to tell the story. Chip n Dale however was just a title that was slapped on in order to get people to watch while being hypocritical with the message.

It stings different for me cuz the original Peter Pan voice actor died at age 30 alone, tossed out by Hollywood once he hit puberty...

if they switched peter pan with ugly sonic as the main villain the plot would make 1 million times more sense, ulgy sonic has all the motive to go evil after getting booted by fans it would make way more sense.

I'm sick of watching nearly every childhood property I grew up with get bastardized by cynical Hollywood hacks. It's made even more painful knowing that they don't have to end up this way. The Sonic movies (despite taking the Transformers route of modern adaptations) were alright, and the Muppets movie was a "comeback" done right. This is just another studio flex ala Space Jam 2, substituting references, meta commentary, and not-so-subversive subversions in place of plot, characters, and timelessness.

I was JUST telling someone else about this. Even if you ignore Bobby Driscoll's story (you shouldn't), the fact that Chip and Dale seem to age at a realistic pace, while the Lost Boy isn't at all aged and Peter aged SLOWLY (he should be pushing 80, *generously,* if he was born before starring in his film) just makes no godamn sense. You could have made the villain *ANYONE* OTHER than Peter fucking Pan and it not only would have been more tasteful, it also wouldn't have me madly rambling in circles trying to explain to people how time works in this universe. Making the villain Peter Pan makes the movie OBJECTIVELY, not just morally, worse.

I just don't follow the film's logic. CGI Baloo is explicitly stated to be the same Baloo who was in Tailspin, even though those Baloos have different voice actors. But Lumiere is still 2D, even though creepy live-action Lumiere exists now. So was Lumiere replaced or did he get the CGI surgery and then switch back later? Is photo realistic Pumbaa the same as 2D Pumbaa, or a replacement? How come Peter, Chip and Dale all aged but Tubby didn't? Why did Tubby's voice sound nothing like it did in the movies? If Peter Pan aged normally, shouldn't he be around 70 by now? He looks like he's in his fifties at the oldest. And every time Disiney's Peter Pan appeared in other media, was that a different, look-alike toon? How do long-running cartoons like The Simpsons, Pokemon and Arthur prevent their child characters from aging? Is Mickey Mouse dead of old age? Is the mouse we've been seeing recently a replacement? Does he get repeated surgeries every time he appears in a new project with a new animation style? We see Scrooge McDuck is alive; how old is he now? We don't see any CGI toons in the prologue during the 90s and earlier, and that makes sense since CGI was rarely used for character animation at the time. That means every CGI character we see in the present is a formerly 2D toon who got the 3D surgery, right? I'm surprised at how many non-celebrity toons apparently forked over the money for this. Pete shouldn't need to kidnap anyone for his bootleg movies because it should be very easy for him to find willing participants. If I correctly understand that toons can't play multiple characters like human actors can, then there should easily be thousands of toons just like him who were cast aside when they got too old or their studios just lost interest in their characters. He could just hire all those guys to do bootlegs of their own movies. And look, I know the premise is inherently silly and I'm okay with that, but even a silly movie needs to have rules. This movie just throws out so many ideas that are all interesting in isolation but together form a bit of a jumbled mess.

Hollywood is just too mean spirited to create proper homages to beloved classics. They think everyone else is as nihilistic and bitter as they are. I remember an episode of Tiny Toons that explored the topic of old cartoons much better. Babs Bunny finds old films of a black and white cartoon character named Honey and she really likes that toon and wants to meet her, but it turns out that Honey fell into obscurity and disappeared, and nobody knows where she is. It's established that laughter keeps toons young, as Bugs Bunny is also a very old toon but because he didn't lose his popularity, he stayed as young as ever. To help find her Babs starts playing her old cartoons in a movie theater, and Babs finds out that Honey was this old woman who came to her theater in hopes to see people entertained by her. The audience's laugher gives Honey her confidence back, and she is restored to her younger self. It was a wholesome episode that respected the characters.

