User Score
4.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 93 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 93
  2. Negative: 41 out of 93
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 28, 2011
    3
    "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" is a movie so preposterously obvious you won't remember a thing except for the annoying high-pitched voices of the chipmunks after 2 hours.
  2. Jul 9, 2014
    0
    I don't even think my little cousins would like it. I was a kid myself when I watched it, and I thought nothing of it. Now, re-watching it, it's probably the worst live action movie. Not one joke really made me laugh.
  3. Mar 28, 2015
    3
    A boring, irritating cash grab that challenges your sanity for 1 1/2 hours. An atrocity to film making, its among the worst films I've had to suffer through. The fact that this made well over $400m at the box office makes me question how much more greedy Hollywood can be. The abysmal "humor" throughout the whole movie gets stale immediately and it's filled with writing that was quiteA boring, irritating cash grab that challenges your sanity for 1 1/2 hours. An atrocity to film making, its among the worst films I've had to suffer through. The fact that this made well over $400m at the box office makes me question how much more greedy Hollywood can be. The abysmal "humor" throughout the whole movie gets stale immediately and it's filled with writing that was quite possibly made by a 5 year old. A complete waste of your time, don't go near this abomination. Expand
  4. Feb 7, 2013
    4
    A sequel that has nothing to do with his former party. Pesima but good to hang out.
  5. Jan 11, 2011
    4
    I watched thiz movie with no expectations. I think all of the things that they wanted to show us already appeared in the first movie. So the sequel (which named: The Squeakquel) is only a repetitions on what we saw before. The movie still cast by: Jason Lee and David Cross. The Alvin Character is voiced by Justin Long. The former Director Tim Hill (who also directed GARFIELD, 2004)I watched thiz movie with no expectations. I think all of the things that they wanted to show us already appeared in the first movie. So the sequel (which named: The Squeakquel) is only a repetitions on what we saw before. The movie still cast by: Jason Lee and David Cross. The Alvin Character is voiced by Justin Long. The former Director Tim Hill (who also directed GARFIELD, 2004) replaced by Betty Thomas. It is very clear, The movie-makers intend to refresh things up by the appearance of new characters, The Chippetes (the girl version of The Chipmunks). Members of The Chippetes are: Brittany (Christina Applegate), Jeanette (Anna Faris), Eleanor (Amy Poehler). We certain knew the trio as creditable Drama-Comediennes. I think in some ways, the movie is less musical than the first one. The Chippetes performance looks like based on the nowadays Hip Hop style. If we looked at the human characters, Zachary Levi who seems to have more proportion than Jason Lee, both of them did not make us stunned by their performance. Their role definitely could be replaced easily by other Casts. In the end, I just said thiz kind of movie definitely just for fun.

    Visit My Blog on JONNY'S MOVEE : http://jonnyfendi.blogspot.com
    Expand
  6. Jan 1, 2011
    3
    Well one thing for sure is that its worse than the first movie.
  7. Jul 24, 2013
    2
    I may have been more optimistic on the first film, but the second is just downright outrageously old. With its cliche roles of the smarts, handsome looks, and the charmer; the characters in "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" are downright old and boring, and even worse as they add three more talking chipmunks with similar personalities as well. If David Cross' character wasn'tI may have been more optimistic on the first film, but the second is just downright outrageously old. With its cliche roles of the smarts, handsome looks, and the charmer; the characters in "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" are downright old and boring, and even worse as they add three more talking chipmunks with similar personalities as well. If David Cross' character wasn't horrible in the first, his role in the second is very dull and boring as well, with his already cliche character before turning horribly annoying. The plot of the story is obviously kid-friendly, as it takes on the role of high school that hundreds of films have already taken, and is nothing new. Although most kids will enjoy this film, to me, it was a bit to overdone with its annoying and boring plot and character elements, and its tired singing musical with the chipmunk voices. Expand
  8. Jul 18, 2013
    3
    Se intenta mejorar pero queda dentro del mismo rollocon otras factores que se quieren hacer ver grandes pero no lo logran efectivamente, esta vez las Arditas fue una idea entretenida a la vez que algunas veces se ve ridicula.
  9. May 24, 2012
    4
    This is way better than the Chipwrecked sequel and it is the best of the whole series. But there are scenes that are too annoying and there are scenes that are good. The high-pitched voices of the chipmunks sometimes disturbs me and sometimes impresses me. But overall, it is an average movie for adults and a great one for children.....
  10. Mar 4, 2013
    1
    No modicum of effort has gone into this film and every lazy, predictable attempt at humour only serves to zap the energy audience members will desperately need to get through an hour and a half of, what can only be described as, crass commercialism.
  11. Jan 13, 2013
    1
    I found myself bored. The movie is just like the first but more stupid and less fun. The reason it even got a 1 is because Theodore is amazing. The rest of the characters are just pathetic and so are the events following the stupid characters.
  12. Jan 1, 2014
    3
    Children will love it of course, but I didn't like it that much. Compared to the first one it feels cheap and that it could have been better. But then again not everything lives up to it's potential.
  13. daveh
    Jan 2, 2010
    3
    My 7 year old son laughed, my 9 year old daughter was bored. and everyone else agreed that it was painful and insulting. Even David Cross couldn't save the experience.
  14. kokoj
    Jan 2, 2010
    4
    Poorly written dialogue. Nothing special. the chipmunk voices actually go from cute to annoying.
  15. NicholasS.
    Jan 3, 2010
    0
    This movie would be cringe worthy, even for a 5 year old.
  16. JoshuaC.
    Jan 30, 2010
    0
    everyone knows how stupid singing chipmunks are. If you don't you should die or suiside right away. this movie has no aparent humor, and dance moves that makes this the worst musical ever. I am not even sure if this is a musical. Probobaly, a ****tty kids comedy that even a 4 year old wont find humorous.
  17. AVBS
    Jan 2, 2010
    0
    No... Just, no. These types of movies need to die.
  18. BaldipM
    Dec 26, 2009
    0
    Wow not worth the time.
  19. ChadS.
    Dec 25, 2009
    4
    Here's a novel idea: since the 3D animated chipmunks inhabit the real world, why not go the distance and outfit the singing vermin with a story where real world rules apply? Alvin, Simon, and Theodore attend a normal public high school, in which they find themselves in situations that seem written for "normal" chipmunks, not superstar ones. Asked by the principal to save the music Here's a novel idea: since the 3D animated chipmunks inhabit the real world, why not go the distance and outfit the singing vermin with a story where real world rules apply? Alvin, Simon, and Theodore attend a normal public high school, in which they find themselves in situations that seem written for "normal" chipmunks, not superstar ones. Asked by the principal to save the music department, Alvin and his furry bros have to win a high school talent contest, and for some strange reason, this directive is important to them. Aren't they supposed to be an established singing group? (It also begs another question: Wouldn't a professional act be disqualified from an amateur contest?) It's not that they're humble: the writers give these chipmunks amnesia, especially Simon. The jocks pick on the bespectacled chipmunk because he's a nerd, but this is a nerd who's been on tour, and yet the worldly chipmunk gets tricked into being the "litter monitor". Not far behind in the poorly written department is Alvin; he goes out for football as part of his aspiration to be one of the cool kids. Why bother? He's a star; he has millions of adoring fans; he inspired a middle-aged woman to get a tattoo bearing his band's namesake. If the chipmunks were spoiled rock stars, then, perhaps, their stint as high school students, as a preventive measure against megalomania, would make the film's narrative seem less of a series of arbitrary choices. To make matters worse, there's The Chippettes(and the "Dreamgirls" subplot) to contend with. Couldn't "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" just go the "Howard the Duck" route and have one of the chipmunks fall for a human girl? Expand
  20. ShaneA.
    Dec 26, 2009
    1
    What a terrible excuse for a cute movie. Absolutely brainless.
  21. RayJ
    Dec 23, 2009
    4
    To much slapstick and not enough humor.
  22. JulianM
    Dec 27, 2009
    3
    Anyone over 12 years of age will find this movie boring, childish, repetitive, and stupid.
  23. Jan 26, 2014
    0
    Really a very tasteless movie. I don't want to waste my time with another brainless movie like this. Really stupid argument even for a 5 years kid!! And they want to make another!!! Noooooooo!
Metascore
41

Mixed or average reviews - based on 20 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 20
  2. Negative: 4 out of 20
  1. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    40
    Alvin does high school rom-com and very poorly at that.
  2. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    50
    It seems as if no professional actors were hired in the making of this motion picture.