7/10
Ironic that no one ever complains that these movies disrespect the original cartoons...
25 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I read reviews of movies like Transformers and see people saying that Michael Bay did various bodily functions on their childhood for completely ignoring the cartoon/comics that started it all. Then I read reviews of the Chipmunk movies where people just call them garbage...and almost never mention the original cartoons. And yet I know that many of the reviewers are my age and grew up watching the cartoons in the 80's (or reruns of the originals from the 60's). The source material isn't Shakespeare...it's a cartoon about singing rodents. Don't ask for too much story.

Both the original movie and the Squeakquel are, IMO, very true to the source. They've got heart, they've got slapstick, and they've got plenty of camp and stupid humor that you should really expect from a movie about talking chipmunks. I enjoyed the Squeakquel even more than the original because Jason Lee's "Dave" was almost completely non-existent. He's simply a terrible choice for the role. After being incapacitated in the first minutes of the Squeakquel, Zachary Levi's "Toby" basically fills in and does a great job. They should have just recast "Dave" with Zachary, instead of keeping Jason Lee but realizing that he's terrible in the role.

Don't go see this and complain that it was an insult to your intelligence. Go to the movie expecting a bunch of over the top (and often totally childish) humor with some cool music and a good (albeit simple and hokey) family story. If you liked the cartoons, you'll like the first movie and the Squeakquel.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed