Alvin et les Chipmunks: La suite

Saw an early screening. I never saw the first one, but within the context of it being a kids' movie, it was actually quite well made. I actually laughed at the jokes, and I'm 33 and educated. If I were a young kid, I'd love this movie a lot, but I'm way past that and am often quite critical of children's genre films these days. The plot was coherent and the moral issues were clear. The characters stay true to themselves, much to anyone who is a fan of the original cartoon characters, and the dynamic of character triads works well for moral storytelling.

The moral lesson to be taught is about learning to be selfless and considerate of others. This is explored through Alvin and his ego problem, and the consequences it has on his friends and family. Other characters have their own arcs as well, and they read clear and convincingly.

On the downside, I think there are some choices that hurt the quality. Dave, the most famous human character in the franchise is probably in the film for about 5 minutes total, however the human characters we're left with are good performers with decent subplots. I did not care for the cliché use of a fart joke, but I forgive it because there was only one, and it was used in a way that's actually still funny to adults.

Sure, it's not the most intellectual film for an adult audience, but it serves its purpose and achieves its goals, despite being the result of commercialism. I highly recommend it to anyone looking to take their small kids out to a movie.

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)

You know this still works for the little ones, but will appall a lot older viewers, than say the first one did. It's basically more of the same, even with the addition of some Chipmunks "rivals" (another group of talking ...). The little ones won't mind (I watched it with my nephew and he enjoyed it), but what about the parents? There are other movies that can please both.

Still not really that bad, you can watch this in its own right or at least put the kids there and let them enjoy it. It's like the Chipmunks won't grow up (literally and physically that is), but again it's only us grown-ups that will think about things like that.

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!