गारफ़ील्ड

I don't see why people blast this movie so much. It is funny, well acted and well animated. Breckin Meyer plays the nerdy Jon very well and acts like the pet loving dork that we loved so much in the cartoon. Garfield looks amazing, almost identical to what he looked like in the cartoon. Bill Murray is perfect to play him and his voice is similar to Lorenzo Music. They included all the trates of Garfield- lasagne, TV and being a lazy fat cat. Thye kept Odie the moronic but lovable dog. They kept the fact that Garfield has an agreement with the mice and gets on with them. They kept Liz the vet, which brings so much more to Jon. This is a great kids movie, that i am sure adults who watched this as a kid will love too.

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/

Jon is a lovable schmuk with a crappy life, not a faceless "nice guy" who seems to have a good house, car and presumably job.

Nermal is a terminally cute yet astute grey kitten, not some idiot Siamese neighbour.

Arlene is the gawky, gap-toothed girlfriend, not a grey bitchy neighbour.

Garfield's bed, as ANYONE who has read the comics should know, is a box with a plain blanket in it, not some kind of cutesy, oak, mini-human-bed affair.

Garfield is a lazy, witty smart-arse, not an annoying, dancing(?!?!?!?) loud-mouth who just never shuts up.

Garfield stories are existential little comments on life, how it sucks for Jon, how stupid Odie is and how wonderful lasagna and sleep are, not extremely, extremely lame, generic, feel-good, I-hate-you-but-now-I'm-going-to-rescue-you rubbish. (I stopped the movie at 25 minutes and correctly predicted exactly everything that was going to happen from then on.)

In short, apart from having a large orange cat in it (well animated though he is) - this has nothing whatsoever to do with Garfield. Did the makers actually read ANY of the comics?

As a kid in the late 80's and early 90's, I remember watching "Garfield and Friends" every morning (The Show was also in syndication for weekdays at the time, so not just Saturday mornings fyi). I eventually began reading Garfield comic strips daily, but stopped because of the time factor. This was my favorite, and nothing else compared, except the Ninja Turtles from 1990-92.

But when Jim Davis had the audacity to sell his idea to 20th Century Fox and allow those dumb*ss producers and writers to f**k it all up by introducing Bill Murray as the Voice of Garfield (now a dancing jumping athletic cat, as opposed to being lethargic), Breckin Meyer as Jon Arbuckle, and a wide array of Hollywood's A and (A- to B) list including Jennifer Love-Hewitt, (the highly unfunny)Jimmy Kimmel, Monique, Debra Messing, Nick Cannon, and Brad Garrett et al, It looked as if another great memory of our childhoods has been flushed down the toilet.

Therefore, In short, this movie is weak. And I nominate "Garfield the Movie" for the 2005 Razzie Awards "Worst Film of the Year" (the opposite of the Oscar) Unless, Jennifer Lopez starts doing movies again, or otherwise if there is something even worse.

0/10 stars

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.