If Sweet Pete’s backstory was meant to be commentary on how badly Disney treated Bobby Driscoll, it’s terrible commentary because Bobby didn’t become a criminal, much less a mob boss

The whole trafficking plot was very... Odd for a Disney movie.

Good points regarding the plot holes. Chip and Dale had been around even after Rescue Rangers the 80s series.

What could've saved Peter Pan is if it turned out he was a bootlegs character the whole time. What if it turned out once a character gets bootleged their mind is also alter by design of the criminals to make then eaiser to control? If they wrote that in they could of said Peter was a victim of the bootleggers which altered both his personality as well as his physical appearance. They even set this up when we see one of the lost boys didn't age which could of been a good hint for all this. It turns out the clay cop was the real mastermind and used that machine to forcible change Peter Pans mind from the happy flying boy who never grew up to a sad grounded adult mobster who blindly takes orders from the criminal underworld. They could've then use this as a plot device where we see the rangers save peter pan, turn him back to normal and maybe even have him learn to fly again symbolizing the return of his happiness. Instead he's just evil now and apparently he aged but no one else in this world did.

This film was certainly…..a movie. And yet, it was still better than Ralph Breaks The Internet.

This movie seemed to me more than just poorly planned and mean spirited, but actually salty and spiteful. Because what's likely to happen soon is that Steamboat Willie is going to go into the public domain with little chance of Disney successfully lobbying to extend the copyright date. Worse for Disney still, there are talks of removing a lot of the Disney's previous lobbying success and reducing the copyright back to 55 years. If that happens, Disney might criticise these as "bootlegs" even if they are superior to whatever product/reboot they're endlessly churning out, instead of addressing the fact that a lot of their newer stuff doesn't hold a candle to the original. It especially seems suspicious since through hell or high water they've been rebooting anything they get their hands on. And rebooting, unlike the bootlegs, was praised in the movie. I'm not saying this is a PSYOP or something by Disney, but it certainly feels like they let their true intentions show.

A movie that is a spiritual successor to Roger Rabbit and explores more modern animation subjects like reboots, CGI "makeovers," or foreign cartoons like anime would be awesome but I don't think it's this movie. How they incorporated the Bobby Driscoll tragedy into a villainous Peter Pan kills not only what good ideas this film had it also doesn't seem consistent with those ideas i.e. here Chip and Dale met in the 80s when they've really been around for decades and been in thousands of other properties. Or how characters like Peter Pan are (sometimes) public domain and have appeared elsewhere outside Disney shows and films. If they really wanted a Meta deconstruction of pop culture they went about it in a lazy way not even counting the tasteless handling of Peter Pan.

I didn't knew the story of Bobby Drescoll, that's so sad. But even if it's an unfortunate coincidence, did they have to make Peter into the villian? Why can't they make an original villian or take an already existing one? Why is current media always making old heroes either become villians or do morally reprehensible things?

THANK YOU! I don't think I've seen another review bring up Jake and the Neverland Pirates nor the inconsistencies with the villain's plan. If they just explained it was a mental hurdle MAYBE that would be something. Many real life events have an easier solution, but people take the difficult option. Like CEOs paying just a bit more money to ensure their buildings won't collapse. Or parents paying attention to their kids social media before a shooting. I don't think Chip or Dale called him out for that. Batman the Animated Series did this better with Calendar Girl for crying out loud! My other gripe is this should've been a Bonkers movie given the plot. It would make more sense and already has toons mingling with live action although everything was animated in that show BUT the animators made sure to give the tools four fingers and the "live" people five as a clue. Also Bonkers has the same backstop of being a hit star only to be booted out. He has connections with the police having worked in it with Lucky. But of course not many people at the time liked Bonkers so of course they change Rescue Rangers. I do though so it hurts. Thank you for your review. This was very cathartic. ^_^

Yeah. This movie screams Yikes. Disregarding the tracing and Peter Pn controversies, there’s too many inconsistencies with the story. Though, I feel sorry for the animators. Also, neat how I’m not the only one who brought up Peter’s appearance in Jake and the Neverland Pirates.

