I haven't watched Garfield part one, so I sadly have no base for comparison on this one. If I were to guess, though, I'd say that this film (like
Garfield) seems to capture some of the Garfield humour of the books and cartoons, but somehow isn't the whole ticket.
Don't get me wrong - this film is very watchable, indeed I watched it all and it is basically quite a good film/ family comedy. But if you've seen a few Hollywood blockbusters, you can recognise a film that is popcorn fodder and this film definitely falls into that category.
That said, this film does have one redeeming feature - the performance of Billy Connolly. Where most of the other bits are nothing particularly special, Billy Connolly gives one of his best charactor performances as Lord Dargis. Where many of the comedy scenes involving Garfield and his doppleganger Prince would be fairly funny for children, Billy Connolly provides a performance that turns a rather dry villain into one that is genuinely funny.
And, to be fair, the plot is at least original, in that the idea of a cat inheriting an estate hasn't really featured in many films, although the 'wife swap' scenario of the plot definitely has.
So, if you're lazing about on a Sunday afternoon and this film pops on TV, it is definitely worth a watch. But is it worth renting or buying? Sadly no. Go and watch the original cartoons (e.g.
Garfield As Himself), where the crafty yet slovenly charactor comes across much stronger than in the 2D version portrayed here...