Garfield (Bill Murray) is back and this time he and his canine sidekick Odie follow their owner, Jon Arbuckle (Breckin Meyer), to England, the U.K. may never recover, as Garfield is mistaken for a look-alike, regal cat who has inherited a castle. Garfield savors the royal treatment afforded by his loyal four-legged subjects, but his reign is in jeopardy. The evil nefarious stubborn Lord Dargis (Sir Billy Connolly) is determined to do away with Garfield, so he can turn the castle into a resort. Garfield’s bigger, better, more perfect world is soon turned upside down in this tale of two kitties.

Also Known As: Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties, Ґарфілд 2, Garfield 2: Kahe kassi lugu, Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties, Гарфийлд 2, Pusur 2, Garfield 2: Μια ιστορία με δύο γάτες, Garfild 2, Gustaf 2, Garfield: Pacha royal, Гарфилд 2, Garfield 2, 加菲貓2, ガーフィールド2, Gārfīlds 2, Karvinen 2, Garfield 2 - Faulheit verpflichtet, Hai Chú Mèo Siêu Quậy, Garfield, Garfildas 2, Garfield 2 Czech

Leave a Reply

No Comments

  • denise-haley
    denise haley

    Until I saw this movie, I never knew that Garfield had such a cool twin brother (spoiler alert). This movie changed my life. I never knew that a bond between brothers could be as strong as homemade lasagna. This movie takes you on a whirlwind of emotions, from laughter to crying. I remember when I misplaced the DVD for 6 months — the darkest 6 months of my life. What got me through was the fact that I had the first one on DVD to get me through.As well, the bond between Garfield and Odie can never be broken <3 What an amazing duo. This movie is a cinematic masterpiece.

  • sig-olo-d-angelo
    sig olo d angelo

    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.

  • marija-rudzitis
    marija rudzitis

    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.

  • kevin-sandoval
    kevin sandoval

    I enjoyed this movie just as much as the first one. Bill Murray is amazing as he returns as the voice of Garfield. It all begins mostly about a month after the first movie left off. Garfield and Odie follow Jon to London, because Jon wants to propose to Liz. But little does Garfield know, there’s a royal cat named Prince who just inherited a million, and he looks just like Garfield. But an unfortunate event that occurs, that the two-look-a-like cats switch places, so Garfield is living as a king, as Prince is rooming with Jon and Odie. Will they switch back before its too late. This movie was just as entertaining as the first movie. This movie will inspire animal lovers just as well as the first movie did.

  • milos-debeljak
    milos debeljak

    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.

  • renske-niermann
    renske niermann

    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

  • jadranka-culjak
    jadranka culjak

    OK so Bill Murray and Tim Curry play the voices of the look-a-like pussies but it works! I was disappointed with Billy Connolly’s performance, but he did raise a few chuckles.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)

  • nana-mirzoyants
    nana mirzoyants

    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!

  • miss-naomi-mann
    miss naomi mann

    i really like Garfield 1 and thought that Garfield 2 would also be good..,but i m sorry to say this movie was not up to the mark.. the scenes were quite enjoying.. i really liked the castle and the surroundings.. but some how i felt that the movie lacked in something..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 blaand 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!

  • ron-thorsen
    ron thorsen

    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.

  • davide-testa
    davide testa

    This movie is a masterpiece of cinema. Don’t watch the first one though, it sucks.

  • sona-at-erzyan
    sona at erzyan

    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.

  • shaantaa-aahuujaa
    shaantaa aahuujaa

    Jon (Breckin Meyer) is about to propose to his veterinarian girlfriend, Liz, and has set up a romantic dinner. Horrors! Garfield does his best to wreck the meal but, more importantly, Liz has to dash to London at once, for an important conference. Words of love do not get spoken! But, wait. What if Jon goes to London secretly and surprises Liz with his proposition there? Good idea, except that Garfield and Odie sneak in the luggage for a trip, too. At that same moment in time, an old lady in England dies and leaves her entire estate, including the eye-popping castle, to her cat, Prince. Her nephew is thwarted, although he will be the eventual heir when Prince is expired. Well, what if the cat gets a bit of help losing his nine lives? Oh, Prince is a dead ringer for Garfield and mix-ups do occur, especially when cats hop buses and steamers. Soon, Garfield is living it up in the castle and Prince is trying to find his way back home. Meanwhile, Jon is searching for his beloved lost pet. Oh, what a tangled web! This darling, darling movie is a joy for children and adults. The script is very funny, both in words and in physical activity, pleasing old and young alike. Meyer and Love-Hewitt are just what one wants in the adult characters surrounding the lovable feline. Murray is absolutely beyond compare as the voice of the grumpy yet winning orange bunch of fur, in this case, twice over. The scenery and castle in London are the best eye candies around while the many animals who live in the castle just melt one’s heart with their charm and antics. After watching this film, a viewer’s only wish is that the series will last, at least to the point of matching Rocky’s achievements. If you want to treat your children and yourself, do not delay in finding a way to bring this movie to your family. Everyone will say, as the boy in the seat behind me at the theater, Mom, when can we see this film again?