I think they didn't want to give Gadget much screen time in fear of her being sexualized like in the original series, similar to how Cartoon Network cut Miss Bellum out of the Powerpuff Girls reboot. It's funny how studios try to fix "issues" of the original by removing elements they think are problematic while really it's what made the original work in the first place.😑

The thing that bothered me from the beginning, is that Rescue Rangers wasn't a debut for Chip and Dale. There were cartoons about them and Donald Duck WAAAAAY before Rescue Rangers. Did the screenwriter forget about that? Did Disney forget about their own legacy?

7:46 If I were a betting man, I'd say Seth Rogen came up with that bit. "Durr hurr mouse flies."

Also, apparently Gadget married Zipper....and they had 42 kids... The whole movie just feels like one big spiteful meta humor joke...

My biggest question was why did they make this movie?

If they wanted a main antagonist why not one of the extras in an animated movie, they got sick and tired of being regelated to the background so they made their own business.

Honestly, I would have preferred something closer to the original material Disney already has Bonkers, which was their version of Rodger Rabbit. Hell, at the very least they could have made Bonkers the villain, since no one really liked his show and it could have made him fit more into this movie's universe

From what I heard the original antagonist was going to be Pluto (Mickey’s pet dog) since he does have a history of chasing Chip and Dale, so they thought he would make for a good villain. After some test screenings, they decided to change the villain since Pluto is to recognizable and memorable or the Disney egos didn’t like them using one of their mascots. They originally wanted to use Charlie Brown from the Peanuts as the new villain. It would be similar to Sweet Pete where he was a former child Star now turned into a washed up adult, it would be a bit similar to Charlie’s voice actor Peter Robbins who was arrested for his criminal threats. It was changed again to avoid paying Apple to use the character, also I’m pretty sure they would say no to Disney for letting them antagonize one of their characters. Still a odd choice to have Peter Pan as a villain since he to is very iconic in the world of Disney.

There is no way this movie can ever be like Roger Rabbit. And after finally finding out what happened to Peter Pan’s voice actor, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth…not to mention the “animation”

Chip and Dale and the Multiverse of Madness.

It's sad seeing that past the nostalgia, this movie had such a spiteful aspect to it. It's unfortunate, because i loved how they made Ugly Sonic likeable, but once i found out about Peter pan being was not just a basic villain but an analogy to bobby driscoll, it spoiled my positive opinion of the film as its an issue Disney still contributes to today with ho often their child stars burnout from the pressure. If the Driscoll analogy was not in the movie, it would have been a 'positive meh' kind of film- too flawed to be good, but not egregiously corporate like Space Jam 2 was. For that reason, i think it is not a Roger Rabbit successor.

Personal Opinion? It fails as both Chip n' Dale's Rescue Rangers and a successor to Roger Rabbit. It is completely lazy on practically every level. It is not well crafted at all. The thing is, Disney DOES have a character who could be a spiritual successor to Roger Rabbit because that is exactly what he was made to be. Who all aside me remembers Bonkers? I actually had a hard time placing that one mentally because it is a fully animated cartoon where the human characters are supposed to be "real" and Bonkers and co are "toons". That one could have actually benefitted from a live action/animation hybrid. *Given that Roger Rabbit actually showed up in this movie, they could even have made a joke about Bonkers being a rip off Roger Rabbit. Heck, Bonkers went through more than one animation style and switched partners which could have been used as a gag - him starting with Lucky, and ending with the lady cop somehow. Disney has been resting on its laurels rather hard core lately, and Chip n' Dale are just the latest victims. This is unimaginative tripe.

I remember seeing people on Tik Tok saying that it doesn’t matter that they are basically mocking the original Peter Pan’s VA life and that we are just hating for no reason. They should realize that Disney is not a great company, as much as I love Disney movies, the company has done some really terrible things. A very good example would be that they celebrated pride month but were called out by the creator of Gravity Falls, Alex. Alex said that he wanted to reveal that the two sheriffs are a gay couple but Disney didn’t want him to. As much as Disney makes great movies, they really are a terrible company

How the hell did they take down Sora?? He is basicaly a FF character in terms of combat prowess.

Ugly Sonic was probably the only good thing to come from this. But seriously, the nonstop cameos in movies got old with the Scary Movies franchise.

Ugly Sonic is the true hero of this movie. He literally saves the day.

I understand that some people can like it and that's fine. But I don't want to see it even if I could. Chip and Dale could be removed entirely and replaced with generic characters and it would be the same.

Had no idea about the Bobby Driscoll situation, I honestly just thought they were taking ideas from "Once upon a time" Peter Pan was the main villain of half of season 3.

Also don't forget about the Tinkerbell book series and Peter Pan games. He was in there too.

This entire movie was doomed from the start because it chased after a false sense of uniqueness in a post Sonic the Hedgehog/ Detective Pikachu world. They took notes on the Tom and Jerry failure and used that to confirm they would need to distract the kids with ALL the animation styles to get this movie to sell. The limited release on their shitty streaming service was the only smart move they made!

Heck, The Amazing World of Gumball does this animation mash up better and its a TV show.

"Death is coming for us all kid.' Still the best line of the movie.

I have to admit that I knew very vaguely about the story of the Peter Pan actor, I had no idea that the poor thing had suffered so much. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it may be a coincidence (it is not the first time that a child actor has lost popularity as they grow up) but if Disney really did it with the intention of referencing the tragedy of Bobby then it is not black humor, it's downright cruel. Good video btw 😊

It's funny that Bonkers showed up since they're using the same plot from his pilot episode. Also there wasn't a need for a movie like this since they already returned in the recent ducktales in a much more respectful way, and also who in the hell came up with Gadget and Zipper hooking up? Their kids look freakier than Donkey and Dragon's offspring!

I'm surprised that they got Alan Oppenheimer to voice Skeletor again in this small cameo!

And the movie also ignored Peter Pan's Sequel movie, Return to Neverland, where Peter stays a boy and he met a grown up Wendy and her daughter, Jane. And the movie use only Tigra from Avengers united? Wish they use Tigra from Tigra and Dazzler show that supposed to part of the Offenders universe on Hulu with M.O.D.O.K, Hit Monkey(Hit Monkey is best one) and shelved Howard The Duck. Surprise they can't access the shelved cartoon, cause you know they're Disney, same company. They should've gone meta with Disney 65 episodes only rule, and the bias cartoons gets exceptions to have more episodes

The one thing I liked about the movie were the cameos and Easter eggs of a few animated/Cgi characters; other than that this movie feels tasteless, especially with Peter Pan being the villain.

Plus they made bootlegs of characters because Disney doesn’t have the rights. But the hypocrisy of Disney “we can make boot legs of others but if you make bootlegs of us we will sue you.”

Maybe one reason they put Gadget and Zipper together was to be some kinda homage to Roger and Jessica? But, they don't have weird hybrid-toon babies.. Maybe just that could've been shown, just them together in a nice relationship, and leave the rest to fans lol

Excellent points, J. I agree with nearly everything that you stated. As much as folks compare the film to the Roger Rabbit movie, it seems to be using the logic of the Last Action Hero film. Within the Jack Slater 5 movie, Silverster Stallone is the star of the Terminator films. However, Robert Patrick as the T-1000 makes a cameo appearance at the police station, along with other fictional movie characters. Soooooo how can there be Terminator movies but also actual terminators wondering around??? In other words, the cameos, Easter eggs, meta jokes are more important than logical consistency of the fictional universe. My biggest complaint about this new Chip 'N Dale film is that "Rescue Rangers" is in the title, despite the fact that Zipper, Monterey Jack, and Gadget are barely part of the adventure? It is down right insulting to imply the reboot of a team franchise when 60% of the team has barely 3 collective minutes of screen time. Wazupwitdat? By the way, why have a Hollywood actor voice Monterey Jack when Jim Cummings was also doing voice work for the film? Because the Hollywood guy is actually Australian?

Sora actually isn't under contract with Disney in this movie. He's a Square-Enix boy, like Cloud Strife and Sephiroth. Also, the whole movie itself was supposed to be Disney's way of holding a funhouse mirror up not only to themselves, but every studio that ever engaged in animation. Beyond that, people are talking about Bobby Driscoll again for the first time in ages, which in and of itself, is a good thing. His story is heartbreaking and the way Disney treated him, well, he deserved better.

