Print Page | Close Window

Something for The Litter Box Literati??

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: 27th RAZZIEŽ AWARDS DISCUSSIONS & FORUMS
Forum Name: GARFIELD: A TAIL of TWO KITTIES
Forum Discription: Nominated for 2 Spray-Painted Statuettes, including WORST SEQUEL
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1068
Printed Date: December 21 2014 at 6:11pm


Topic: Something for The Litter Box Literati??
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Something for The Litter Box Literati??
Date Posted: June 12 2006 at 6:21am

GASEOUS FAT CAT SPRAYS on BOTH MARK TWAIN and CHARLES DICKENS in SECOND OUTING, THIS TIME w/a TRIP 2 LONDON...

The First GARFIELD Sucked So Bad, We're AMAZED They've Made Another One. And This Time, There R 2 Fat Katz...Our only question: WHO Would Even Bother w/This Hare-Brained Hair-Ball of a Movie??



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: June 12 2006 at 4:02pm
Razz, I thought the first Garfield movie was the worst piece of pussy I ever saw...

-------------
GIVE KIRK CAMERON THE RAZZING HE DESERVES!!!!!!


Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: June 14 2006 at 4:46am
I'd rather clean out my cat's litter box with my tongue than sit through this obvious piece of #2! Throw in the fact that they're "paying homage" (meaning RIPPING OFF) two of my favorite authors (Twain and Dickens) with their plot and storyline, and you've got a movie I wouldn't give a coughed up hairball for!

-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: Kendan
Date Posted: June 16 2006 at 8:32am
It's a shame, too.  After all, Garfield has been such a household name for decades. 


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: June 16 2006 at 5:44pm
This is yet ANOTHER example of Hollywood running out of ideas. Is there
a single Hollywood executive NOT playing with their e-meter?


Posted By: Rosen
Date Posted: June 19 2006 at 7:57am

My 5 year old cousin saw the first one and said it was "stupid"... why, oh, why won't they learn?!



Posted By: Rosen
Date Posted: June 19 2006 at 7:59am

And another thing!

WHY DO MOVIES INSIST ON REMAKING THE PRINCE AND THE POPPER... I THINK WE ARE ALL OVER IT!!!! #!@%$#%$#! 

Mkay, I'm done.



Posted By: Kendan
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 6:43am
Theory and observation: Garfield:The Movie grossed over $75 million domestically and $123 million foreign(figures from BoxOfficeMojo).  Since this movie cost @$50 million to make, this movie made over $150 million!!  ANY film that makes that kind of money is ripe for a sequel and will continue to be beat to death till it won't give anymore!!  This one also opened weaker than TTK, only $22m.  This tells me that TTK is probably gonna make a profit and will spawn ANOTHER sequel!!(Just kill me now!)Dead  This tells me the movie viewing public are either desperate or just tasteless morons!!  You decide!


Posted By: Rosen
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 6:49am

Well... the majority of the people who see these movies are children who, like the fast and furious fans, should be slapped. Just kidding, I am sure kids love these movies, and we all probably liked crappy movies when we were little. Oh well...

KENDAN! You and I are "Berry Good Friends"! Two razzies! YESS!



Posted By: Budgieboy
Date Posted: August 10 2006 at 8:51pm

I remember seeing the first one. Worst Movie I had seen since  Santa Clause 2 (Give me a break -- I was a little kid then).

I absolutely love the Garfield comics...Shame about the movie! Even the music was pretty crappy -- bloody Black Eyed Peas!

Response from Head RAZZberry: If you thought SANTA CLAUSE 2 was one of the worst movies you ever saw, you'll be sorry to hear that the final entry in Tim Allen's Trilogy of Terrible Movies this year will be... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452681/ - SANTA CLAUSE 3: THE ESCAPE CLAUSE , due out November 3. The first of the Trilogy was the remake of  http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=95 - SHAGGY DOG  (now out on DVD) and the second is http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=135 - ZOOM  (which just opened)...



-------------
A friend in need is a bloody nuisence


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: October 12 2006 at 4:25am

Unfortunately with the money that G2 made over seas we may get another lasagna side helping of Garfield, Unfortunately I had to pick up the G2 video because I love my kids!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/garfield_2/gallery.php?page=14&size=lores&nopop=1">Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties Movie Stills: Bill Murray, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Billy Connolly, Tim Hill



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Alan Smithee
Date Posted: October 16 2006 at 3:38pm
A useless sequel to a useless movie.

What more can i say?


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 7:04am
The first Garfield movie was really disappointing, and it didn't get any Razzie noms. But now, at last, this Garfield sequel has gotten a couple of those Razzie noms. The sequel was just a useless sequel for sure.


