Alvin Superstar 2

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.

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!

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)

I don't understand the severely low rating for this film. 2.7?

I was prepared for something awful but wanted to do something with the 4 younger kids before they headed back to school.

This is the movie they wanted to see.

I've seen a lot of kids' movies and this is definitely among the funnier ones I've seen.

My 8-year-old and I sat next to each other and had a hard time controlling our laughter on a few occasions.

I told my husband he definitely has to see this when it comes out on video. I can't wait to watch it with him!

Give it a try - maybe even risk raising your expectations a little!

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.