Beverly Hills Chihuahua (Ci uauh a)

I have been using IMDb to obtain feedback on movies for several years now, and what I find is that people here tend to be a little too bias toward A-list, blockbuster movies. Chihuahua does not fall into that category by any means, but that does not warrant dismissing it outright. It is true that the film's cast could have been put to better use, but given the parameters set by the Disney-style writing, they did what they could and it was enough to let me enjoy their performances. I read a review on here that commented on the inaccuracy of geographical information. I agree that if Disney is going to make a film like this, it is unfortunate that they do not take the time to educate their young audiences a little. We wouldn't be talking doctorate level research here, just basic fact-checking.

The plot of this movie was not deep, but not many Disney movies NEED to be in order to cater to their young audience and family demographic. I am a twenty-something and I am able to tolerate Disney's material, because I accept it for what it is: shallow, vapid entertainment designed to convey squeaky-clean ideals to impressionable youth. Sometimes, they take that squeaky-cleanliness too far, like making light of the dog fights, but overall, it is all rooted in the same objective: to maintain their target demographic and intake revenue.

To the people who reference the different caliber of Disney's entertainment ten or more years ago, I concur with you. It would be good for Disney to trace its roots a bit and return to basics, but it would take a lot of cutting through green to accomplish that.

I enjoyed this movie. There was a comment on the discussion board mentioning that the trailer distorted people's initial impression. I am one of those people. Once I got into the movie though, I applied my usual preconditions for judging Disney films and had a good time. It was cute and in Disney's typical fashion, it contained half-baked attempts to teach the kids a thing or two (inaccurate or vague as they were).

Go into it knowing it's Disney and will thus inherit the characteristics of all their work, and you'll be fine.

Chloe, voiced by Drew Barrymore, is the spoiled-rotten canine of the title, and is owned by a fashionista played by Jamie Lee Curtis. Curtis dotes on the dog, but makes a mistake when she has to go on a working vacation and palms the dog off on her irresponsible niece (Piper Perabo). Perabo takes the dog with her for a Mexican vacation of her own - and soon Chloe is dog-napped by human scum who run dogfight rings. Chloe and her weary protector, a German Shepherd voiced by Andy Garcia, have a wild series of misadventures as various characters take off after them - including a fearsome Doberman named El Diablo (voiced by Edward James Olmos).

Some people are being awfully harsh on what is essentially supposed to be a *family film*. I personally found it to be very cute. It's a lively, sometimes silly, but sometimes funny talking-animal movie with a steady assortment of adorable four-legged stars, good work by the actors on screen, and spirited performances by the big name cast doing the voices (also including George Lopez (as the fiercely loyal Papi), Placido Domingo, Loretta Devine, Luis Guzman, and Cheech Marin & Paul Rodriguez, who are the biggest suppliers of comedy relief as a conniving rat & iguana who are a scam artist team).

The script does poke gentle fun at those rich people who treat breeds like Chihuahuas as fashion accessories, and who adorn them with "booties" and diamond collars, and the movie even functions as a loving ode to all things Chihuahua.

Something like this may NEVER be taken for "great cinema", but I say it does its job pretty well, even if the story is ultimately formulaic. All in all, it's fairly charming. Chihuahua lovers have a head start.

Followed by two sequels.

As a "co-owner" of two Chihuahua's, I was dragged to the theater to see this disastrous film. It's not my typical fan fare, one usually consisting of international dramas and intellectual plots. And on all of these measures, this movie utterly fails. But somehow I was OK with this and have come to slightly appreciate the film through the lens of it's audience.

It is a quaint family film which transcends our four legged friends celebrating the love and struggles in life. The movie is a triangulation of ideas - It plays on the differences in people, it's a coming of age story, it plays on loyalty, and has an innocent love dynamic. These themes are portrayed allegorically through some of American's purist companions - dogs. This is a painfully light hearted film about a "stuck up" female dog who ends up on an unexpected journey in Mexico which leads to love and change. It's an tired old theme, and as it delivers laughs very sparingly, but it still manages to deliver family fun and has some redeeming qualities.

This movie at best is seen through the lens of a 5 year old's mindset and aptly was aimed at and delivered to that demographic in spades. We have grown spoiled with "childrens" movies containing complicated subtexts for adults, this one does none of these things, if you want something better, watch WALL-E.

I agree with some of the previous reviewers - how can you rate a movie without even seeing it?!? Well, guess that gives us the right to rate THEM without even knowing them! I give those people a 1.5.

This is a KID'S movie and to rate it a 2 is ridiculous. It's not the best movie but it sure is much better than A LOT of recent kid's/animated films. My kids, 4 & 5, loved this movie and that's really my biggest requirement. There are many others where they were bored and wanted to leave in less than 30 minutes.

To the people voting it so low (especially ones who vote without viewing) - GET A LIFE!

I don't own any dogs nor do I particularly like or dislike them any more than any other animal. So coming from that utterly neutral position, I can say that this movie isn't nearly as terrible as others have implied - often for their own jaundiced reasons.

First, unlike the contemporary Wall-E, this movie isn't preachy about anything. It's just a silly minor adventure with talking animals where all things work out pretty well in the end - as they must in a kids' movie from Disney. Sure, I was bothered by depictions of the excesses of the super rich of Beverly Hills; the way they lavish excess not only upon themselves but their dogs. However, this does exist. There are people who piously attend charity events for starving strangers and then go home to feed their dogs Kobe beef. That's the world and this movie did not make that world.

I would prefer being upset about watching the reality of such excess than watching the superb and factually accurate Hotel Rwanda. I found that movie unwatchable due to the pain it evoked in me knowing that these events actually occurred during my lifetime.

So given a choice - do I wish to feel pain at real or even a pretend horror depiction or contempt at the super rich's folly? I'll take the latter.

This movie is silliness with some amusing CGI. Let's not get overly concerned that it should be more than that.