Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties

I did not know this was a children's movie. After all, Shrek, Monsters Inc., Toy Story, etc., appeal to children, but are also squarely aimed at adults. Garfield, Tale of Two Kitties is squarely aimed at younger folk, with a few mild chuckles for the parents. It was colorful, well done, excellent quality, etc. but let's face it, by being designed for 5-10 year-olds, it also had to be really sloooooooow.

Brekin Myer is a charming actor with good vibes. So is the chick--- Jennifer Love Hewitt. Likable people. The British supporting cast (note that the movie starts in America, but moves to an English location soon enough) is also excellent. Billy Connoly plays an odious villain; I find that comedian rather odious in person, myself. But I must confess he seemed to be a good actor--- maybe his odi-osity was due to great acting ability? Anyway--- Bob Hoskins is a hoot as the bulldog, and the other animal voices are good, too. Tim Curry was an amazing counterpart to Garfield, playing the ultra-posh aristocratic English cat, Prince. But again, the jokes are NOT multi-leveled. They are simple, aimed at 5 year-olds. If you take your kids, you'll like it too. If you go with adults, you'll have a lot of cognitive capacity left over whilst viewing it to accommodate virtually any daydreaming task.

OK, I admit that I watched this movie. But thankfully I watched it on a pirate DVD bought for two dollars from a dodgy looking bloke on Sadovaya Triumfalnaya in Moscow. He liked my girlfriend's red shoes and said they looked like the shoes of a Princess, which she is of course. I like her red shoes too, they are very nice shoes. They have embroidery and flat heels, but they got very wet when we got caught in the rain the day we went to Novospassky Monastery. Neither of us had a jacket or an umbrella so we got pretty wet but it was worth it because the monastery is beautiful. If you ever go to Moscow you should pay this place a visit, it's stunningly beautiful. Go to Taganskaya on the Circular line and it's a five minute walk along Kamenshiki Street, or at least it should be if you go with someone who knows how to read a street map. Still, it was a nice walk in the rain and we got there eventually even though the red shoes got very wet. Now, being that Novospassky is a Russian Orthodox monastery, women must cover their heads and must also cover their shoulders and should not be wearing trousers or short skirts. Red shoes are OK. So just inside the main gate there is a big box of scarves, shawls and wrap around skirts for the use of any women that may be unsuitably attired for entry into the church, and I must say that my beautiful girlfriend looked rather wonderful wearing all these things. I have pictures if you would like to see them. The inside of the church is decorated with painted walls and ceilings and there are stunning golden icons that look fabulous in the candlelight. There are no electric lights. The Russian choir sings and the priests walk around among the congregation, who stand and chant, there are no seats. It is one of the most spiritual experiences you'll ever have. Quite extraordinary. It is almost like being transported back to some medieval age. Anyway, why am I telling you all of this? Quite simply because it is much more interesting than talking about this movie. As I said, I, or should I say we, watched it on a dodgy pirate DVD that was on sale the day after the movie opened in Moscow. This, as it turned out, was a very good thing because it meant that I couldn't see or hear the movie very well so we turned it off after 20 minutes and that's the best way to watch it in my opinion.

The red shoes still look great though.

Am I really expected to review this? Are there any doubts as to my opinions regarding the film? Seriously? Sigh. All right. Whatever. Here: If you loved the first one then go see this; otherwise you'll want to avoid it like Kevin Federline avoids work.

I just don't have the energy to tear this to shreds. It'd be the equivalent of beating up a five-year-old - way too easy to be any fun. After all, it's the five-year-old demographic that the film is targeting. Well, plus the old person audience who thinks all forms of talking animals are cute.

Little kids will likely enjoy it. I was in a theater full of 'em, and they cackled at every burp and flatulence joke, and they howled every time Billy Connolly (trying hard to summon John Cleese) got bit in the crotch by a dog or slammed in the head by a household appliance. Meanwhile, I just stared stone-faced at the screen, as if I were at a Paris Hilton poetry reading.

I'm sure some of you parents will enjoy it (it's a slight step up from the original), but the majority will most likely be bored beyond comprehension and should probably start trying to convince the wee one that he needs to see Cars again.

All of you fathers who think Jennifer Love Hewitt's presence will be your saving grace, well, bad news - she's hardly in this at all. She'll provide you a few minutes of solace but will quickly and cruelly be whisked off screen so that we can be entertained by such images as Garfield bathing in a bidet and a weasel climbing up Connolly's trousers.

Yeah.

If that sounds like suitable entertainment to you then by all means, slap those Hamiltons on the counter. It's your retirement savings that you're gambling with, not mine.

THE GIST

Eh. Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties is strictly for those who were fans of the first movie, die-hard fans of Garfield, or those two young to form completely coherent sentences.

1st watched 7/6/2006 - 5 out of 10(Dir-Tim Hill): OK family comedy with the obnoxious over-eating computer-animated cat "Garfield" playing a dual role, sort of. The real Garfield is accidentally switched with an uppity prince-like cat in England which brings many fish-out-of-the-water scenarios for both cats(called "Kitties" in the title). To myself as an older person familiar with the other mediums used for Garfield(aka. Sunday papers and television), the computer animation was a deterrent when you're used to the cartoon character as well as not having the original television voice(Carlton the Doorman on Rhoda) in the role of Garfield, who was "purrfect". But Bill Murray doesn't do a bad job and it's fun for the kids for the most part. Some of the best scenes include a song where the animals cook up a batch of Lasagne for Garfield and some adult-focused quips from Murray added to the fun. There were some early scenes that were supposed to be funny that fell flat for both the kids and adults in the audience. There were times in the theatre where there was complete silence which seemed a little odd when there was supposed to be laughter. This was not a good sign for the movie right off the bat. It did become better later but there seemed to be too many attempts to emulate other popular animal movies like "Babe" by adding many animals having talking parts as well as what I've already mentioned to make a unique experience that could have been had if more attempts were made to follow the original cartoon concept.

Why do people hate Garfield? The overall story of the first film was better than the second, I admit that.

It's about the cat and as long as the cat is brilliant, which he is. Then I think it's an alright film.

1:-Billy Connolly shouldn't have been the lead bad guy.

2:-Bill Murray is excellent as Garfield. So is the animation.

3:-They should take Garfield back to America and make a 3rd.

When Garfield stopped the train in the first film. Someone behind me said "Thats far fetched". Like everything up to then was realistic.

Don't get me wrong people can hate films what other people like. But it's people who say comments like that above. That us Garfield fans have to put up with.

"When in a rush dress slowly". Don't know who said this, but I like it.