User reviews

It was FUN!

I had a good time watching the movie. I didn't get bored, I laughed more than a couple of times. I truly liked Garfield. I mean that cat has really good a sense of humor.

The plot was fine, the dialogs were brilliant. Garfield was fine. Even, Odie had his moment.

The animation could have been better but it really wasn't that bad. I can watch is again. Everything someone looks for in Garfield was there. So, I wasn't disappointed and I have no idea why people were.

If you ask me, watch it. Cause it is fun and that is enough.

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 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.

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

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.

I braced myself for 90 minutes of unfunny and weak cat jokes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Garfield: a tale of two kitties is a very disappointing movie compared to the first Garfield. I like the first one much better. It had more funny jokes, better moments and a much better plot/setting. This movie was very predictable and really boring. The weirdest part of all is how all the animals could talk but no humans understand what they're saying, that just sucked and was a big disappointment.

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.

It is bad enough to rip off most of Mark Twain's Prince and the Pauper content, but where Mark Twain was tweaking the noses of the British (a popular theme during his time), the script writer were tweaking the noses of the American viewers. Stereotyping British upper class has become so passe that it has become insulting to viewers on both sides of the "pond," as well as the weak-kneed Willy who can't ask the woman he loves to marry him, whom, by the way, is too caught up with her own world to listen. The dialogue was morose; acting: Connolly was fun to watch; Hewitt needed more cleavage (in both respects); and Meyer's screen time could have been deleted. My children rating: boring.

My six year-old daughter chose this movie from the fairly limited offerings available from Blockbuster's mail order service. I have to admit that I'm a bit bias because I never cared too much for the comic strip and felt that the first film was absolutely horrible.

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.

I'm a fan of the Garfield comics, I saw the first movie and enjoyed it. The second movie, "Garfield's A Tail Of Two Kitties", was about the same. I didn't like it any better or any worse than the first film. It wasn't a "laugh out loud" film. The funny parts make you smile or make you laugh a little. The special effects for Garfield looked a bit better than the first movie's. The story was pretty good, I thought it was clever at some parts. The movie could have been better, but it was enjoyable. It's a good family film, if you want to spend some time with your kids or family then see this.

My score: 7/10

by far, the best film ever to have graced the silver screen, first off the acting from BIll Murray as Garfield and Marlon Brando as Odie makes me want to burst into tears over their heart feld appearances, by far their best dual work since Dunston Checks In. The second key role of this film that makes it so great is the chemistry between Garfield, Odie and John. John's performance is stale but all around a nice touch to this masterpiece-John is played by Ron Jeremy and purs his heart (and genitals) out for this surprisingly underrated role, I'm surprised they didn't call this by it's original name, Garfield and John do London. The London backdrops, while obviously carefully angled stunt doubles still look nice and is part of the reason I keep coming back and watching this joy ride of a movie. Side note: I love this movie so much I broke up with my girlfriend to be with John and I have to say, I haven't looked back!

I give this movie a 6 out of 10, mostly because I was pleasantly surprised at how cute it was, when I was expecting a huge disaster. I took my younger brother to see it, who always wants to go see "bad" movies, and I get stuck taking him. I like Garfield, don't get me wrong, but I wasn't expecting much from this sequel to the below average original.

I found myself laughing along to some of the cute quotes from other movie classics, as well as groaning to some of the musical montages of Garfield dancing around. But really, I think you'd prefer taking your kids to see this one instead of "Cars"...which bored the hell out of my niece and nephew.

Just because it's a sequel, doesn't mean you should be quick to judge it so harshly, I give it some credit for not being as horrible as the Disney sequels to "Peter Pan", "Cinderella", and "Lady and the Tramp". Seriously, enough already.

In short it was awful.

I understand that the target audience is for children (even tough the strips aren't really) so i could life with the silly part.

but main problem here is, thats not garfield. its a orange cat with a little resemblance with garfield who likes lasagna and thats about it.

also about the plot, from all things that you could have done something totally random was chosen that never made any sense.

sorry if thats for children then the parent should sue for possible long term damage of their cerebal cortex. this hole thing is to stupid even for a 4 year old. if you try to make your kid trailerpark ready well this movie is for you.

na sorry... there is no good garfield movie yet and this is one of the worst

This film is about Garfield and an identical looking British Royal cat being mixed up in identity.

"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.