This will be a pretty long comment, so bare with me... First of all, I'll admit, I never really knew about the tragedy of Bobby Driscoll until it was revealed that Peter Pan was the villain and people complained about it. That being said, I had no idea that he became homeless, or that his mom was trying to find him and couldn't because the info on where he was buried was lost. All of that makes all of the scenes with Peter - especially his final one during the credits - hit even worse. What were they thinking?! Second, as for my own thoughts on the movie... I'll just copy-paste my review. As a Chip 'n Dale Movie, I think it's okay at best. As a Rescue Rangers Movie? It's pretty bad. It makes me glad that DuckTales 2017 turned out as good as it did. That show was made by people who loved the Disney Afternoon cartoons, and tried to do it some justice for the new generation. This one feels like the people here wanted to make "Roger Rabbit 2" instead and simply chose a nostalgic property because reboots are the cool new thing. When I first heard of the movie being made, I was expecting "The Rescue Rangers take on Fat Cat/Nimnul/an original villain in their most dangerous scheme yet!" Or "The Rescue Rangers have gone their separate ways, but join together once more to take on a new threat!" Or "This is a new origin story for the how Rescue Rangers came together to stop Fat Cat!" Not "Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2: Starring Chip 'n Dale from the Rescue Rangers!" While Monty's kidnapping does drive the plot, Gadget and Zipper only help out at the very end of the movie where they fly Dale to his destination, and even then they remain uninvolved in the final conflict! If this is supposed to be a “Rescue Rangers Movie,” why not have Gadget and Zipper team up with the duo to help find Monty? You mean to tell me Monty called in Chip n’ Dale for help, but not Gadget and his best pal Zipper? Heck, why not have Fat Cat and Nimnul help out as well? Sure, you could argue “they’re evil, they would never help those Rescue Rodents,“ but as previously mentioned, in this world, The Rescue Rangers are actors. In an early scene in the movie, both villains seem to be enjoying making the episodes alongside the heroes. I’m sure they would be more than happy to help them find one of their missing co-stars. Imagine Ellie going “You guys are helping? Aren’t you villains?“ and Fat Cat snarking back at her “Uh, hello? We’re actors. That was only in the show,“ with Nimnul following up with “We’re really nice once you get to know us,” or something like that. Speaking of which... Gadget and Zipper? Really? This pairing really feels like it’s a spit on the fans than anything. I’d rather Chip/Gadget, Dale/Gadget, or just Gadget living by herself than that. (And I’m not even a massive shipper in the Rescue Rangers fandom) I’d probably be less upset by that if they weren’t so selective on what Rescue Rangers lore they brought back/referenced. Like, Monty’s obsession with cheese wasn’t something that Monty “the character” was obsessed with. Monty “the actor” is also addicted to cheese, and it’s treated like a drug addiction. (And nobody in-universe cares that they wrote his addiction into their script because...?) Gadget herself comments that “I guess my character from the old show and my character in real life are basically exactly the same!“ I might be remembering wrong, but didn’t Gadget sometimes display an interest in Chip, despite her being rather oblivious to love? Heck, Zipper was shown being interested in Queenie the Queen Bee in one episode. Seems to me like they deliberately chose to ignore these two facts simply to spite the original fans. And then there's the whole Peter Pan situation. Even ignoring its very unfortunate ties to the Bobby Driscoll tragedy, his backstory has a major plothole when Peter encounters one of the Lost Boys when he and his minions are chasing the two chipmunks. How did that kid not age a day while Peter did? Never explained. There was that one leak that suggests that PLUTO was intended to be the main villain. And you know what? That might just be the case. When you watch the film with that scrapped plot in mind, you start to notice some things. Like how our main antagonist Peter - originally “Mean Dean” in the leak - doesn’t really have a lot of lines of dialogue before he transforms into that amalgamation of a cartoon, especially compared to the second antagonist of the film. Heck, Mean Dean may not have even been intended to be Peter, only for that to change when they rewrote the script! But I digress... That being said, there were some enjoyable moments here and there. I even think the flashbacks to Chip 'n Dale's childhood was pretty cute. But it's not enough to save the movie for me, and I pray a sequel to this - whether it's following Chip 'n Dale or Darkwing Duck - never happens. If you absolutely have to watch it, then I suggest you “set sails on the high-seas, matey!“ and never look back. It’s true what they say: “Sometimes, some films deserve to slip through the cracks.“

