vinamac Honestly, I cannot find a single flaw with this movie except for the amount of cheese puffs included. They couldn't have added more of them? The story was perfect, cast impeccable, costumes plaid-tastic, and the cheese puffs sublime. My heart broke when Phil dropped that tray, but was restored when Duffy was healed by the power of cheese puffs! Eric Roberts should have won an Oscar for this, how his gift has not been recognized by The Academy is a travesty of justice. The filming locations left me feeling both relaxed and nostalgic for my younger days in a tiki bar in Polynesia, catching waves with Sniffy the Siamese. A solid 5/7, would recommend.

arihoptman Yep, that about sums it up.I'm writing this review mostly because I feel compassion for Johnnie Whitaker, who deserved something better. I also feel it for the relatively inexperienced teenage actors, because they did, too. And Eric Roberts, well, I sincerely hope he got paid a lot for his literally phoned-in performance. Just a whole lot of money.So, this "movie" (as it's been categorized). Awkward conversations that don't advance the plot, an endless series of establishing shots, and the longest and most pointless closing credit sequence ever cut together are the things you will find here. And very little else, it turns out.Well, maybe that's wrong: there's an inadvertently gay subtext. Oh and, yes, as another reviewer observed, there is indeed a talking cat that is a key part of the story somehow.

chow913 Where oh where to begin? How about with the director's credits of TEN films a year for the past five years!!! Is it any surprise they're all horrible? Maybe he's just trying to outdo Godfrey Ho's record of five films a year. He should learn from Ho and use unreleased Hong Kong romantic comedy footage redubbed to pad out his films instead of just the opening credits.Just to clarify, this movie is NOT about a "talking" cat and is NOT about "a family" and the characters do NOT have "problems" (other than being boring) and the cat shown in IMDb's images is NOT the cat in the movie. So as usual IMDb can't get basic facts about the film right.So anyway, this film is about two neighboring families, a widower and his son, and a middle aged single mother. What's going on in their lives? NOTHING!!! There no conflict or narrative hook at all!!! The characters just sit around texting or playing video games. Even the characters are bored with their own movie.The only thing happening is a cat wanders in and out of their California homes. Wow, a cat, narrated by Eric Roberts. So an actor who's built his whole career playing stalkers, rapists, slimeballs, and other criminals is cast to voice a female cat in a children's film? By "narrated" I mean he's (or she's since the cat's female) "talking" to the audience NOT the people actually in the movie!!!The cat doesn't actually do ANYTHING!!! That's why cats make such poor subject matter for films. Think about how many films come to mind based around cats. Disney's 'That Darn Cat' and a Hammer Horror B&W film about a murder victim coming back as a cat to avenge his death. No, Stephen King's 'Cat's Eye' really isn't about a cat. It just had a cat in it!Let's face it, house cats don't do anything but lounge around. So why should we be surprised by the results of film based around a cat.I didn't even recognize the fat middle aged blonde as Kristine DeBell the cutie from 'Meatballs' and 'Battle Creek Brawl' who previously worked as a hardcore porn actress. And when I say "hardcore" I mean "HARDCORE" quadruple penetration! (not kidding)This movie is gouge your eyes out bad.

Xenomaster I recently watched this "film" for my podcast, where we solely review awful movies. I painstakingly sat through it twice with a stopwatch and timed all of the runtime of the movie spent on establishing shots (there are FIFTY-SEVEN OF THEM), credits, and shots of the cat lying or waddling around. This sums up the movie better than anything:Between the credits, establishing shots, and shots of the cat, those all take up THIRTY PERCENT OF THE 83-MINUTE RUNTIME. I have never seen a movie that so blatantly pads its runtime with scenery. And what's scarier than that is that there are literally dozens of instances (that I didn't time with the stopwatch) where the human characters are shown doing nothing but sitting and looking at things for several minutes at a time, or walking up stairs, or standing and looking at random objects. It is pathetic how poorly edited and shot this movie is.Literally nothing happens in this movie. If you don't believe me, go see it. You'll go cross-eyed before you ever find anything resembling a plot. If this thing was competently made just from a sheer editing standpoint, it would be 4 minutes long...if that.