Renaissance

Film News

Garfield 2? Almost makes you want to get violent

by Andrew Mack, August 14, 2005 4:00 AM


Garfield.jpg

It appears that being a really good actor in some stunning but low budget/low profile films doesn't pay the bills like they used to.

Yesterday came the stunning word that there are indeed plans to make a sequel to the 'dear-god-why?' Garfield: The Movie. What is more stunning is that Bill Murray is going to lend his voice once again to the CGI furball. I don't care that Jennifer Love Hewitt and Breckin Meyer are coming back. They don't have careers anymore so it doesn't matter. I also don't care that Billy Connelly and Lucy Davis are also picking up scraps with roles in this movie too. But Bill? Why? You've done so well with movies like Rushmore, Lost in Translation and Broken Flowers. I'm torn between saying, "Yes. You've done well. Time for a Mental Marguireta" and "Are you mad man? Did we now warn you about the special brownies?".

Okay. I look at the stupid cash this movie made [$75,369,588 domestic and $123,232,506 internationally - boxofficemojo] so despite getting slaughtered by the critics it did mad business. And, yes, he isn't going to be on screen either. But boy does this make me chringe.

Parents beware. If you had to sit through the first one chances are if your children are standing down wind of any promotion of the sequel you'll have to endure the pain again. Makes you believe even more in abstinance or condoms doesn't it?

via BCCMovies.


Related Posts with Thumbnails