Alvin and the Chipmunks (Fox)

[Ben]

No. No, Dan you don't.

[Groaning]

Please no. One movie full of hollywood-comedy stereotype storylines and squeaky singing was enough.

[gaastra]

They made another one. This one will have the chipettes.



http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=1415&item=0

[droosan]

That's about as 'tease' as a teaser can get, I suppose.

.. but it is cute.

[Ben]

Merged the teaser thread into here. We don't need <I>two</I> discussions on the Chipmunk squeekquel.

Let's keep all Alvin movie talk in here please.

[Sunday]

I must be a bit out of the loop. Thought you were making a bad pun there Ben but then I actually find out that's the blasted title. And the original broke $200 million?! Oh my.

[eddievalient]

I hear ya, Sunday. The movie was cute, but not that cute.

[Whippet Angel]

My roommate and I had to drink quite a bit to sit through the whole thing.

[OriginalGagBonkers]

Where are the pukebags and earplugs when you need them?

[eddievalient]

One thing about the teaser, though, is that I love it when studios play with their fanfares. Example: Ralph Wiggum at the beginning of The Simpsons Movie. Or the kids playing the kazoos at the beginning of Recess: School's Out. That kind of thing just tickles me for some reason.

[Dacey]

Yeah, the teaser is cute enough. It's at least better than the trailer that they made for the first film.

[Ben]

Y'know...I hadn't realised "squeekquel" <I>was</I> in the title (or least, it was in the back of my mind...buried, like these movies should be).

I saw the first one about two months ago, and my brain still hurts. What a waste of either celluloid, digital disk space, or both. The story had no merits at all, and even if the character animation was sometimes impresseive, the designs were U.G.L.Y. and put me off caring for them. There were mistakes in continuity and the whole film felt like a sequel even if was the first one. It was just commercial moviemaking without any heart or souol whatsoever.

[EricJ]

I saw the first one about two months ago, and my brain still hurts. What a waste of either celluloid, digital disk space, or both. The story had no merits at all, and even if the character animation was sometimes impresseive, the designs were U.G.L.Y. and put me off caring for them. There were mistakes in continuity and the whole film felt like a sequel even if was the first one. It was just commercial moviemaking without any heart or souol whatsoever.

It was directed by Tim Hill, of "Garfield 2" and "Muppets From Space" fame (thus making Hill the Guy Who Broke Up The Muppets...No I will not "just let it go!" ), who seems permanently time-warped in the 80's.
Even I felt a million years old for watching a "Mansion stardom" and "Hollywood jerk executive" plot...
(And the fact that we're getting Betty "Brady Bunch Movie" Thomas for the second one doesn't promise much for moving the franchise into this millennium either.)

Plus the fact that the first movie was produced by the Ross Bagdasarian estate, which wanted to keep the franchise alive with a little recognition...But seems nobody had gotten around to license more than one pop mainstream song, which was the whole 80's-boomer idea that Fox wanted to go with in the first place.
So for 90% the movie, the Chipmunks sing the same two songs over and over, both written by Ross Sr. and owned by the estate.

(One suspects that may be one of the elements Fox went out of its way to change for the sequel, particularly since Ross didn't invent the 80's-boomer-identification Chipettes...)

[ribbedebie]

Meh...

I didn't really like the first (very corny jokes - not want! NOT TO MENTION, it insulted skunks! Can't have a movie that insults skunks! xD) so I'm not that excited for this one. The chipmunks are cute though.

[Rodney]

I thought the first one was cute. I watched it with my nephew and he really enjoyed it. I wouldn't mind a sequel.