Its not Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers movie, its really Chip n' Fail: Rescue-Me-From-This-God-Awful-Assault-On-My Childhood-Worst-Than-R34 movie

Great review. You summed up this movie perfectly. It’s basically a poor man’s version of Roger Rabbit. It’s amazing how a movie that’s over 30 years old was able to do a better job at blending animation with live action. One thing I should mention is that whilst main “2D” characters are 3D cel shading models, the background 2D characters like Tigra and Lumiere were animated traditionally. Also, whilst I have nothing against Eric Bana voicing Monterey Jack, why didn’t they get Peter Cullen or Jim Cummings to voice him, especially when the latter is already in the movie reprising his roles such as Darkwing Duck and Pete.

I actually thought this movie was ok and I personally didn't know that happened to Bobby Driscoll

Despite never seeing the movie myself, I whole-heartedly agree with you. From the scenes I've seen on KZfaq, the whole thing looks to be in poor taste and I'm shocked about what happened to Peter Pan's actor in real life! The movie 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' was the best mash-up of Looney Tunes and Disney characters with funny antics and a great murder mystery to boot! While we all knew that Judge Doom was a 'bad guy' throughout, it was a shock to find out he was a TOON and he had killed the MC's brother! This Chip and Dale movie made no sense, and they don't address some plot devices they use, like the main one, 'why Peter Pan aged' when others didn't. And how they tried to make things CGI with Baloo instead of leaving him a cartoon from the original. Also, it's like a punch to the gut when none of the original Disney movies were acknowledged except for this half-baked plan with these... caricatures? The story itself feels like a mis-match of puzzle pieces trying to be fit on the same board!

Well umm.. I'm just gonna come and say it this shit is messed up...

If I didn't know about the story of Bobby Driscoll, I could probably find some amusement out of the wackiness of the movie, but after discovering the story prior to the film's release, it casts a really ugly and mean-spirited shadow over the whole ordeal. Even without that, the film was the equivalent of throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what stuck. Unfortunately, not a lot did. The animation was inconsistent, the jokes barely reached above mildly amusing, and the prominent human cast member had the charisma of a paper bag, and really struggled to act alongside characters who weren't there. I honestly had a better time watching The Happytime Murders, which had a scene of a puppet releasing silly-string out of himself for a full minute.

I didnt watch it yet but the peter pan bobby driscoll and the fact they comment on animation and use bad cellshade animation in characters that are suposse to be 2d animation is a yikes to me

I actually preferred if they made Cat in the Hat 2003 as the villain in Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers 2022 film and casting Mike Myers again to played.

That's so sad that they made a joke of Bobby. That's just sick and too far...

Captain Hook now has a hook to grind with the movie.

That "2D", 3D CG is pretty rough. I'd imagine it's way cheaper and easier to blend with the other effects than actually hand drawing it, but you can tell that from any still, and they didn't even address the linework not filling properly.

yeah i think that Bobby Driscoll connection was in very poor taste

Thanks for the review J.👍

I thought it would have been good if the antagonist Sweet Pea the adoptive son of Popeye as a cynical take on Boss Baby even though that is an obscure character

I heard that Pluto was originally gonna be the movie's big villain. Not sure why it was changed, but the trailers for the movie made it clear who was 'Sweet Pete'.

This movie crapped on poor Peter Pan. This is a really bad version of him and his real Disney self would hate it.

I absolutely hated this movie.... got 20 mins in and put the Bobby Driscoll and Peter Pan thing together... and was just disgusted. It felt like it was mocking my childhood nastolgia.... Just like the last jedi.

