ROTTEN TOMATOES: David Cross Defends Alvin and the Chipmunks Role

David Cross Defends Alvin and the Chipmunks Role

Give the guy a break, he just wanted a hula hoop.

by Alex Vo | January 02, 2008

Critics, bloggers, movie website readers -- pretty much anybody who knows their way around a keyboard have voiced their "concern" for Alvin and the Chipmunks. (Though with $150 million in the bank after only three weeks, the rodents are doing well with the average man on the street and his family.) But enough is enough, says David Cross, and he's countering with a lengthy tirade of his own.

Cross, who plays a sleazeball record exec in the movie, writes on the Bob and David site:

"I am not stupid nor unobservant. I knew going into this movie that I would be eating a lot of delicious s--t for it. Usually I wouldn't give a s--t about what everyone's feelings are about it, but I wasn't prepared for the level, or amount I should say, of vitriol that's been flung about like so much monkey poo."

Goaded into action after remarks from fellow comedian Patton Oswalt, Cross presents four-and-a-half reasons why he took the role and why some criticisms are out of place:

Mitigating Factor #1: The movie wasn't made for adults. "I have not seen the movie so I can't really comment to whether it's an 'evil' or 'dangerous' 'piece of s--t' or not. The reason I haven't seen the movie is because I am not eight years old. I am an adult and don't see children's movies."

#2: This is much ado about nothing. "It's a waste of time and energy. I choose to care about other things that I believe are worth the investment of that kind of outrage, disappointment, and sense of urgency."

#3: Work time is fun time. "Up to working on 'Alvin' I had not worked in six (SIX!) months. That is an eternity if you're an actor. Think about not working for two months with no hope of anything on the horizon. Now triple that."

#4: Stuff requires money. "If I wanted that cottage I would have to pay him money. Sigh. So I used my 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' money to pay for the down payment. Seriously, I totally did."

And just when you think this might be only studio sycophancy, Cross brings the pain:

#4a. He did the most he could with the part. "They could have offered the part to Anthony Clark or Jim Breuer or Dat Phan, but then they wouldn't be able to balance out the empty void that Jason Lee brings to the film."

Source: Bob and David

Related Items

Celeb:

David Cross

(1-20 of 66 posts) | Reply

eternity. writes:
on Jan 02 2008 12:10 PM

epic douche.

(Reply to this)

Dave the Destroyer writes:
on Jan 02 2008 12:15 PM

C'mon, Cross played Alan Ginsburg. A great performance in a great movie and it bombed. He's entitled to pay his bills.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Jan 02 2008 12:22 PM

I figure he should've just kept quiet. Last I heard no one was blasting him for being in the movie. Actually, I didn't even know he was in it. He has some good points and I don't blame him at all. Which is my point, no one *was* blaming him, but he went out on the attack. Now he just looks like a dick for defending a terrible movie.

Plus, it being a kids' movie has nothing to do with it. I'm a man who watches almost exclusively "kids' movies" and I for one know that the target demographic doesn't have anything to do with quality.

-Moses

(Reply to this)

LordVapor writes:
on Jan 02 2008 12:24 PM

Get your money. Who cares what people say. I didn't watch it cause i grew up on the cartoon and don't wanna tarnish memories. Already paid that price by watching transformers *PINK RACING FLAMES*????? WTF?????

(Reply to this)

Armless Penguin writes:
on Jan 02 2008 12:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#1419487)
Mouse_Clicker, I disagree. The box office receipts obviously do as well. The children are apparently enjoying the film quite a bit. The fact that you didn't is irrelevant.

And also, the article explains that his post was in specific reference to jokes Patton had made at his expense in regards to his being in the film. So yes, he was being blasted, and thus it's his right to explain.

(Reply to this)

HereIsNoWhy writes:
on Jan 02 2008 12:47 PM

he always comes off as a whiney ***** to me. liked him in arrested development though.

(Reply to this)

sharpless writes:
on Jan 02 2008 12:48 PM

People need to chill out. Sure, the movie is a piece of ****, but he's right -- it's a kid's movie. Why the hell not do it? Patton Oswalt also made a good point: If this is really ruining your childhood, then you were a ****ing retard for spending your childhood watching Alvin and the Chipmunks.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Jan 02 2008 12:58 PM

Armless: What, since when were box office receipts an indication of quality, either? Maybe you missed my point, but you can't just say "Oh, how good of a movie doesn't matter because it's for kids." That's just saying "Kids are too stupid to know they're watching a bad movie." That's no excuse for a movie being bad. I own a pretty large collection of old Disney movies, movies you wouldn't hesitate to say were made for kids, but I love each and every one of them even now, because they're GOOD movies. Alvin and the Chipmunks could've been a GOOD movie, too, it just wasn't. It was a chance to capitalize on a license that hadn't been exploited in a while.

