Taraparain
Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.
quasides
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
Python Hyena
Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties (2006): Dir: Tim Hill / Cast: Breckin Meyer, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Billy Connolly / Voices: Bill Murray, Tim Curry: About as fetching as emptying the litter box. This lame sequel regards two different lifestyles by identical cats. Lame plot has Jon traveling to London to propose to his girlfriend, but his cat Garfield and dog Odie stow away in the luggage. Garfield is mistaken for an identical cat that was left an estate in a will but Lord Dargis attempts to dispose of him thus being the next heir. How animals are able to perform the tasks given is not explained and director Tim Hill is no road map. He previously flushed the Muppets franchise down the toilet with the pathetic Muppets From Space. Breckin Meyer is nothing like Jon although the character was funnier in the comic strip. Jennifer Love Hewitt is flat and really only serves as a pretty face. Billy Connolly gives a bad John Cleese impersonation as the idiotic Lord Dargis. Garfield is voiced by Bill Murray whose contribution doesn't save the film but it provides sarcasm and amusement as Garfield struggles to adapt to this new lifestyle. Tim Curry voices the twin villain of Garfield but that is pretty much the height as to which that role elevates. Garfield looks fantastic as done with computer animation but it fails to translate the comic strip. It leaves more than two tales told by the filmmakers. Score: 2 ½ / 10
gregeichelberger
Originally published on June 11, 2006: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 is a (very cheap) CGI creation, all of the other animals in the movie are real.What is 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 profoundly and ridiculously stupid film.Based on the much better Mark Twain story of the "Prince and the Pauper," the animated feline (again voiced by a deadpan Bill Murray) somehow gets mixed up with a pampered cat, Prince (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 and - oh, why even go on? Trying to explain this moronic plot is just wasting time, energy and brain cells. Plus, 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 dialogue 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.
Andrewnwebber
Garfield is the star of the film so how much you enjoy the film does ultimately depend on how much you like that orange cat and that mix of animation, voiced by Bill Murray, with live action. There are also a lot of funny but but perhaps not hilarious gags- although many pretty good really , particularly when taken in the spirit of the film which is a jolly family friendly & slightly anarchic. Well the cat and animals rule the palace! Better than the first film. I like the version of the prince & pauper but with cats and it was a good idea to move the location to Britain to give the fresh perspective. It's the animals that star ( all real apart from Garfield) although with good back up from Billy Connely as the villain of the piece trying to get rid of Prince (garfields rich double) who stands in his way of inheritance.
