Reviews

I know this is always a risky statement, but I am going to say it was better than the first. I usually write very defensive comments for the movies I see, but I don't feel that's overly necessary here. The strength of Smithsonian, for me, was the same thing others think was its biggest weakness: casting. People complain about there not being enough emphasis on the original characters, but I think the new flavor Levy brought was both needed and thoughtfully implemented.

The humor was generally well-placed, juvenile and repetitive perhaps, but well-placed nonetheless. Bringing the Smithsonian to life called for slightly increased creativity and I think the writers were at least aware of that. People may say more could have been done, but then you risk the problems associated with compressing excess material in an hour and forty-five minutes.

They introduced the right balance of the old elements that worked with the first, combined with new elements they were careful to not blow out of proportion.

Well played! Larry Daley got a good homecoming!

I have been using IMDb to obtain feedback on movies for several years now, and what I find is that people here tend to be a little too bias toward A-list, blockbuster movies. Chihuahua does not fall into that category by any means, but that does not warrant dismissing it outright. It is true that the film's cast could have been put to better use, but given the parameters set by the Disney-style writing, they did what they could and it was enough to let me enjoy their performances. I read a review on here that commented on the inaccuracy of geographical information. I agree that if Disney is going to make a film like this, it is unfortunate that they do not take the time to educate their young audiences a little. We wouldn't be talking doctorate level research here, just basic fact-checking.

The plot of this movie was not deep, but not many Disney movies NEED to be in order to cater to their young audience and family demographic. I am a twenty-something and I am able to tolerate Disney's material, because I accept it for what it is: shallow, vapid entertainment designed to convey squeaky-clean ideals to impressionable youth. Sometimes, they take that squeaky-cleanliness too far, like making light of the dog fights, but overall, it is all rooted in the same objective: to maintain their target demographic and intake revenue.

To the people who reference the different caliber of Disney's entertainment ten or more years ago, I concur with you. It would be good for Disney to trace its roots a bit and return to basics, but it would take a lot of cutting through green to accomplish that.

I enjoyed this movie. There was a comment on the discussion board mentioning that the trailer distorted people's initial impression. I am one of those people. Once I got into the movie though, I applied my usual preconditions for judging Disney films and had a good time. It was cute and in Disney's typical fashion, it contained half-baked attempts to teach the kids a thing or two (inaccurate or vague as they were).

Go into it knowing it's Disney and will thus inherit the characteristics of all their work, and you'll be fine.