Garfield 2

I don't know what to say!!! The plot was rehashed-badly. The character-Garfield-has no positive character traits. The actors look embarrassed playing in this. Garfield should only be taken three cartoon frames printed in a paper at a time. My four year old was bored finding no interesting story lines or enjoyable characters, plots. It was absolutely humourless. I've never signed up to a forum like this but it was bad enough to get me to sign up. Save your money and do something else with it. I find it horrible that studios initiate their future clientele with such horrible waste. Someone in Hollywood must listen to the public and cease investing in this type of rubish. I will regret spending money on this for years to come.

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.

I suppose if I had cared anything for the original live-action "Garfield" (based on Jim Davis' once-popular comic strip, from 2004), I would have liked this one better. Suffice it to say, however, if you have children, there are certainly worse movies you could take them to. I can't think of any of those right now, but I'm sure there are worse ones. Plus, it always grated on me that while the title character was a (very cheap) CGI creation, all of the other animals in the movie were real. What was THAT all about?! Anyway, since it's difficult for a an adult critic (as I have been accused of being at times) to judge a picture like this, I brought along my daughter to see this one with me – just to be fair. When she only laughed at a few parts of this movie, I knew my assessment was not wrong. This is a ridiculously stupid film. Based on the much better Mark Twain story of the "Prince and the Pauper," the animated feline (voiced by Bill Murray) somehow gets mixed up with a pampered cat (voice of Tim Curry) living on a huge English estate. There's trouble afoot, though, as British stand-up comic, Billy Connelly, the nephew of the late owner, wants his share of the property and will do anything to get rid of the animals which inhabit the place, including trying to drown the Prince, shoot a duck and threaten his lawyers with a crossbow. You see, he wants to build a resort on the land - Oh, why even go on? Just because they move the location to the British Isles doesn't mean that any more class or intelligence was added to this stupid series. The dialog is silly and humorless, the situations are absurd (even for a goofy movie like this), and there's no chemistry between the two leads, Jon Arbuckle and Liz (Brekin Meyer and Jennifer Love Hewitt, even though the whole adventure revolves around Jon prosing marriage to her). Fortunately, we see very little of this tepid couple throughout, so I suppose it's not all terrible. But the biggest crime of all is wasting the talents of Murrary, Bob Hoskins (a bulldog's voice), Curry and Connelly on this enterprise which smells like a full litter box in July. In fact, as allergic as I am to the meowing beasts, I'd rather spend 90 minutes in a room full of them than to ever have to see another "Garfield" flick again. Cat got my tongue? No, just my brain - for the duration of this movie, at least.

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.