In other words, as an adult, i got bored quickly! However i like cats (over dogs) and there isn't much cats movies nevertheless this one is really bad: as he kept talking, after five minutes, i was fed up! His attitude is also not enjoyable and at the end, he is not funny! The story is dragging, already seen (toy story 2), with transparent characters really inspired from classic Disney (Crueala!). sure i maybe laughed a few times but at the end, i was rather happy that it was a quick movie (not even 80 minutes)! Finally, i found that the real dog was much more interesting, that this movie ranks very low for interacting characters (Roger Rabbit stays the best!) and indeed Hewitt was the bait to make wait dads!
298 Reviews
Not so bad, but....
luciano_cirne22 July 2006
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...
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...
Harmless fun - unfortunately geared towards the kids
mjw23057 January 2007
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
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
Definitely not the worst movie ever, but it is fairly low on laughs!
TheLittleSongbird9 June 2009
I didn't absolutely hate Garfield 1, but I personally thought the film wasn't that great. The first problem is that the plot is as thin as a piece of cardboard and rather slow-moving. Bill Murray does his best with rather superficial material, but at times he sounds rather monotonic. While the script isn't completely devoid of humour, it is very uneven, and while kids will like the jokes, adults won't find much to go on. Stephen Tobolowsky's villain, despite having some good delivery, just doesn't quite convince, likewise with Brekin Meyer as Jon.
However, there are several redeeming merits, the most obvious one being Oadie the dog. I am 17, but I still found him so adorable, especially when he started dancing on his hind legs. Another obvious plus is the always lovely Jennifer Love Hewitt as Liz, who has been in a number of duds, but still shines because of her endearing personality and beauty. I also thought there were some well chosen locations, and while the film on the whole wasn't very funny, the scene when Garfield is blown so hard into the air-conditioning duct that his face gets stamped into the metal was very funny indeed.
Overall, not a bad movie, but not a particularly good one either. I don't really recommend this other than for Jennifer Love Hewitt, Oadie or if you're a Garfield fan, but I did enjoy the sequel more. 4/10 for a brave attempt to bring a comic book to the big screen. Bethany Cox
However, there are several redeeming merits, the most obvious one being Oadie the dog. I am 17, but I still found him so adorable, especially when he started dancing on his hind legs. Another obvious plus is the always lovely Jennifer Love Hewitt as Liz, who has been in a number of duds, but still shines because of her endearing personality and beauty. I also thought there were some well chosen locations, and while the film on the whole wasn't very funny, the scene when Garfield is blown so hard into the air-conditioning duct that his face gets stamped into the metal was very funny indeed.
Overall, not a bad movie, but not a particularly good one either. I don't really recommend this other than for Jennifer Love Hewitt, Oadie or if you're a Garfield fan, but I did enjoy the sequel more. 4/10 for a brave attempt to bring a comic book to the big screen. Bethany Cox
No movie-material
Coventry25 October 2004
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.
The original fat cat?
michaelRokeefe23 October 2004
What happened to the cartoon Garfield we've grown to love? Live action mixed with CGI and a simple story line with an unimaginative script; I guess small children are not expected to notice such. Garfield's lasagna gorging and TV watching is slightly interrupted when his owner Jon(Breckin Meyer)falls head over heals for an attractive veterinarian(Jennifer Love Hewitt)that influences the adoption of a puppy named Odie. When Odie is abducted, Garfield is compelled to drag himself off the couch and search for the likable canine. Bill Murray provides the voice of Garfield and is to put it mildly...a p-ss poor fit for the clever actions of the lazy and lovable rotund feline. What happened to Jon the nerd? And he sure shouldn't be deserving the attention of someone as fine as JLH. This movie could have been much more if done in the vain of maybe SHREK or FINDING NEMO. But no doubt...the small fry will probably wear their copy out before entering elementary school.
Decline, and maybe even fall, of the Garfield empire
Jeff M.-313 June 2004
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.
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.
Quite a good kids movie.
jamiehill_uk24 July 2004
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.
Entertaining enough to watch it once but the movie is extremely forgettable.
