soporific I've seen this twice now and I really can't fathom the hatred for this smurfy reboot into reality that is The Smurfs. It can only be outrage that the movie wasn't pure animation and totally faithful to exactly what many of us grew up with, but the most tragic thing in terms of the IMDb score is that it IS faithful to the original!The adorable little blue and white bundles of joy spend most of the film singing or humming their theme song but it's never overdone and their attitude to life absolutely perfectly spot on and faithful to the original.I've gone through some of the most-voted comments and am dismayed by the amount of irrationality displayed and the absence of objectivity. In terms of the plot, I'm not sure what more you all expected the writers to come up with to cover the intended age-range of the audience, but I was happy enough and the movie pushed all the right buttons. It's more of a kids film, sure, but there's more than enough to keep adults happy.I thoroughly enjoyed watching it each time and am choosing my time carefully to show it to my 5 yr old kid. I'll probably add it to his movie list for 8 yr olds.I'm glad the lowish IMDb score didn't discourage them making a sequel, but I wish it wasn't so far out of whack! I would normally give this an 8 but it's 9 as a protest vote at the score.Watch this film and see for yourself. And then don't forget to vote!

Tristan Detwiler Let's give the review system another try, right?Plot:There was a plot? Oh yeah, it's to help get the smurfs back to their world. I guess simple 'nough.Characters:The human characters are better than The Smurfs themselves. That's kind of sad, really. I actually cared more about the human characters, whose actors were giving half-assed performances, more than the cute blue people. That's how annoying the writers made these cartoon creatures.Visuals:Cheap CGI and Product Placement EVERYWHERE. I actually lost count just a few minutes after the movie started. I don't think there was one shot without a piece of advertising. (Sony, M&M's, Blu-ray, McDonalds, Rock Band, Yamaha, and more)Enjoyment:Nothing but eye-rolling, face-palming, and groaning jokes. It is pure cheap entertainment. It would entertain a toddler for a few minutes before they ask you to turn it off.Rewatchability:If I ever see this film again ANYWHERE, It's just going to put me in a sour mood. I don't even recommend a first time viewing.Sorry if this review was short, but this film was just awful.

Muppetman1029 I think it's just okay. The plot is nothing new. I mean we've seen it before in Thor & Enchanted, but it's not too bad. Is there anything bad about this. Well, duh! Neil Patrick Harris is pretentious and bland, and some of the humor is bad(Ex. Gargamel Pee Joke). But there is some good stuff about it. The lesson is good. I guess you grow to like Papa, Clumsy,& Grace. There is some funny stuff in this. I kind of agree with Spill.com. Gargamel was pretty funny. I laughed hard during the lord of the rings joke. The CGI is nice. I like the voice acting, with one exception. What the heck is George Lopez doing in this movie? Johnathan Winters was perfectly cast as Papa. Fred Armisen did a good Brainy. Anton Yelchin & Katy Perry already have a Smurf voice. George Lopez is just distracting. Is it great, no. Is it awful, not that much. Is it harmless, yeah. It's better than the chipmunk movies. You can show it to your kids to shut them up and you may get some laughs out of it. Just rent a Pixar movie instead, even if you like it like me.

ironhorse_iv How do you criticize a movie that you knew was going to be stupid coming in? Honestly, it's a kid movie and it's not to be taken serious by anybody older than the age of six. I'm clearly not, six year old so I'm not the target audience, but I did watch the show when younger. In my opinion, it's not the worst kid's movie out there, but gees, it wasn't the best as well. I wasn't the biggest fan of the 1980's animated TV series, or The Smurfs comic book series created by the Belgian comics artist Peyo. Peyo created it when his cartoonist friend couldn't remember how to pronoun 'salt' in Dutch and found a story about a group of blue humanoids living in mushrooms interesting. I don't know if Peyo was on drugs or not, but that is so trippy idea. I watch enough episodes and read enough as a kid to know about the original works and this film are somewhat different. I'm not hating the film, but gees, it could had been made a little better. The 1980s animated TV series, did had some appeal to it, as it deal with magic and the dark arts that kids found interesting as a kid. It appeal to girls, due to their cute animation. Still, the original Smurfs was pretty dumb with it's a bleak archetypes naming and awful writing. This movie had little to no appeal for me now, personally, but I did see it with my 5 year old niece and nephew who somewhat like the film. I was disappointed, it's not only the fact, that I outgrew the Smurfs for more mature films, but also the fact that it felt that the fantasy world of the Smurfs was rip apart for a cheaper budget movie with the CGI Smurfs getting lost in live action modern day New York before Gargamel (Hank Azaria) find them. There was so many ideas that could had work with the Smurf movie, if only they kept them on their world. They could had a Lord of the Ring's type of a film with a story similar to the 1958's Johan et Pirlouit story La Flûte à six trous ("The Flute with Six Holes"). The adventure involved the' Schtroumpf' AKA the smurfs recovering a magic flute from an evil wizard. Check out the 1965's Adventures of the Smurfs to know what I'm talking about. It's rare to find. Just think of a full computer animation movie of the Smurfs, compare to this film. I would take that film over this, any day. The magic plot seem tainted for more marketing plot. By putting them in New York, it's seem that they are market as a parody to make fun of the fans of the original show, rather than paying tribute to it. Why is the Smurfs dealing with a character like Patrick Winslow (Neil Patrick Harris) whom job is it to make cosmetic item ads. I really doubt a six year old kid cares about how to make an ad. That whole sub-plot is not appealing to children. Another thing, why is there a sub-plot of Gargamel getting a job at the same beauty items ad company that Patrick works in, and it's never follow thought? It would pretty interesting to see Gargamel use Patrick to get the Smurfs, but no the sub-plot was tossed away for more potty humor. There is a lot of potty humor, and lot of cruelty to animals. I know it's a CGI cat, but could they at least, make Azreal look like a cartoon cat, than a normal cat. It's disturbing to see a realistic cat getting hurt. I found it to be a bit crude. Another crude thing is the voice acting. Half of the Smurfs don't even sound like the cartoon versions of themselves. I found George Lopez as Grouchy Smurf and Alan Cummings as Gutsy Smurf really dumb. I don't know how, a Scottish and Mexican Smurf came about, when most of the original Smurfs were Belgian. I found Katy Perry, a bit annoying as Smurfette, but I wasn't a huge fan of the original Smurfette's voice as well. It was suggested that Quentin Tarantino would play Brainy Smurf, but it didn't go through so Fred Armisen voices Brainy instead. I think the movie focus way too much on Clumsy (Anton Yelchin) to the point, that he became the annoying Jar Jar Binks of the film that get everybody else in trouble. I was imagining choking his neck most of the film. Rather than Clumsy learning something or having a character arch a, the film just gives up and gave us a hokey ending. Honestly, there wasn't any positive or moral message told in this life. I thought it was supposed to be about, once in a blue moon, one gets a glimpse of what's truly important in life--and it's not always what one might expect, but the film doesn't execute it well. Was the film about Patrick accepting his role as a father? It should had been. The message get lost with all the potty jokes, CGI 3D annoying shots, destroying Aerosmith and all the ads marketing. I felt dumber watching it. I know it's a kid's movie, but this movie felt like it was for the really dumbing children of the world. It felt old and recycle formula like other live action mixed with animation movies like 2007's Alvin and the Chipmucks, 2002's Scooby Doo and 2004's Garfield. It didn't give anything new or creative to the piece. In the end, I felt like I was choking and turning blue for watching it.