Garfield: The Movie

As simple good clean entertainment this movie really isn't that bad. The movie however fails to making a lasting impression. Nothing in the movie is something new or memorable. The story itself is also extremely simple. The fact that the movie is so incredible short makes the story seem even worse than it perhaps is.

I'll admit that Garfield is a better looking CGI-character than Scooby-Doo was. Still that doesn't mean that Garfield looks incredibly impressive or realistic. Plus of course this movie has very little to do with the original cartoon, so many grew up with. None of the characters really make an impressive appearance, not even Bill Murray's voice talent can change this. Jennifer Love Hewitt is looking good in this movie but she gets very little to do and her characters just felt needless for this movie. A big disappointing character was the villain Happy Chapman he was not fun, not villainous enough and his exact motivations were too unclear and/or too lame.

The movie also fails to be really funny. The movie will perhaps make you grin at times but it almost most certainly won't make you laugh out loud. Still as simple clean entertainment it serves it purpose and I can't not entirely trash this movie. It does has its few moments but it simply all doesn't make a very lasting impression.

Entertaining enough to watch it once.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

As a huge fan of the laziest cat on Earth, I confess that I was really expecting too much of this movie, but when I watched it, I got a bit disappointed... "Garfield" is not a bad movie at all, but is far away than all the fans expected, for some reasons in particular:

First of all, this movie is basically for children. Anyone who read the original Garfield's comic books knows that his sarcastic humor is for all ages, not just for kids.

The second problem in my opinion maybe can divide some opinions, but let's go: Garfield is lazy, as we all know, but this is an action movie...and nothing is more anti-Garfield than action! I think that a comedy of situations based on all Garfield's countless books could be more interesting, his loyal legion of admires will certainly agree with my point of view.

But, after all, if you just want some fun for a while, this movie will entertain you. Bill Murray is great doing Garfield's voice, very faithful to his shameless and ironic personality. The rest of the cast is OK; a bit affected sometimes, specially Breckin Meyer (Jon Arbuckle), he looks a lot like the cartoon version of Garfield's owner, but I really think that he is exaggerated, always trying to look goofier and goofier... Well, whatever, I think that I must getting older and complaining about things that are not so serious. Kids will love "Garfield" and adults with child's heart will like it as well...at least, if you're not so hard to please as I am...

Firstly, i really liked the CGI incarnation of everyone favourite cat and i thought Bill Murray provided his voice superbly, capturing his character with perfection. Other than that though Garfield - the movie failed to deliver the essence of the cartoon's produced by Jim Davis. The humour in the original comic strips were entirely geared at the adult generation, not the kids.

I knew the movie would cater for the younger viewer, but i felt that it went overboard a little, and this was detrimental to the films enjoyment. As a family movie it is entertaining, but Garfield - the movie seems to have ignored the comedy that made him everyone's favourite cat; only traces of it still remain.

It's worth watching as a family movie, but for fans of the Jim Davis comic character, it's probably best left alone.

6/10

After engaging in an effort to find a good review - much harder than I ever imagined it would be - and finding the movie listed at the bottom of the barrel, I felt almost an obligation to go see this on opening day - either to prove the critics wrong, or to get fodder for a scathing letter to Jim Davis. I ended up with neither.

The problem, admittedly, is what some critics have said: Garfield is old and busted. A walk in the theater revealed the new hotness: Harry Potter. The movie is, sadly, 10 years overdue. Just look at the long listing of Garfield TV specials, most of which are 1982-1992, and "Garfield and Friends" began in 1988. It was delayed, I read, because Jim Davis believed the technology wasn't there. It was; it's called regular animation. Garfield is a 2-D medium, either on the comics page or on animated cels. But, I guess, since no one does that anymore, 2004 couldn't have a 2-D Garfield.

The problem is not necessarily with the CGI Garfield and his actions, although some of the characteristics displayed are not those I associate with the cat. The problem is with the supporting cast who look, by and large, not like their animated counterparts. Who made Odie a wiener dog with talent? Why is Nermal Siamese and not the "world's cutest kitty-cat"? Shouldn't Arlene be a lot nicer to Garfield? (By the way, since Odie has no speaking lines in either the strip or show, the movie's similar lack is accurate.)

