Garfield 2

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.

This is an entertaining film, and is it better than the first movie? Yes, much better! The stunning location of the English castle was a delight, as was the lovely Jennifer Love Hewitt. Don't forget the adorable dog Oadie, who was one of two reasons(Jennifer Love Hewitt being the other) for watching the first film. Billy Connelly was too OTT, but it didn't help with the material he was given. The script was still a tad uninspired, but an improvement. Bill Murray is a lot more bearable in this movie, but he does sound a little bored. The supporting voice cast do a commendable job too, Tim Curry the standout with his aristocratic voice, he was perfect for the voice of Prince. I laughed a lot at this movie, its predecessor is a far cry from that. There are a few cheap gags such as the dog Rubble and the trousers, and some clever ones such as the mirror sequence, inspired by I think the Marx Brothers. Thank you for an entertaining movie, and it doesn't deserve the low rating. 7/10, Bethany Cox

I did not like the first 'Garfield'-film, and although this sequel is an improvement I didn't care much for this one as well. Too many talking animals and a story involving a mix-up, which is too simple to begin with, make a boring movie out of elements we have seen many times before.

The mix-up is between Garfield and Prince, a London cat who just inherited a whole castle. The inhabitant of that castle, Lord Dargis (Billy Connolly), thought he would have it all. Only after the cat is dead and buried the place will be his. He gets rid off Prince, but the loyal butler Smithee (Ian Abercrombie) finds him back, only it is Garfield instead of Prince. Now owner Jon (Breckin Meyer) finds Prince, thinking it is Garfield. He is in London for a subplot involving his love Liz (Jennifer Love Hewitt) who he wants to marry.

As in the first film it is Bill Murray as the voice of Garfield who can bring the occasional smile to your face. Again the dancing sequences, one repeating a famous mirror scene from the Marx Brothers, belong to the highlights. 'A Tale of Two Kitties' contains some more laughs than the first film, but should be seen as another failure. I am not sure whether a good film about this character can be made, but better than this seems quite possible.

"Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties," directed by Tim Hill, is the sequel to the 2004 film, bringing back Bill Murray as the voice of Garfield. This time, the lasagna-loving feline finds himself in England, where he is mistaken for a royal cat named Prince. The plot thickens with Garfield enjoying the luxurious life while his friends Jon (Breckin Meyer) and Odie get entangled in his adventure.

The film is light-hearted and filled with comedic moments typical of Garfield's character. However, much like its predecessor, it relies heavily on slapstick humor and predictable gags. The storyline, inspired by "The Prince and the Pauper," offers a few charming moments but doesn't stray far from formulaic family movie tropes.

While children might enjoy the antics and visuals, adult fans of the original comic strip might find it lacking in the clever wit and depth that make Garfield timeless. Overall, "Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties" provides some entertainment and nostalgic value but ultimately delivers a middling experience.

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.