This was very weird movie and i do like me some films that are meta but i feel like other movies like Spaceballs, The LEGO Movie and Deadpool films have done the meta humor much better, the thing is that I feel like a movie like this has lots of potential especially if they gave it to the same writers who worked on The LEGO Movie it could’ve been great! Tho I will admit that I’d like some of the cameos mainly Skelator with Alan Oppenheimer coming back after 40 years as well as seeing Dreamworks characters in a Disney Movie which actually caught me more off guard than Ugly Sonic.

Honestly kind of makes me sad that this film exists. It’s so soulless and corporate. And yet tons of people see *zero* issues with it. I don’t get it.

My biggest gripe with this movie is that.... if they wanted it to be a Chip n Dale movie then, Why are the other characters related to Chip n' Dale, like Rescue Rangers, side characters? I LOVED the Rescue Rangers show, so to find out that they only appears as Side Characters is quite disappointing. And to say that learning how Disney treated the voice actors of character, I loved as a kid, like Peter Pan, soured my respect towards them would be a Understatement.

Honestly, it would make more sense to have Ugly Sonic as the main villain than Peter Pan.

Ugly Sonic was the only good thing to come out of the Chip & Dale movie. Everything else in the film was mediocre to me as it is no Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Especially with Peter Pan as the villain being the worst part due to the similarities between his backstory and the life of Bobby Driscoll.

Okay finally someone who has criticism as opposed to nearly endless praise. I don't get most of the reviews I've seen for this movie. for me it's 6 out of 10 at best (and I'd say the Peter Pan factor knocks it down to 5) I think I could count the number of times I chuckled at this film on one hand. Maybe meta humor just isn't my thing. The movie definitely requires you to just go with the flow because if you start thinking about it, the plot very quickly falls apart. However I'd be fine looking passed that if I found it entertaining. Chip and Dale weren't bad but I felt like they were just going through the paces. I didn't buy their chemistry by the climax. So no matter how you slice it for me, comedy, story, animation, emotion, I wasn't entertained. Oh and don't even get me started on Gadget and Zipper... I have nothing for that.

The entire movie just doesn't make sense

Everything about this movie is just sad. The cynical treatment of the characters is sad. Using a real life death as some kind of meta commentary is sad. Relying on meta commentary at all is sad. As a fan of the 90s Disney cartoons, I'll stay FAR away from this sad...mess.

Welp, file this one under "Do Not Watch; Kill with Fire."

This movie has really not plot and is mostly just references and jabs, which is what "Ugly Sonic" feels like since it was one time the fans got to have input. The fact there's a lot of CGI with caretakers still being cartoons is jarring and, especially with Dale getting the Surgery to be 3D when he already was. The story being like a Roger Rabbit or Bonkers where Cartoons exist in the real world and the Rescue Rangers are essentially washed-up actors was just a bad idea and somewhat cynical. Gadget a fan favorite was barely in it, while the movie shoved Ugly Sonic all over which begs the question why.

I had never heard about the whole peter pan thing but now that i know about it i don't think i would be able to watch the chip and dale movie without thinking about it so i don't really want to watch it any more. I had considered looking into the movie but that is just sick.

Wow. There was seriously nobody on the staff for this thing that could take FIVE MINUTES to draw Sora's hair? They had to steal random fanart!? A twelve year old could have drawn that for them! The people behind this trashfire didn't even try....

Two words: Seth rogen. Now, HE is the director or designer of “this”. Did we all conveniently forget “Santa inc.”?

I’m not sure the movie understands the implications of bootlegging considering they failed to use Danny phantom’s hair instead of sora’s for that scene, missed opportunity there, and also the fact that Phineas’s own mom doesn’t look for him when he’s bootlegged.

they made chip out to be a lonely loser with no friends. walking the streets alone. BUT his coworkers wanted Chip to come join them for drinks. which is it?

I'm pissed they made the Peter Pan grown because of the Bobby Driscoll controversy.

2:55 lol, Tigra looks like Catra

I love how many people on Twitter and Instagram talked about how great the film was yet even just looking at screenshots and the trailer (plus all the controversy) you can see just how shit the film actually was.