As for this Patton guy ripping on Cross, who the hell is Patton? Now it just looks David Cross is so edgy that he's going out of his way to respond to no-name idiots that are attacking him. I hardly consider one man a crusade against David Cross.

-Moses

(Reply to this)

DON OF THE D.E.D writes:
on Jan 02 2008 01:08 PM

That's right it is a waste of time and energy! So why does he feel the need to defend himself? Did'nt want anyone to know that you watch children's movies, so deny that you do. Who gives a crap if you do or not, that's your choice, and if no one likes it tell 'em to eat@!%*! and die!!!!You have'nt worked for six months? Ok, why did'nt you look in your local paper under "Help Wanted"? Or is that not good enough for you. Would'nt want to actually have to get you're hands dirty huh? Think about your regular average person or who has to provide for their family and struggle to make ends meat. Not to mention worrying about the house market these days.If they gave the part to someone else, oh boo hoo, you better start saving your money for rough times that come ahead. So when I hear of hollywood pukes that cry about not working, just think about the rest of the people who are not movie stars in the world who struggle just to keep their head above water.Just remember "Help Wanted". Budget your money properly!

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on Jan 02 2008 01:10 PM

@ mouse_clicker: actually, Patton Oswalt voiced the main rat Remy in Ratatouille (a Disney-Pixar movie). apparently you wouldn't know that since you aren't into Disney movies...oh wait, you are

(Reply to this)

Spurple writes:
on Jan 02 2008 01:38 PM

I always hated that "It's a kids movie!" defense. Finding Nemo? Ratatouille? Aren't those kids movies? Don't adults LOVE those movies? The only time age is a factor in enjoying a film is if you are too YOUNG to like it. You can't expect a 6 year old to understand the greatness of The Godfather. But you can never be too OLD to enjoy a film. A good movie is a good movie, regardless of age. If 'Alvin' really was intended for children, and if it was any good, it would have made the adults feel like children again.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jan 02 2008 01:44 PM

a) This is David Cross we're talking about, not Lawrence Olivier. It's not the end of the world.

b) He comes across as kind of douchy here even though he can be pretty funny sometimes.

c) Move on. This movie shouldn't even be discussed.

(Reply to this)

lonechicken writes:
on Jan 02 2008 01:46 PM

Maybe Jason Lee should do an "Ollie Impossible" into Cross's face.

Man, was this guy so worthless as a contributor to society that he couldn't do anything else other than sit around for six months waiting for another acting job?

(Reply to this)

Young Turk writes:
on Jan 02 2008 02:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#1419700)
Patton Oswald is actually a pretty famous comedian. Here is a clip of one of his stand up acts: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tfan5MacmsI

Also if you look on the sidebar (related videos) you can find THE clip of Patton making fun of David Cross.

I think someone mentioned this already but he was also the voice of Remy the main character of Pixar's recent film "Rattattouille".

(Reply to this)

Introducing.. writes:
on Jan 02 2008 02:04 PM

I heard Cross is a huge douche in real life, so this doesn't surprise me one bit. Still, he was hilarious in Arrested Development, and I understand why he chose to do this movie.

(Reply to this)

NoneMoreBlack writes:
on Jan 02 2008 02:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#1420172)
As lone chicken sits and posts on a website about it...

(Reply to this)

moviegodfather writes:
on Jan 02 2008 02:23 PM

Mouse Clicker you don't know who patton oswalt is? Do you own a t.v., ya know little box with bright pictures and sounds, Oswalt is one of the highest grossing stand-up acts in the U.S. Plus if you couldn't tell Alvin and the chipmunks was gonna be a piece of crap I geuss you didn't see the trailer, ya know the one that said attention everyone over 9 this film is about talking CGI chipmunks. I do think Cross is being honest though, he hasn't worked in awhile. I personally can't wait for him and chris elliot to make a sitcom called STUPID COMEDIC SELL-OUT WHACKY NEIGHBORS AND CO-WORKERS. The person we should feel sorry for is Jason Lee. Earl got screwed.

(Reply to this)

Impavido writes:
on Jan 02 2008 02:44 PM

Why are people mad about a Alvin & the Chipmunks movie? Who cares?

(Reply to this)

EJones216 writes:
on Jan 02 2008 03:11 PM

I'm sure most of Cross' arguments are valid (people DO need to work), but I take issue with his first one. This argument that certain movies shouldn't be subject to criticism because "it's a kid's movie" is a load of hooey; I honestly don't know who's more vocal about their own boredom or misery than little kids. ...not to mention that parents *are* the ones paying for the tickets...

(Reply to this)

RedRing writes:
on Jan 02 2008 03:27 PM

Err.... people were bashing him for being in this movie?

He's a comedian in a kid's movie... I completely understand.... why would there be bashing.

(to be honest when I first saw the name for some reason I thought "Paul Giamatti" when I realized my error I thought ... "so what?")

(Reply to this)