7/10
Old McDonald had a farm... and mountains of debt.
6 May 2021
'Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken! (2017)' attempts to pull the curtain back on the new craze of so-called 'healthy' fast food, focusing specifically on chicken-based chains such as Chick-fil-A. It goes about doing this by showing host Morgan Spurlock (whose admission of sexual harassment kept the piece in purgatory for a couple of years) attempt to start his own fast food restaurant. For a while, it isn't clear exactly why he's doing the very thing he condemned in the movie's predecessor. The way in which he seeks to erroneously market his food as healthy, his chicken as humanely cared-for, his intentions as pure is all just a little too unironic for my liking. Plus, the picture is shot and edited in a bizarrely chaotic, almost amateurish fashion. Eventually, though, something clicks and the affair's true intention becomes crystal clear. Though it isn't the most outwardly scathing of exposés, it's certainly a condemnation of the thuggish culture surrounding 'big chicken' (five chicken-farming companies who provide birds for the entire United States) and the way in which they mislead the general public (which, to be fair, the fast food chains themselves also do), bully farmers and basically make their own rules. There are many eye-opening moments in the movie, especially as it moves into its second half, and its exploration of what goes on before the food arrives at our tables is often actually a little upsetting (thankfully, there's no footage of the killing floor itself). Spurlock is an engaging host (if not necessarily, by his own admission, a great guy) and, once it's clear that he intends to use the information he's gaining as activist ammunition, it's easy to want his experiment to succeed. When everything comes together, it's incredibly satisfying. The picture's pay-off is nearly ingenious; it's the sort of thing that makes you smile because it's so clever and it eliminates any remaining doubts that your host may have truly sold out to the dark side. In the end, though, will it make a difference? Its predecessor did seem to have some effect - after all, this 'new' health craze can't have come from nowhere (though it obviously didn't solely originate with a single documentary) and McDonald's did remove the 'super size' option suspiciously close to the thing's release. If anything, though, I think the movie just proves how willing people are to put their blinders on if it means they can have a clear consciousness. It's not like this stuff is a state-guarded secret; you can find out all sorts of stuff about the food you eat simply by going online. If you show most people a chicken, they'll consider it cute and wouldn't dream of killing it - much less eating it. If you walked into a kitchen with that same chicken and emerged with a fried chicken sandwich, those same people would wolf it down like an animal. Documentaries like this try to show us that we aren't free from blame, that our choices do have an impact whether we like it or not. At the very least, they're able to show us the companies that feed us aren't above lying to us; in fact, that's their very foundation. Ultimately, I think that the film is better than its predecessor, primarily because its central concept is resonant right the way through. It's enjoyable, yet informative and it's told from a very relatable perspective. I just kind of wish that the denouement delved a little deeper into Spurlock's post-'grand opening' plan. 7/10.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed