Poulets en fuite : L'aube de la pépite

This sequel to 'Chicken Run' arrives after 23 years, but don't worry, being animated the returning cast haven't aged a bit! Although the story picks up where the original left off, this is an entirely new adventure and you don't really have to see the first film to follow the story, although it is highly recommended. The opening to 'Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget' recaps the events of the first film in a nutshell.

The chickens are living happily on an island away from humans, and Ginger and Rocky starts a family. Their daughter is Molly. No sooner has she become a teenager than she becomes curious about the world and what lies on the other side of the lake. When trucks arrive and start clearing the forest, the chickens devise a plan to shelter themselves from human vision, but Molly wants to explore...and so she does.

She befriends a chicken named Frizzle, and together the head to Fun-Land Farms where they believe chickens to live happy lives, according to an advert they saw. Off course the farms are not what it seems, and they soon get into trouble.

It's up to Ginger, Rocky and some of their friends to save them. Last time they broke out of a chicken farm; this time they're breaking in. A familiar antagonist from the first film returns, as well, but I won't spoil it for you.

I enjoyed the stop-motion animation, the characters, their adventures, and the humour. This is a delightful film young and old can enjoy. The film also illustrates how the younger generation are not always appreciative of what their parents went through to ensure their survival, and I don't think youngsters watching this will fully understand. These are lessons a mature audience will relate to.

As much as I enjoyed 'Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget', I enjoyed 'Chicken Run' more, because it was simpler and funnier.

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.

For me, this sequel was a decent continuation of the original. It was based on the same concept as the original with some minor additions.

The story was simple and light hearted just like the original, the screenplay was decent, the direction was decent, the animation was unique like the original and the voice actors did a good job. The thrill elements were embedded nicely in the story which makes this normal story little bit enjoyable.

But to be honest, I think this sequel was unnecessary as it was underwhelming if we compare it to the original. Overall, this movie was a decent entertainer.

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.

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.