"Among other offenses, the 2001 talking-animal comedy Cats & Dogs was
a pernicious piece of anti-cat propaganda. The sequel, Cats & Dogs:
The Revenge Of Kitty Galore, eases off on the hatefulness by providing
a token nice kitty. And it’s still, in the spirit of the original
film, an unbelievable piece of shit. The world waited nine years for
Cats & Dogs to expand its mythology; let’s hold out longer next time."
http://www.avclub.com/articles/cats-dogs-the-revenge-of-kitty-galore,43626/
Which was the worst thing to happen to America in 2001 -- the
beginning of Bush, 9/11 or the original 'Cats and Dogs' taking over
$100m at the box office? :-(
You just said it yourself, once again the moviegoers give their
overwhelming approval and prove critics really have no business
giving their worthless opinions about things they know nothing
about. That's why Oscar nominies are failures at the box office.
So, did they have to call her Kitty Galore because a Bond film
already used Pussy Galore?
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2010/07/by-popular-demand.html
Though the movie still sounds like the biggest pile of total
unrelenting shit since Furry Vengeance, mind you... :-) AVClub.com
gave it their 3rd 'F' grade of the summer, along with 'Jonah Hex' and
'The Last Airbender'.
> So, did they have to call her Kitty Galore because a Bond film already used Pussy Galore?
Seems you're allowed to get away with jokes about WATERBOARDING in
'family friendly' movies these days -- torture, ha ha! -- but God
forbid slightly naughty puns from a 46-year-old 007 film.