EarthwormJimFan

I grew up watching the 80's version of the chipmunks, so when I first saw the trailer to this predictable but cute live-action update, I was somewhat happy. Although I knew that the humor would be targeted at a crowd under 10 years old, I still wanted to see it, especially since the 1980's animated film THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE is still one of my all-time favorite animated films.

THE PROS: Well I went and saw it, and my expectations were met. It was more for younger kids, but it was throughly enjoyable. It was good to hear the Chipmunks sing their classic Christmas song, there were plenty of funny (but not hilarious) moments, and the Chipmunks themselves were well-animated and undeniably adorable (particularly Theodore).

THE CONS: The story is predictable (although typical for most kid's films nowadays). Jason Lee is badly miscast as the Chipmunks' long-suffering songwriter and adopted father, David Seville. Also the "romance" between Dave and his neighbor is too clichéd. We don't need some sort of love story in every single film in my opinion.

Overall, there is nothing brilliant about this film, but it's still fun. It ought to please young children and their parents.

BOTTOM LINE: It's no Citizen Kane, but it's more fun than a Hula Hoop.

Matt Groening's superior animated sitcom about the world in the year 3000 is probably one of the smartest cartoons of all time. And it's not like shows from the past that predict what the future would be like (i.e. The Jetsons and Lost in Space), it's an extraordinary cartoon with much more than laugh-out-loud hysterical humor.

Its got striking animation, many ingenious visual ideas, charming characters and some true moments of poignancy. Characters like Fry, the lovable dweeb, Leela, the spunky one-eyed chick, Zoidberg, the clueless crustacean doctor, and Bender, the hilarious smart ass robot are unforgettable characters that possibly only the creator of the Simpsons could have thought of.

This is one irresistible cartoon you don't want to miss. It's astonishing, uproarious, and sweet.

BOTTOM LINE: In the future, you couldn't find a better toon.

How could they take such a beautifully animated gem like Don Bluth's All Dogs go to Heaven and bastardize it with a charmless, cheesy, uninspired sequel. The haunting music and delightful characters are gone, now replaced with tacky animation and an unimaginative plot.

The Pros: Charlie Sheen is sometimes fun as Charlie, but he lacks the charming tough guy attitude that brought him to life by Burt Reynolds. I did particularly enjoy the songs "I will always be with you" and "It's too Heavenly here".

The Cons: There seems to be no connection between this and the original. In the beginning Charlie is chums with Carface, but wait a minute. Isn't this the same character who was responsible for Charlie's murder and kidnapped the sweet little orphan he loved? I guess that all changes in Heaven but why isn't Anne-Marie even mentioned? If Itchy makes it to Heaven, wouldn't Flo and Killer make it too? What is with Annabelle the whippet's voice? In the original it sounded feminine and charming and in the sequel it sounds like a whiny, bitchy, parrot. The new characters aren't all that great (except Sasha). And the animation is better compared to a generic Saturday morning cartoon. The constant cartoony "humor" is flat and unfunny and the "heart" just doesn't work when compare to the original, which had such a moving unsubtle touch that makes me cry every time.

All Dogs go to Heaven is one of my all-time favorite films. How Don Bluth allowed this sequel to be made is beyond me.

BOTTOM LINE: Not all sequels go to Heaven.