Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties
It"s really unnerving to have to sit through a second Garfield when the first was just so excruciating. But alas, here we are again--and now there"s two of them. Joy.
The thing is, Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties doesn"t even have anything to do with the classic Charles Dickens novel. Two Kitties is more a pauper/prince type story. I guess kids probably don"t know what a "pauper" is and, well, The Prince and the Pussy wouldn"t really work, would it? Still, they could have at least come up with a clever story to go along with the title. This time around, Garfield (Bill Murray) wants to stop Jon (Breckin Meyer) from asking cute-as-a-button vet Liz (Jennifer Love Hewitt) to marry him on a trip to London by stowing away. Once over the pond, the fat yellow cat ends up being mistaken for a royal fat yellow cat, Prince (Tim Curry), who has just inherited a castle. Sure, Garfield likes all the perks--minced pie anytime he rings a bell; pampering beyond your regular tongue bath; and no Odie. There are a few downsides, namely an evil relative (Billy Connolly) who wants the cat dead so he can get the estate, but it doesn"t matter. Both cats are killed in the end anyway. Oh, I"m kidding (I only wish).
The laconic Murray is certainly a wise choice to voice the indolent fat cat and was mildly entertaining in the first Garfield. But for the Oscar-nominated actor to agree to do it again, let"s just say it must have been very costly for the producers. I would hope, anyway, that he asked for a lot of money because why else would you do something as inane as this? The character interminably grates. There are also a bevy of British actors in Two Kitties, who are equally annoying doing animal voices--from Curry as the mollycoddled Prince to Bob Hoskins as a bulldog and Sharon Osbourne as a pig. As for the human factor, Meyer and Love Hewitt are gag-producing sugary sweet, while Connolly just makes a complete ass of himself as the dastardly villain. It"s kind of embarrassing actually --for everyone involved.
It still boggles the mind the first Garfield grossed $75 million domestically. Yes, it was an understandable endeavor since the comic strip has always been immensely popular, and with the advent of CGI, creating the Garfield we all know and love for the screen was finally possible. But the first Garfield was so mind-numbingly ridiculous, you just have to wonder what the audiences saw in it. I guess maybe it had something to do with keeping 7-year-olds occupied. Of course, all the studio execs saw were dollar signs, so it stands to reason they"d make a sequel. It made money, dammit, so we have to do it again, can"t you see that? OK, so let"s say we go with that reasoning, hoping maybe they"ll have realized their mistakes with the first and come up with something better. No such luck. I have feeling this time around, however, those same execs may be disappointed. In a summer full of far more stellar entertainment for the kiddies, these Two Kitties are going to, thankfully, fall by the wayside and put an end to the franchise once and for all.
Hollywood.com rated this film 1 star.