Alvin et les Chipmunks 2

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.

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!

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.

I asked my 11 year old and 7 year old daughters what they thought of this film. They both loved it.

The 3 on IMDb is a bit misleading. This is a film for children, not a campaign to win an Academy Award! Obviously there are people out there who take things a little toooooo seriously when rating kid's movies.

My 11 year old daughter writes the following: the movie was great. i love the sounds of those little voices. why are kids films usually getting a 2,3,4? the film the music, adventure,scenes were all entertaining for me.

Remember folks, this is a film for children, the chipmunks have been around for more than 30 years so they must be doing something right. If you want to over analyze a film then do a search on the French new age section and go your hardest, on the other hand if you are looking for pure entertainment for your under 12's then go no further.