Boba_Fett113820 October 2005
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/
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/
Very cool
lauerchance30 July 2019
Bill Murray is the perfect Garfield in light comedy
SnoopyStyle31 January 2015
Garfield (Bill Murray) is the big-boned, lasagna loving, demanding cat belonging to Jon Arbuckle (Breckin Meyer). He hates to leave his cul-de-sac but Jon keeps bringing him to the vet Liz (Jennifer Love Hewitt). Jon has a crush on her since high school. She asks him to adopt Odie. Garfield doesn't like to share Jon's affections. Odie catches the attention of local TV morning personality Happy Chapman (Stephen Tobolowsky). Garfield gets pushed out of the house. Odie goes to accompany him but he locks Odie out. Odie wanders off and gets dognapped by Chapman who wants the dog to be a performance on his show. Bill Murray is the perfect Garfield. He's sarcastic and lovable. That goes for both Murray and Garfield. The story is light kids comedy. It's not terribly deep. It has the essence of the comic strip. This is for Garfield fans.
Below average generic kids movie.
CuriosityKilledShawn1 August 2004
And only marginally redeemed by Garfield.
There's not much to separate this from rubbish like Cats and Dogs and Stuart Little. Everything that happens on screen is there to appeal to the youngest of kids. No one over the age of 8 will get much out of this movie. Unlike movies such as Shrek 2 or Brother Bear, there's absolutely NOTHING in this for adults at all. A shame really as the humor in the Garfield comic strip can sometimes be very clever and observant.
It's worse when you go see this with a bunch of screaming kids (and a baby-honestly why bring a baby to the cinema?!?) who laugh at every single thing. And that's including the stuff that isn't meant to be funny. It did get very irritating and proves furthermore that this is a movie for infants.
The tiny bit of humor the movie does have comes ENTIRELY from Garfield. Bill Murray is great, his delivery is catatonically laid-back and dry. The CGI of Garfield is also very good. He looks to cute that you just want to keep him. But any positive the movie has begins and ends right there.
Breckin Meyer may look the part of Jon but he has less than nothing to do in the role. Jeniffer Love Hewitt (gorgeous as she is) is totally slumming it in a role that requires her to do even less than Breckin Meyer and the other animal cast members resemble nothing like their comic-strip counterparts.
I was a little annoyed at seeing Garfield talk in the trailers but in the movie no humans can hear him or the other animals. There are some other things they have changed. Odie comes straight from the vet, though in the comic-strip he came from Jon's friend Lyman. Nermal does not appear to be Garfield's cousin and Arlene doesn't appear to be his girlfriend either.
The story of Garfield rescuing Odie from an 'evil' TV host is completely uneventful and nothing much happens around it. The ending is an unentertaining, unexciting anti-climax and disgustingly childish. I appreciate kid's stuff. I could watch 100 episodes of Sesame Street back to back. But this film was the most brain dead excuse for low, low-grade kid's entertainment in a long, long time. Jim Davis should be ashamed for allowing his wonderful creation to me made into such a lousy movie.
The 3 stars are for Garfield himself ONLY. Otherwise, without him, it's a hardcore 1-star experience. You wouldn't find Calvin and Hobbes behaving this way.
There's not much to separate this from rubbish like Cats and Dogs and Stuart Little. Everything that happens on screen is there to appeal to the youngest of kids. No one over the age of 8 will get much out of this movie. Unlike movies such as Shrek 2 or Brother Bear, there's absolutely NOTHING in this for adults at all. A shame really as the humor in the Garfield comic strip can sometimes be very clever and observant.
It's worse when you go see this with a bunch of screaming kids (and a baby-honestly why bring a baby to the cinema?!?) who laugh at every single thing. And that's including the stuff that isn't meant to be funny. It did get very irritating and proves furthermore that this is a movie for infants.
The tiny bit of humor the movie does have comes ENTIRELY from Garfield. Bill Murray is great, his delivery is catatonically laid-back and dry. The CGI of Garfield is also very good. He looks to cute that you just want to keep him. But any positive the movie has begins and ends right there.
Breckin Meyer may look the part of Jon but he has less than nothing to do in the role. Jeniffer Love Hewitt (gorgeous as she is) is totally slumming it in a role that requires her to do even less than Breckin Meyer and the other animal cast members resemble nothing like their comic-strip counterparts.
I was a little annoyed at seeing Garfield talk in the trailers but in the movie no humans can hear him or the other animals. There are some other things they have changed. Odie comes straight from the vet, though in the comic-strip he came from Jon's friend Lyman. Nermal does not appear to be Garfield's cousin and Arlene doesn't appear to be his girlfriend either.
