User ReviewsReview this title
We were totally, and I mean totally, surprised: a really well-made film with lots of genuine laughs and the kids were all enthralled. Talking animals, a great turn by Billy Connolly (Who got my wife's vote for best dressed man in the movies this year - whoever did the tailoring on this really did a good job). Excellent sets (Castle Howard is perfect for this), and just plain fun all round.
Garfield and his doppelganger are very well animated: you really can't fault it.
Nothing too scary, nothing too rude, and lots of pratfalls, good one-liners, and fun to had by all. A nice dose of sentimentality -- all in all, and I hate myself for saying it, one of the most enjoyable films we've seen in a while - whether for kids or not.
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.
Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties is a happy, funny, silly movie. It is much funnier than the first Garfield movie. I think this is mainly because of Billy Connolly, who is hysterical as the "bad" guy in the movie.
Garfield ends up in London, and gets switched with a cat who looks just like him, and who is a Prince and has a vast estate. Billy Connolly's character wants the estate, and wants to get rid of the cat. Silly fluffy comedy then follows.
I really enjoyed it. It is light, fun and happy. Yes, it is made for children. But I think any animal lover would also enjoy this movie. Just go to see it knowing it is pure fluff, and you will have a good time.
What this movie was to us is great physical comedy, with a great balance between "realistic" characters (as realistic as two-dimensional comic characters ever are), outstanding animal training, good voicing (no, its not Shrek, but it all moves together smoothly and Bill Murray is "spot on"), and best of all, a great series of pratfalls, chases, falls, and scenes that kept my 11 year old son jumping and laughing for the whole 80 minutes.
Its also very nicely balanced from a parent's perspective. I found nothing "embarrassing to watch", "hard to explain" or "out of age group." The bad guys are not "scary-bad", but funny bad. "High Risk" situations won't scare a young child, but carry the plot forward, and gave me plenty to chuckle (and sometimes laugh out loud) about.
The baking Lasagna scene is wonderful for anyone who cooks with their children.
In short, this was a great family movie that we all enjoyed.
Otherwise, this is a pretty bland movie and is firmly set to entertain young ones. The story is fairly bland, the acting is 'nice' and the music is 'nice', the bad guy is really 'bad', and all the grown ups are generally silly and two-dimensional. For a date movie this gets a 2.
In general, this is a good movie to enjoy a fearless Saturday afternoon out with your kids.
Garfield 2 starts of in Jon arbuckle's home, and after he fails to pop the question to his girlfriend, she travels to england. Jon follows her and so does Garfield. Garfield then travels around London and gets mixed up with an identical cat. The other cat lives in a castle and Garfield ends up getting pampered. The evil new owner of the castle, lord Dargis, tries to stop the other cat and Garfield from getting the palace back.
The setting, as i said before was rubbish, the acting was wooden and Garfield was annoying. Not good
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.
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.
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 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.
i could not understand one scene.. when Garfield and Cody were moving to england with their owner john.. they packed themselves in john's bag.. they went through the airport security checking..bla bla bla
and how the hell..? they got passed through the airport without even been noticed by the bag scan.. i could not really understood this part...
overall the movie was very lame, boring, and it seemed as it was maked forcefully without proper planning etc.. i hope they don't think of making another part...DUH!
My score: 7/10
Fantastic work on editing all the animals to work so well in final production. It must have taken months to get the right shots together.
Yes the plot line is weak, but it is entertaining nonetheless, IT IS A KIDS FILM! Die-hard fans of Garfield might hate this movie, I am not one of them, I enjoyed this flick and hope that others are not put off by some die-hard comments. If you "like" Garfield, Bill Murray does a good job as his voice, and helps make this an entertaining 80 or so minutes of your life. Much like "Over the Hedge", take your kids, you WILL enjoy. (unless you are brain dead)
This movie also isn't funny at all, all the "jokes" Garfield says aren't funny in the least bit. He tries so hard to act funny and cool it just doesn't work. This movie is only about 90mins but it felt like i was watching it for hours. Its really boring and not that great. This movie may be good for kids but is completely dull for teens and adults.
I wouldn't recommend this movie at all, its a waste of time and day..."Good day sir, cheerio"- very gay line from the movie.
"Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties" is not so entertaining even as a children's film. The plot is entirely predictable, and is not so interesting either. Garfield is portrayed to be unsympathetic and even annoying. Breckin Meyer's character looks entirely silly and redundant, and he could be cut away without much effect on the story. Bill Murray's voice over a Garfield is monotonous, dull and un-energetic. The lengthy scene where animals cook reminds me of "Ratatouille", but only 10% as adorable, entertaining and fun as "Ratatouille". Ian Abercrombie's character as a Smithee the butler is the only interesting and likable character in the film.
"Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties" is dull and disappointing. It fails to transform the magic from the original comic strips.
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.
All of that being said, my daughter wanted us to sit down for a "family evening" so I did so, not getting my hopes up too high. All I can say is pure, excruciating boredom. My daughter lost interest about fifteen minutes into it and even though we were about twenty minutes from the finish of this "masterpiece" we thankfully turned it off to watch something more interesting, like paint drying.
I will give it credit for being a safe haven for puerile, mostly non-offensive material. It has its loads of 'fart' references and other bodily humor to entertain the wee folk for a few minutes and a dull, uninspiring romance that even those turned-off by such fare will easily be able to sleep through.
Many reviewers and fans of this movie may say that maybe I can't give it an honest rating since I dozed off and on for part of its running time (plus we shut it off early), so all I can say is if what I slept through was a awful as what I saw, at least I'm partially redeemed for catching-up on much lost zzzzzz's.