Alvin Superstar

Alvin and the chipmunks. I guess just about anyone that has ever watched television cartoons knows them. Right before their 50th birthday they make another appearance, this time on the cinema screen in a film that just like Garfield (2004) combines live actors and computer graphics. The story of the film is no new one: a guy becomes the more or less unwilling host to the chipmunks as their tree is demolished and together they roll from one adventure into the other.

For the rest there is not much to tell about this film. It is worked out well enough and most kids will enjoy it. I know the one I watched it with did. It isn't half bad for the adults either. Graphics have been done well enough and the actors work with it well enough to make a nicely working film. Storyline is rather straightforward and very predictable, but not really to the point of being irritating.

All in all, typical children's film that works out well enough for the younger audience and that doesn't put the parents to sleep right from the start 6 out of 10 chipmunks singing

Gotta kid? Then you know all about this movie cause that is all you hear about. It is all I heard about for the last week and so I finally saw it with my cousin who is a mother to a 7 year old- she really wanted to see it first. So, let me say this: There will be no problem letting her 7 year old watch it.

I kinda enjoyed it too seeing how I had to be dragged to it. But once there I was not bored and there seemed to be a crowd that apparently was expecting a treat of some kind as several appeared to be veterans of earlier showings who had then gone out and grabbed their posse to watch it again (only with them this time).

Nice way to spend a Saturday with the kids and grab a laugh or three. Anyway, I'll give it a thumbs up!

A CGI+ live action movie from the director of Garfield 2.? Also, once again a movie with a loser "dad" character and some very bad children (okay, they are chipmunks but behave just as children as they are kids) like Daddy Day Camp and others? Actually, the chipmunks make all the difference and save the movie. What does not work with Garfield (warm Hollywood-emotions and the animal as a fast rock star-type) works perfectly with the chipmunks. Also their animation is never off-setting as it quite often was with Garfield. And even after almost 50 years, it still makes you smile to hear them singing. When you watch the trailer you can see that poo-eating part which I see is in the movie just to bring in that type of audience - I think it is a bad idea as it makes others think twice before buying ticket for this movie which has only one fart joke and this poo joke of this type of "humour". Otherwise it is watchable and the animated characters are even lovable (Jason Lee is not so great in this). It was a fun travel back in the time when I watched them as a child. Not a big movie, also there are problems with the pacing but it's much better than expected.

After a month of purposely deciding NOT to watch this movie, I finally decided to humor my friend and see this update on Ross Bagdasarian, Snr.'s, creations from fifty years ago. There were pretty funny scenes when they surprised Dave in the beginning and a hilarious one when their manager, Ian (David Cross), gave each of them a caffeinated iced drink to give them energy. Other than that, this was a mostly by-the-numbers story of the pressures of success and the toll it takes on your health. In fact, the climatic scene when the rodent music group is revealed to be lip-syncing to their own vocals (because of their now-hoarse voices) seems aimed at those who go for such acts like Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson instead of real musicians who play genuine music (though I don't consider what David Seville-Jason Lee-had auditioned initially for Ian authentic either). It's obvious that Lee ("My Name Is Earl") and Cross ("Arrested Development") took these roles for a large paycheck though Lee, at least, grows on you after a while. The music performances of the Chipmunks themselves are variable depending on whether you like any of the songs they sing here or the way their voices completely dominate though I admit liking their performance of "Only You", "Funkytown", and, of course, "The Chipmunk Song", and even the updated version of "Witch Doctor" (though I prefer the original recordings). Not bad for a reboot though for my money, I think I'd love to see the original version for television from the '50s, "The Alvin Show". P.S. What a treat to see the original album covers of The Chipmunks over the years during the end credits.

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.