The story of Garfield rescuing Odie from an 'evil' TV host is completely uneventful and nothing much happens around it. The ending is an unentertaining, unexciting anti-climax and disgustingly childish. I appreciate kid's stuff. I could watch 100 episodes of Sesame Street back to back. But this film was the most brain dead excuse for low, low-grade kid's entertainment in a long, long time. Jim Davis should be ashamed for allowing his wonderful creation to me made into such a lousy movie.
The 3 stars are for Garfield himself ONLY. Otherwise, without him, it's a hardcore 1-star experience. You wouldn't find Calvin and Hobbes behaving this way.
I did not like it...
ar-thur27 September 2006
I agree with a comment that I've readen here: Garfield is not for children. Unfortunately, they tried to do this movie with a children screenplay. And that is the only error in the movie. A fatal error. The screenplay had to be based on the comics. They did it based on a idea of adapting Garfield for children, taking the comedy of the lazy cat and putting adventure as the principal idea. That thing is that make the film boring. The Garfield old TV cartoons were very funny and they could do a very good adaptation of the comics. That first long movie, I am sure, could be a little more funny. They could put all characters animated, take some comics and adapt ate, and the success of the film would be the same with children, but the old fans of the cat, like me, would be more satisfacted.
Horrible, just like all the other live-action versions of cartoons
Rectangular_businessman25 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Like I said before, I don't see the point in making live-action versions of cartoons...All those lame adaptations are ugly and unappealing, and always fail to capture the essence of the animated works in which are inspired. At best, those movies could only capture the most shallow and pragmatic aspects of the source material. This movie is the ultimate proof of that being one of the most shallow, dull and uninspired films ever made, lacking the sarcastic sense of humor which made Garfield popular in first place.
My advice is to skip this and watch "Garfield and Friends". This is just stupid and boring.
0/10 (And I would rate it with a negative score if I could)
My advice is to skip this and watch "Garfield and Friends". This is just stupid and boring.
0/10 (And I would rate it with a negative score if I could)
My favorite movie ever (really)
colovrat0820 October 2022
I know you will not believe me, but Garfield is truly my favorite character all around the world in the history.
I love this cat, how animators made him, and I adore the voice of Bill Murray. This is insane comedy which nobody understood, unfortunately.
Garfield is an analogy of world nowadays. Ironic. Small and big cat looks serious but he is not, he is just npc, no life, no dreams, no future, as a short cat life.
Number nine is a symbol of this movie as a symbol of paradise and hell, and I am speaking optimistically. Garfield took all our sins and show to us, but we only laugh on him, but this is not funny.
I love this cat, how animators made him, and I adore the voice of Bill Murray. This is insane comedy which nobody understood, unfortunately.
Garfield is an analogy of world nowadays. Ironic. Small and big cat looks serious but he is not, he is just npc, no life, no dreams, no future, as a short cat life.
Number nine is a symbol of this movie as a symbol of paradise and hell, and I am speaking optimistically. Garfield took all our sins and show to us, but we only laugh on him, but this is not funny.
Garfield is as fat as ever...
Troy2Slick19 November 2004
I think that this movie accomplished what it set out to do. I don't know why so many people are hard against it. I think it's a very cute movie, beings that I grew up reading Garfield comic strips and watching Garfield and friends. I'm 26 and still am a kid at heart, what can I say, I love cutesy little movies such as this. It won't win any awards or anything, but I think it's great for the kiddies out there, or adults who still have a kid in them. I rate this move about a 6 out of 10. Not too shabby. If you're expecting a movie the calibur of Toy Story, Finding Nemo, them maybe this movie isn't for you. It's mainly for children or fans of Garfield. Rest in peace, Lorenzo Music, you will be missed and your voice matched perfectly for the loving fat orange cat we've all grown to love.
Saving private Odie
SirGEORGE15 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
STUPID PLOT, BAD CHARACTERS, UNFUNNY.
You know I grow up on Garfield comics and cartoons, and when I heard It's gonna' be a "Garfield Movie" I tough It's gonna' be awesome. No It isn't. It's a really Bad version of all Garfield films what ever made! The story is REALLY BAD:
Jon adopts Odie; an old bald guy called "Happy Chapman" kidnaps Odie, and gives him to his show; Garfield rescues Odie and gives home. And THIS IS THE *WHOLE* STORY!!! And NOTHING I *MEAN* NOTHING ELSE!
