Garfield (2004)
Also known as "Garfield: The Movie"
Get ready for frisky business
Starring: Breckin Meyer, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Stephen Tobolowsky, Bill Murray, Evan Arnold, Mark Christopher Lawrence, Vanessa Christelle, Daamen J. Krall, Rufus Gifford, Randee Reicher, Ryan McKasson, Susan Moore, Eve Brent, Bill Hoag, Michael Monks
Director: Peter Hewitt
Running Time: 82 minutes
US MPAA rating: PGUK BBFC rating: U
Animation, Comedy, Family
Jim Davis' long-running comic strip 'Garfield' was never particularly funny, and neither was the kiddies' cartoon series of the 1980s - so it probably just about makes sense that this needless big screen adaptation is the comedic equivalent of having an oil-drum fall on your foot.
If any of you don't know what 'Garfield' is, let me assure you, you've missed out on NOTHING. But, for the sake of completing this review if nothing else, allow me to fill you in. The title character is a fat, ginger, lazy-eyed lasagne-loving moggy who lives with his hapless owner Jon (here played by Breckin 'Road Trip' Meyer) and a small yapping pooch by the name of Odie. In Davis' three-box comic strip, that's pretty much as far as the story ever gets - but here we've got 90 minutes to fill, so it's time to come up with a weak storyline and desperately stretch it for all it's worth (and, failing that, pad it out with some ridiculously-bad song-and-dance segments).
That storyline goes a little something like this: Odie, it's discovered is an incredible dancer. A mean-spirited TV entertainer by the name of Happy Chapman (Stephen Tobolowsky) spots the wonder-hound's potential and wants him for his show. Jon says no. Happy takes him anyway. Garfield goes on a rescue mission. And, aside from a minor sub-plot involving Jon drooling over a short-skirted vet played by Jennifer Love Hewitt, that's about it.
I'm actually a little embarrassed to say that it's the great Bill Murray, a man whose work I normally champion without exception, providing the lead's voice. Murray is the best comic actor of his (and possibly anyone else's) generation, but here even he becomes irritating. The cat itself is brought to the screen as a big ball of CGI, and though the standard of animation is passable, it's certainly nothing special in this day and age.
If you're looking for a safe-as-houses movie to take the kids to this summer, then this'll just about do it. There's absolutely nothing offensive about it, and some of the very youngest of young 'uns may even be vaguely amused for the first 20 minutes or so. But safe is all this flick is. It's got no spark, no real wit, and I'm willing to bet most viewers - of any age - will leave the theatre bored out of their skulls.
It's Got: Love Hewitt looking like she hasn't had a proper meal in months. Please girl, help yourself to some of that lasagne before you collapse.
It Needs: To let us in on whether or not Jon actually has a job.
Alternatives: Cats & Dogs, Good Boy!
Summary: The cat's whiskers it ain't.
Review by Gary Panton
Review Date: 30th July 2004
External Links
Official Web Site
Garfield at the IMDB
Comments23 Comments |
This review sucks. "'Garfield' was never particularly funny" <-- that |
| Comment by:- GR3G0R | www.monkeythief.com | 09 March 2004 | ip: logged |
| This review sucks. "'Garfield' was never particularly funny" <-- that is not a fact, idiot. That is a *(#$ing OPINION. You are the worst reviewer I have ever seen. You say that the animation in Garfield's CGI aren't good: let's see you make better, you f*(&ing idiot. I admit, the story wasn't all that exciting such as Lord of the Rings or something, but it's not that type of movie. If you go to the cinema and see Garfield, expecting to see award winning footage of the best movie ever, you went to the wrong movie. I thought this movie had it's funny bits, and it's not so funny bits. But overall, not a bad movie. I mean, HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN ANY OTHER MOVIES? Loads of movies are no where near as good as Garfield. I hate you pantsoff. Yes, maybe it wasn't the Garfield in the comics, but it was still Garfield, damnit. Now shut up with your damn opinions that you state as facts, and leave society. No one wants to deal with an idiot. |
| Comment by:- Beaver | s;ldkfjvn;afv | 10 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| i think garfield is gr8 and funny and ive loved him since i was like 6. how dare u say stuff like that about him !!! ure reviews rubish !!! the film is funny and well worth watching |
| Comment by:- olivia | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Well, that is the worse depiction of Garfield I've ever encountered; I agree with the reviewer!! I've been collecting Garfield comics when I was a kid, I still read the new daily comics on the net; and I'll tell ya, Garfield should not carry a Murry voice, secondly, Garfield is more sarcastic, bed ridden and typically a pragmatic natured individual. Dont we see intellectual stabbing, quick words and abstract ways here? NO, this isnt Garfield as Jim Davis sees him.. I could be wrong though... |
| Comment by:- Adrian | | 01 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| Gaz, what do you mean Garfield was never funny? Do you not do coffee jokes then? There are times when the comic strip gave the answers to life, the universe and everything - you just aren't cultured, are you? |
| Comment by:- Jax | | 04 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| u never have read Garfield cartoons and write this f***king review for money? O hell why ppl still employing u here mofo. Get out of this business. The Garfield creator has more wit than u have. Get lost |
| Comment by:- moon | www.ntu.edu.sg | 04 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I love the movie... |
| Comment by:- gingersnaps | | 06 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| i think think it was a fantastic movie it was great 10/10 |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 13 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I dont know what your talking about. Garfield is a gr8 movie!! Reveiwers shouldn't be bagging movies! Garfield is excellent and whateva you stupid reveiwers say about poor garfield is worng!!!! I luv Garfield. |
| Comment by:- Why do you need to know? | | 14 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| The comic strip Garfield is brilliant - i have enjoyed it immensely for many years! But the movie was a dud - didnt have correct casting or much humour. unlike the FUNNY comic strip. |
