Alvin y las Ardillas 2

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!

Today I had to sit through this movie several times. :-(

As an adult, it wasn't funny or entertaining. But what amused me was the reaction from the kids in the audiences. Almost none of the kids laughed out loud during the matinée viewing (the showing with the most kids in attendance).

Some take away comments from the mouth of babes: "Is it over YET?" "I'm bored" and my personal favorite "That wasn't so funny at all." (poor kid said it over and over again with the "big" jokes.) Plus, I had never seen so many kids ready to leave after the first 15 minutes.

It didn't get better over the course of the evening.

Let's face it: "The Chipmunks" is a pretty thin premise. Once you get past the novelty of squeaky voiced animated rodents, there's really not much there. So this movie's straight-line, A to B to C story is a serious drawback.

Director Betty Thomas doesn't get a whole lot out of the cast (although, to be honest, I don't expect much in the way of high-caliber acting in movies like this), and the whole thing has a bit of a TV-movie feel, but the animation is rather good, and the film moves moves along at a pretty good clip, so even adults won't get too bored.

Certainly, for some reviewers, a film like this, in the final analysis, is perfectly acceptable, since it's "for kids," and thus the only thing that counts is whether it's "entertaining" on some basic level, regardless of its actual quality. That's a pretty common attitude toward kids' films, and one that really sells children short, as if they have no interest in character or story. They do, just like anyone else, albeit on a less sophisticated level than (most) adults. For example, I know that a lot of reviewers hated "Hotel for Dogs" but that film had an engaging story, well-drawn characters and a story that, while ultimately predictable, still held a few twists and turns. It wasn't particularly good, but it was better than this film.

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)

This film is about three chipmunks who has to put their singing career on hold to attend high school.

Even when I was typing the plot summary, I was already laughing out loud. What a ridiculous story! Can a sane person imagine chipmunks going to high school, and have all the schoolmates treat them like actual people? The plot is full of stupid and crazy clichés, in every imaginably contrived manner. And the voices of the chipmunks are so high pitched that they hurt my ears and annoy me so much. Even putting my enraged emotions aside, I often could not hear what the chipmunks say, which made me like the film even less. The quality of the animation is bad, production is bad, and acting is bad. Everything is uniformly bad. I can't believe how awful this film is, even taken into account that this is a children's film!