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: February 03 2007 at 5:17pm
Of course, I was really pissed when the first Garfield movie didn't get any Razzie noms. I was actually hoping that a Garfield sequel would end up getting a Razzie nom, and my patience certainly payed off.


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: February 05 2007 at 5:57am
Hmmm, think about it: Garfield 2 makes this the third time recently that a movie with a cat as the main character has received a Razzie nom, beginning with The Cat In The Hat (winning one Razzie) and Catwoman (not exactly a cat, but a super-heroine dressed like a cat), winning 4 Razzies, one of them was Worst Picture. Even Halle Berry won the Worst Actress Razzie. I've watched the clips of Halle accepting her Razzie, and I totally enjoyed it!   

-------------


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: February 08 2007 at 2:41am
What I don't get is how in the hell dows Garfield like Lasagna? Doesn't that make him fat for sure? Eating too much Lasagna? He probably thinks about that, mostly for dinner actually.


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: February 12 2007 at 2:41am
I think it's just pretty tough for Bill Murray. He's been good in a bunch of '80's movies, like Stripes, the Ghostbusters movies, Little Shop of Horrors, Scrooged, etc. He also was pretty good in Groundhog Day, What About Bob?, etc. I actually like Bill, but I think it's just that it's pretty hard these days to see a good movie with him in it. Though he was pretty good in Lost in Translation.


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: February 12 2007 at 5:36am
Really he's still the one member of the SNL/SCTV generation that's holding his own at all; the others have now become mostly pale shadows of what they once were (it never helped that most of them were typecast from the moment they jumped to film and were rarely if ever given any input into their work by the executives). 


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: February 21 2007 at 2:38am
Oh yes, of course, of course, not to forget that he was robbed the Best Actor Oscar by Sean Penn back in 2003. And a lot of people, as well a a ton of critics, were hoping for him to win that award.


Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: February 21 2007 at 4:26am
As was I.  Further proof, in my mind at least, that the Academy is openly prejudiced against comedians.  I think he should have been nominated for doing Peter Venkman as well, for he did so much better there than with most of the serious roles throughout 1984 (I would also have given either Harold Ramis or Rick Moranis consideration for Best Supporting Actor as well). 


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: February 24 2007 at 9:31am
I actually found that Bill Murray's performance in Lost in Translation was not comedic. I think Lost in Translation was actually a drama. But yes, I guess the Oscars are only interested in comedians doing dramatic films. Like Robin Williams (who was robbed of an Oscar in 1987, for "Good Morning, Vietnam"). However, he was able to win an Oscar, not in a comedy, but in a drama...so I guess the Oscars do like comedians, but would rather have them be in different genres.

-------------


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: August 01 2007 at 4:58am

GARFIELD 2 was just as bad as the first one...and then some!

 



-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 11 2007 at 12:11pm
Bill got in trouble for driving a golf cart drunk in some Europeon country.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 4:34pm
The same reason they insist on remaking A CHRISTMAS CAROL and IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. 

Originally posted by Rosen

WHY DO MOVIES INSIST ON REMAKING THE PRINCE AND THE POPPER... I THINK WE ARE ALL OVER IT!!!! #!@%$#%$#! 

Have you watch the movie,or read the comic?GARFIELD is lazy and doesn't care about his weight? 

Originally posted by bruin_522

What I don't get is how in the hell dows Garfield like Lasagna? Doesn't that make him fat for sure? Eating too much Lasagna? He probably thinks about that, mostly for dinner actually.


It was a "dramedy," but according to most people, it's a little more of a comedy. 

Originally posted by bruin_522

I actually found that Bill Murray's performance in Lost in Translation was not comedic. I think Lost in Translation was actually a drama.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 6:01pm
My advice, stick with the Garfield Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas specials that CBS plays every year.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 10:58am
A lot people have told me Bill Murray saved the movie.GARFIELD's sarcasm did.Bill's way of saying them wasn't special.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 11:34am
Originally posted by Vits

A lot people have told me Bill Murray saved the movie.GARFIELD's sarcasm did.Bill's way of saying them wasn't special.
That doesn't make sense. Murray was the voice of Garfield, so Garfield's sarcasm was Murray's sarcasm.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 1:13pm
The lines were funny.They could've been said by anyone.I'm not saying Bill Murray isn't good,just that he didn't stand out in this movies.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 07 2010 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by Vits

The lines were funny.They could've been said by anyone.I'm not saying Bill Murray isn't good,just that he didn't stand out in this movies.
Well, like I said in another thread, a few funny lines or moments can't save a movie as a whole.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 9:52am
I gave it 1/10,and I gave 3 to the first one.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window