Alvin und die Chipmunks 2

I don't understand the severely low rating for this film. 2.7?

I was prepared for something awful but wanted to do something with the 4 younger kids before they headed back to school.

This is the movie they wanted to see.

I've seen a lot of kids' movies and this is definitely among the funnier ones I've seen.

My 8-year-old and I sat next to each other and had a hard time controlling our laughter on a few occasions.

I told my husband he definitely has to see this when it comes out on video. I can't wait to watch it with him!

Give it a try - maybe even risk raising your expectations a little!

OK, so I was one of those people who actually enjoyed the first Alvin. I know it was predictable, terribly acted and lacking in substance, but I liked it nonetheless. The Squeakquel not so much. There's no effort to even mask the predictability in this one, the filmmakers just concede to the fact there are no surprises. The acting is noticeably worse, Jason Lee essentially being replaced by the far less appealing Zachary Levi is the main contributor to this problem. And worst of all the shallowness of the plot can't be redeemed by numerous hit songs getting 'munked', like achieved by its predecessor.

The major upside to the movie is still the song and dance numbers, which are turned up to eleven thanks to the arrival of The Chipettes. Brittany, Jeanette and Eleanor (voiced by Applegate, Faris and Poehler respectively) provide two things: firstly, a reason for more girls to watch, secondly, and most importantly, the chance for the film to include female tunes. Its these 'cute girl' routines which provide the bulk of the enjoyment as Alvin, Simon and Theodore's music acts become tired very fast.

Of particular annoyance to me is something that has become increasingly popular in Hollywood: big names being vocally unrecognisable. It occurred in the first Alvin and then again most recently in Planet 51. Why oh why would you use well-known actors if you can't tell it's them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having them at all? Any old person can have their voice synthesised digitally to sound like a chipmunk, is it purely so their names can be included on the poster and in the trailer? Well, it is a real shame, because if I lured in talent like Long, Poehler and Faris I would make more out of it than name-dropping.

2 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)

I asked my 11 year old and 7 year old daughters what they thought of this film. They both loved it.

The 3 on IMDb is a bit misleading. This is a film for children, not a campaign to win an Academy Award! Obviously there are people out there who take things a little toooooo seriously when rating kid's movies.

My 11 year old daughter writes the following: the movie was great. i love the sounds of those little voices. why are kids films usually getting a 2,3,4? the film the music, adventure,scenes were all entertaining for me.

Remember folks, this is a film for children, the chipmunks have been around for more than 30 years so they must be doing something right. If you want to over analyze a film then do a search on the French new age section and go your hardest, on the other hand if you are looking for pure entertainment for your under 12's then go no further.

I really enjoyed this film, but mostly because I went in with the expectation that I would have an hour and a half of laughs and general fun, not a serious film. I have seen the first film, and this isn't as good as it, but probably because film makers always use up all there best ideas in the first films, very few sequels live up to or surpass the originals. Obviously it's not the sort of film you can watch again and again, the jokes are clichéd and will quickly become old to anyone over the age of about 8. It never ceases to amaze me why adults go and see a children's film and somehow expect a serious film. All in all, good fun, the quality of the film isn't bad. Children will enjoy this, and their parents won't be bored by it either!

After all the negative reviews I read, I went in with pretty low expectations. Perhaps that's why I ended up giving up a 7.

Look, this is not Hamlet, Citizen Kane or Duck Soup. This is a PG film that as close to being family friendly than I have seen. I can only imagine the PG rating was due to the fact that the chipettes were darn right sexy - I didn't hear any vulgarity, see any nudity, violence or adult situations.

It is really getting hard to find a film where I can take my 9 year old daughter to. With battling giant robots, vampires, and giant smurfs lurking in 3D, this movie was a relief to see.

The plot is paper thin - though in its defense it did have an ethical base of family, friendship, and responsibility.

The effects were top notch, and there were a few times I even laughed (which was a few more times than I expected).

In one word it was - 'Cute' - which is exactly what I think it sought out to be. Nothing more.. Nothing less. Harmless fluff.

My 9 year old enjoyed it. And at the end of the day, that's all that mattered to me.

This is a film for children. Taken on it's level, I give it a 7. if you want to rate it as art or entertainment for adults? Yeah, mebbe a 2 or 3. But you know what? Some kids were clapping at parts in the theater. To me, that was pretty cool knowing that a film can get kids in a theater clapping for the characters on the screen.

So relax. chill.. bring your little ones... and enjoy...