Alvin and the Chipmunks

Consider, if you will, two children's films: UNDERDOG and ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS. Both are Product with a capital P, lowest common denominator entertainments designed to keep the kids occupied while their parents (first run) get in some shopping or (DVD) take care of some chores. Sure, somewhere in the productions there are people who are actually passionate about the work, but pretty much everyone knows what they're about on projects like this.

The two films have similarly innocuous leads, follow predictable arcs, and have nothing to offer anyone much past age ten. But there's a difference between them, and that difference is worth noting.

Peter Dinklage plays UNDERDOG's villain, and Patrick Warburton plays his henchman. Both actors know what kind of movie they're in, yet they bring their A games to their work. They craft near-perfect kids'-movie villains, threatening but not too threatening, funny but not too funny, and they make roles that must have looked pedestrian on the page absolutely sing in production. David Cross plays the villain in ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS, and his contempt for the material seeps into everything he does. There's something of a sneer in the guy's performance - it's as if, in his heart of hearts, Cross knows he's too good for this movie. It kills his scenes and hurts the picture, and it makes troupers like Dinklage and Warburton shine all the brighter.

Ok, but is the overall movie any good? Well, it's about what you'd expect: something to keep the little ones occupied while you fold the laundry. So I guess it does its job.

Underdog

UNDERDOG is poorly written, poorly performed, and so incredibly clichéd that no adult could possibly embrace it.

That’s ok. Adults aren’t UNDERDOG’s target audience. My 7-yr-old, on the other hand, thinks it’s terrific. I’ve lost track of the number of times he’s spun it up.

UNDERDOG follows the adventures of a beagle who has gained a variety of superpowers, the ability to speak English, and a psychology remarkably similar to that of a 13-yr-old boy. He’s adopted by Jim Belushi and his son, an unremarkable actor whose name I can’t recall at the moment. Belushi and the boy never click, and they’re unable to sell the idea that they’re related. There are love interests for dog and boy, I couldn’t buy them, either. In fact, I couldn’t buy any of the relationships or characters this film offered.

But at least Peter Dinklage and Patrick Warburton, who play the villains, realize that they’re in a movie that isn’t trying to sell actual human relationships or concerns. They tear into the scenery with gusto, creating such fun (and evil but ultimately nonthreatening) villains, that they alone make this film bearable for mom and dad.

Yes, UNDERDOG has bodily-function jokes. Yes, UNDERDOG has silly sight gags. Yes, UNDERDOG has a giant bundle of dynamite with one of those red digital countdown timers. And yes, UNDERDOG is a shameless product designed to entertain kids while allowing their parents to indulge in a bit of nostalgia. But who am I to condemn it? I loved THE SHAGGY D.A. when I was my son’s age, and he’ll have to sit through similar pap when he has kids of his own.

So, UNDERDOG. There it is. If your kid’s a dog person, he or she will love it. You’d do well to bring a book and peek over the top when the villains are onscreen. Mom and dad, sometimes you’ve got to take your victories where you can find them.