  • ruta-stankevicius
    ruta stankevicius

    I am among the large minority of people that actually hate this movie. Lets face it people setting it in a different country wasn’t good enough to beat the first one.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

  • alicia-rodrigues
    alicia rodrigues

    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.

  • pan-olgierd-deptuch
    pan olgierd deptuch

    I saw this one in theaters when I was seven years old, and it was one of the funniest movies I ever saw. The dialog made me laugh and the idea was interesting, although not the best in a movie. I was a big fan of the original Garfield movie so I believed in the sequel. Both of them inspired me to read the Garfield comics regularly. Maybe this movie’s not exactly a masterpiece, but there are some funny parts, like when Garfield breaks out of the kennel. If you ask me, that was the best part, but the rest of the movie was funny as well. If you don’t like it, that’s okay. I just don’t think it deserved the attention it received, because it was a great movie and it was definitely worth watching.

  • lic-abigail-ortiz
    lic abigail ortiz

    Here is a kid’s film that’s truly a kid’s film. I went because I am fan of Bill Murray’s (voice or otherwise) but I was pleasantly surprised. While this movie isn’t in the same class as Ice Age 1 or 2, it’s still rolls right along with it’s kid-centric silliness. Between Murray’s sarcastic Garfield and Meyer’s long-suffering Jon, the movie works. It’s nice to be able to take a kid to a movie like this now-a-days knowing that no one will get shot and that the language will stay reasonably clean. There will be some folks out there who will bored by this sort of thing but then again, they should remember that this is a KID’S MOVIE. Enjoy it for what it is.

  • iva-pokorna
    iva pokorna

    Garfield a Tale of Two Kitties is the most majestic and awe inspiring piece of artwork I have ever had the immense pleasure of viewing. Every single inch of film in this masterpiece is pure gold to all viewers. The cast is magnificent, the scripting is beautiful and the cat himself is the most fantastic feline I’ve ever laid eyes on. No other thing on Earth will ever be able to touch the enjoyableness of this film. Every time I watch it I bask in its rays of glory and wonder. Everything else is 0/10 000 will never be as good as Garfield a Tale of Two Kitties. I would recommend this film to every single human being on Earth that wants to experience something absolutely amazing. 11/10

  • dipl-ing-kamil-forster
    dipl ing kamil forster

    First – what this movie is NOT – it is not “deep”, “meaningful” or “moving”.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.

  • valda-eglitis
    valda eglitis

    This movie is a really nice children’s story. I think the people that give bad reviews to this movie, are expecting an adult’s story. If you are expecting an intricate plot and character development, you should not see this movie. If you want to see a good story that kids will like, then see this movie. The story revolves around Prince (Curry) and Garfield (Murray). Tim Curry is foiling an evil executive’s plot, while Bill Murray is sneaking into Jon’s suitcase, classic Garfield antics. I think this movie is better than the first, solely because of Tim Curry’s voice-over. I like the intensely British-sounding voice. There are a lot of parts in this movie where Garfield and Prince work together to help the other animals and workers. Its an overall fun movie.

  • steve-hernandez
    steve hernandez

    First, I am owned myself by a cat, so I naturally enjoy anything having to do with Cats.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.

  • benedita-pinto
    benedita pinto

    This is one of those movies where how you rate it depends greatly upon how you consume it. I took my three young ones (5,6 and 7) to see this and they were fully delighted. At just over 90-minutes it fits fully into their attention span. No one gets (really) hurt, there are talking animals, and the bad guy gets it real good in the end. For family consumption, it gets a 10.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.

  • rolands-aunins
    rolands aunins

    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.

  • sharon-adams
    sharon adams

    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.

  • helmtrud-mies
    helmtrud mies

    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