| Comment by:- Jo from Australia | | 17 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I haven't seen the movie yet..sniff. I wana c it but i haven't got the time yet...sniff. But i know it'll be great and that i'll love it just like i love Troy and King Arthur and Brad Pitt!!! lol..anyways, this review i won't argue with because that's your opinion but i think there's something wrong with your brain..hehe..jk...Garfield is great!!! |
| Comment by:- Yvette, SYDNEY | | 08 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| I agree with one of the comments above yes i may be a kid but i found it really funny and so did all my mates |
| Comment by:- ????????? | | 14 October 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie was great, you wouldnt know a good movie if it bit you in the butt. I give it 10/10 |
| Comment by:- Aaron | | 04 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| garfield cracks me up everyday. maybe the movie isn't great but the muthafacka who wrote this review will rot in hell... |
| Comment by:- Milind Alvares | | 14 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| Lots of things wrong: Odie doesn't look like Odie, use computer animation if you must. Garfield has small black stripes and is orange, not yellow and orange. Get an actor that looks at least somewhat like John Arbuckle. John Arbuckle can't get dates, and a pretty girl just happens to ask HIM out on one. Garfield doesn't dance, he is LAZY, that's the whole point of Garfield. Nermal (at least I thought) was a girl, or at least femine and smart. They made him/her? stupid. Garfield could hold the TV remote with his paws, not with his teeth. I watched up to the part where Odie gets to sleep on the bed, and I just gave up on the movie being even remotely like the comic strip. The only things I could definetly pick up that were right: Garfield eats lasagna, Odie is somewhat stupid, Garfield sleeps in a little bed (which, by the way, does not have a headboard) with the blanket up over his head, Garfield watchs TV, all the characters have the same name as they did in the comic strip, and Garfield's bear "Pookie" looks like the "Pookie" in the comic strip. I'm sure there might be a couple other things, but what I read from a review, seeing as how I didn't finish watching that horrible movie, is that this movie sucked just like the conclusion I came to after watching about 15 minutes of it. All in all, I'd say, this "Garfield" they speak of must have a brother who is lazy, sarcastically witted, and such and such, and so on and so forth, etc. HORRIBLE, WRETCHED, SUCKY, SICKENINGLY BAD MOVIE! |
| Comment by:- Stephanie | | 16 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| This is movie without the funny garfield's animation and witty dialogues delivered by bill murray. EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS. |
| Comment by:- Ashank | | 16 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| Whoops...my prev comment should read "This movie is nothing without...." in case u hadnt figured out :). I just saw the movie in dvd. |
| Comment by:- Ashank | | 16 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| Personally, I NEVER much cared for the sarcasic & lazy "original" Garfield. But, thanks to my son's insistence, we did go to see the movie...and we REALLY liked it. Then my two teenagers saw it and also enjoyed it. Who really cares if everything falls in step with a perception of "original" - 'cuz, as everybody knows, what might work in print doesn't always come across well in real time. ALSO - I appreciate the fact that there is nothing uncomfortable or controversial in this film. One person above sort of presented this "fact" as being rather mundane, but yet their most positive comment on the movie. I THINK THAT OUR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE WOULD GREATLY BENEFIT FROM MOVIES THAT DO NOT - DO NOT - DO NOT - INTERJECT SEXUAL REFERENCES, SOCIAL ENGINEERING REFERENCES, ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE REFERENCES, DRUG USE REFERENCES, ETC. It seems that the only opinion that is "acceptable" anymore is the opinion that isn't so much of an opinion - but rather, a reflection of what one thinks that most everyone else is saying or doing. In a word, that which is "politically correct." By the way, political "correctness" is always in a state of flux, isn't it? Thumbs up to Garfield and its healthy respect for allowing a family to enjoy a film AS A GROUP. By the way, I'm adult enough to accept the fact that not every movie should cover all bases. This movie was intended to be okay for kids to watch, while being entertaining enough for the accompanying adult(s) that were smart enough NOT to listen to negative dribble. One other thought . . . MANY people OF ALL AGES have been to an amusement park. I don't tend to see adults on the rides in the Kiddie Land section. No. They are content in watching the joy on the faces of those that Kiddie Land was primarily intended for - THE CHILDREN. Who, by the way, will not be children forever. So let's all be happy to allow the children to have their childhoods while they are children. The time will come all too soon when they will become privy to other subject matter. Thanks for listening and please think about it. |
| Comment by:- mommy | | 21 November 2004 | ip: logged |
| So . . . All the reviewers who like it themselves either enjoyed it because their kids enjoyed it or, it seems from their apparent intelligence level and typing skills, are children themselves. Though rather foul-mouthed children, I must say . . . In short, your kids will probably like it, but you won't. |
| Comment by:- A fella | | 04 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Garfield is a good clean movie, no matter what anyone says. (except for the dirty dancing part where the woman is doing pelvic thrusts) Can't hollywood make a a kid movie anymore? |
| Comment by:- Jack Nicholson | | 26 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Why can't anyone get along anymore? |
| Comment by:- Jason | | 26 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Does anyone now how rolly pollys go during the winter time? This is driving me crazy!?!? |
| Comment by:- Mack | | 26 December 2004 | ip: logged |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 28 December 2004 | ip: logged |
