mariannepolin 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.

leplatypus I was hugely bored by the first movie because this fat, lazy, belching always talking furry-ball is an annoying character and that the story and talent wasn't there also. At first, i found this English royal clone could be interesting because of the change of locations and misunderstanding but after 30 minutes, i couldn't stand it! the story is stupid with having all the characters meeting by luck when they need it, the English bad heir is an insulting copy of John Cleese, the farm animals are totally excruciating, the scenes are only about setting a trap but they are not funny and terribly long, Garfield's master is always transparent and lacks energy and Hewitt is again totally wasted! So it's really one of the worst sequel i have ever watched and i wonder if that really makes kids laugh??

long-ford This sequel to Garfield is marginally better than the original. It's still not very good though. Bill Murray sounds bored as he voices the sardonic lasagna-eating cat. The plot is just an excuse to go to England and involves a Garfield double voiced by Tim Curry. There are lots of talking animals as in 'Babe' but minus the charm. Billy Connolly tries his best to rise above the material and partially succeeds. Breckin Meyer and Jennifer Love Hewitt simply aren't needed in the storyline. While kids may like the film, adults will probably be bored. Best seen using the FF button on the remote.Overall 3/10

TheLittleSongbird 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