I liked the movie… but as far as Bobby Driscoll… yeah… they went there.

The dumbest part of the marketing was the use of crappy hip hop music instead of the theme song form the show. How did they screw that up!? Literally, all they had to do was play the theme song over any images of the movie.. I mean my god, it’s too easy

I guess you could make the argument that the Other versions of these characters are just different people like the Chippendale from the 40s Are different people from the ones we follow in the film but even that doesn’t make any sense, I mean what are the odds that you would find a cartoon chipmunk with the same name the same look and everything I mean that would be like wanting to do a home alone sequel but you can’t because the actor is all grown up so you try to find a kid who is exactly the same in every way that’s not luck that’s insanity. Same applies to all the other characters in this universe I think the fact that the characters age in this world is the biggest plot whole of them all

There was basically no reason for this movie to have been made. It's a desperate cash grab off of people's nostalgia that admits it's a desperate cash grab off of people's nostalgia, only it is a thousand times lazier than anyone could have anticipated.

How much you want to bet what they did to Peter was retribution for the redman song? But seriously, when they did to the character, and the fact that his tragedy was based off of Bobby's fate was messed up, mean spirited, spiteful, and wrong on so many levels. I believe it was done on purpose.

Honestly, I agree. The whole movie is pretty meh in my opinion and I didn't really enjoy Chip and Dale's voices threw out the movie either. (Zipper's too for that matter)

I feel bad for Robert "Bobby" Discroll when Walt Disney Studios kicked him out and died in New York

What did they do to my boys! CnD RR was one of my favorite cartoons. Gadget kicked butt and the teamwork make the project. This didn’t need the poor excuse of a villain and especially didn’t need the excess cameos. It is like the producers/execs couldn’t trust that the chip and dale property could stand on its own, but needed a convoluted addition to tie it into so many different (and possibly) better properties. In a sort of name dropping fashion, all for notice it doesn’t seem to deserve.

That's pretty messed up. Making fun of Bobby Driscoll's demise isn't funny...it just seems tasteless and spiteful. : /

If you haven't heard apparently the Peter Pan thing wasn't the originally plan. Originally called Mean Dean, the character was just an analysis for the real villain. Who you ask? Pluto, yes that Pluto. Now as stupid as that is, it would tied Chip n Dale back to there Golden Age roots. Honestly if they had just made an original villain and not use a pre-established character, then we would not have this situation.

Oh no, the moment they brought in Kingdom Hearts, this movie fell completely flat on its face. The universe should've imploded from the lack of logical consistency, even more than the initial Chip and Dale cartoon before Rescue Rangers. Cubbie still being a kid also doesn't make sense and it's not like they did the Robin Williams movie Hook route either. Cats Don't Dance goes more into how brutal the entertainment industry can be without being disrespectful to real life tragedies.

Wonder how would the movie be like if the villain was Ren from Ren and stimpy.

This should have been a bonker’s movie.

Also, that supposed "animated" portion from a Rescue Rangers episode, "Fat Cat Attack" seemed less like an actual episode of the show, and more like it was trying to be Looney Tunes. I feel like I'm the only one who acknowledged that.

Being honest, the only thing that made me have a little more hope for this movie (despite me not having much to begin with) was the Ugly Sonic cameo, it caught my off guard when he first appeared and the fact he had a slightly bigger role than a cameo made me intrigued with this movie, shame we didn’t he him run fast though.

One of the worst things about this absolute insult to Bobby Driscoll in Chip n Dale is the simple fact that Bobby was also the model for Peter Pan, which frankly is _noticeable_ in the character design. And now this movie not only specified that this adult villain Peter IS exactly the old animated one from the movie by showing him on screen, because of that the adult Peter was obviously designed to look like the original one and therefore Bobby Driscoll's physical influence is STILL in this new awful Peter! It is frankly disturbing to think about that with well thought out aged-up design this Adult Peter could actually reflect what he would have looked like if he hadn't died at age 31. Like, oh my fucking god Disney. This is *cold!*