The set design, in bright hues, can't decide whether it's in the real world or in a real-life comic strip. Breckin Meyer ("Inside Schwartz") is just not the right fit for Jon. He's too likable to be our comic-strip loser. While I can accept the whole high-school-crush of Jon and Liz on each other (something definitely not in the comic strip), the payoff would have been better had the tension not vanished prematurely.

The plot arc is not necessarily departed from all of Garfield. It fits more in the mid-1980s, when the strip actually did have week-plus-long plots. In one series, for example, Odie DID leave home, and Garfield DID follow him, and they ended up running away from the circus together. Those citing ripoffs from "Toy Story" and other similar movies should note the 1982 TV special "Here Comes Garfield" shares many elements of both movies and so this movie doesn't take from Pixar, but rather from itself 20 years ago.

The comments that the strip has declined are not off-base. It's times like this that remind me where I got my sense of humor. It came from the politically neutral wit and social commentary of the late 1980s - Garfield (both newspaper and television), Calvin and Hobbes, even the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. That's why I can't disagree with this line from the Chicago Tribune: "He's been declawed; the swiping humor and Monty Python meanness of his early years have been surgically removed for a PG audience, and with it, most of his appeal." And that hurts.

Today, Garfield is trapped in a one-day-only three-panel set of running gags that still make me laugh, but don't capture the same attitude of years past. However, I still prefer it to the overtly political commentary that you see today, found in strips like "Boondocks" and others. The Garfield calendar on my desk still gives me laughs.

As for the product placements, yes, they were a bit much, but at least part of the time they were well integrated. To those smacking the "dated" references, it was a relief compared to "Shrek 2" to see them come naturally instead of chock-full and fast-pitched.

Had a full-length movie been released around 1994, done by the same animation team that did "Garfield and Friends," with Lorenzo Music doing the voice, it might have been wonderful. Live action does not suit the characters; the departure from 25 years of what we have known is too much. The animated half-hour shows of the 1980s work so much better that they might have been able to make more money simply by scrapping the film and putting out DVDs. I hear "Garfield and Friends" is going to be out on DVD, a TV show that captured the essence of the strip at its peak so much better than this movie did. Those that liked the show should buy that, and only rent this movie.

I wish that the networks would put "A Garfield Christmas" and some of his other specials back on the air; it would build more interest in him. I still love the character. The movie doesn't deserve to be ranked as low as it is by the critics. At the same time, though, it reminds you of how good it might have been. As Garfield has attempted to extend its "brand" by licensing to Cub Scouts and 4-H, you can't help but think it's grasping for an audience that never became fans like the previous generation did.

6/10, because I can't bring myself to demolish a character that still makes me laugh, even if his best work was from when I was young enough to be in the target audience. And even that rating is being nice compared to those who want this cat and its empire put to sleep.

All the years I've been a loyal reader of the Garfield comics, I never had the impression it's merely meant for kids. On the contrary, most of the dry humor and charismatic Garfield poses are difficult to 'get' for young children. And yet, the film completely aims for a youthful audience. I have no problem with a movie being pro-children, but this is exaggerated and hardly accessible for adult viewers. The movie totally lacks all the elements that make the comics so entertaining. Garfield's clever and sarcastic remarks, Jon's clumsy womanizing techniques… All this has been replaced with an unhealthy dose of feel-good messages and lame jokes. The computer engineered Garfield doesn't appeal and the other, real pets are badly chosen. The plot is standard-sentiment, with Garfield saving his new housemate puppy from a sneaky, fame-chasing TV host. Breckin Meyer (as Jon Arbuckle) and Jennifer Love Hewitt (as the yummy vet Liz) walk around without anything to do and Bill Murray voices Garfield like it's some sort of dire job he wants to get rid of asap. The first (long-awaited?) cinema adventure of everybody's favorite cat appears to be a quickly produced and unprofessional flick soon to be forgotten. Too bad, since you're left behind with the feeling they could have done something better with this.