Garfiled IS NOT LAZY and he is DANCING (!?!?!?), Jon is not goofy enough, rather a "faceles nice guy", Liz is not strict, rather an "easy" woman, Nermal is TOO stupid, and Odie ISN'T LOOKS LIKE THE COMIC VERSION! And the worst thing is: only Garfield is animated, while Nermal, Arlene and Odie "played" by real living animals. The actors and the acting was *quite good*, but the other things are forgettable.
JON NEVER GET THE WOMAN!
So,I don't like the film at all and I WILL NOT SEE THIS AGAIN!
As you can see EVERY times *THIS* happens, when some incompetent fools makes movie from an old series or comic. I would rather see Garfield cartoons, they are MUCH better!
3.5/10-Easyly forgettable
You know I grow up on Garfield comics and cartoons, and when I heard It's gonna' be a "Garfield Movie" I tough It's gonna' be awesome. No It isn't. It's a really Bad version of all Garfield films what ever made! The story is REALLY BAD:
Jon adopts Odie; an old bald guy called "Happy Chapman" kidnaps Odie, and gives him to his show; Garfield rescues Odie and gives home. And THIS IS THE *WHOLE* STORY!!! And NOTHING I *MEAN* NOTHING ELSE!
Garfiled IS NOT LAZY and he is DANCING (!?!?!?), Jon is not goofy enough, rather a "faceles nice guy", Liz is not strict, rather an "easy" woman, Nermal is TOO stupid, and Odie ISN'T LOOKS LIKE THE COMIC VERSION! And the worst thing is: only Garfield is animated, while Nermal, Arlene and Odie "played" by real living animals. The actors and the acting was *quite good*, but the other things are forgettable.
JON NEVER GET THE WOMAN!
So,I don't like the film at all and I WILL NOT SEE THIS AGAIN!
As you can see EVERY times *THIS* happens, when some incompetent fools makes movie from an old series or comic. I would rather see Garfield cartoons, they are MUCH better!
3.5/10-Easyly forgettable
Not as bad as the critics say, but not the best idea
Jeff M.-311 June 2004
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 reveals 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 with Garfield, 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? Shouldn't Arlene be a lot nicer to Garfield? The set design, in bright hues, can't decide whether it's in the real world or in a real-life comic strip. Breckin "Inside Schwartz" Meyer is just not the right fit for Jon. 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 might have been better had they not kissed after the dog show.
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. 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 ultra-liberal commentary found in strips like "Boondocks" or some others.
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 character; 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: The Complete First Season" is coming out, a TV show that captured the essence of the strip at its peak so much better than this movie did.
I wish that the networks would put "A Garfield Christmas" and some of his other specials back on the air. I still love the character. The movie doesn't deserve to be ranked where it is by the critics. At the same time, though, it reminds you of how good it might have been.
7/10, 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.
The problem, admittedly, is what some critics have said: Garfield is old and busted. A walk in the theater reveals 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 with Garfield, 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? Shouldn't Arlene be a lot nicer to Garfield? The set design, in bright hues, can't decide whether it's in the real world or in a real-life comic strip. Breckin "Inside Schwartz" Meyer is just not the right fit for Jon. 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 might have been better had they not kissed after the dog show.
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. 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 ultra-liberal commentary found in strips like "Boondocks" or some others.
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 character; 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: The Complete First Season" is coming out, a TV show that captured the essence of the strip at its peak so much better than this movie did.
I wish that the networks would put "A Garfield Christmas" and some of his other specials back on the air. I still love the character. The movie doesn't deserve to be ranked where it is by the critics. At the same time, though, it reminds you of how good it might have been.
7/10, 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.
It is what it is
briancham19947 July 2020
This film rests on its titular character who is at times endearing and at times annoying. Garfield walks a fine line between these extremes and sometimes misses the mark. Overall, it's a decent film, but perhaps let down by the inconsistency of that cat.
One Purrrr-Fect Movie
dire6923 June 2004
I just saw this movie tonight with a friend and we both enjoyed it very much, well worth our time and money. This movie is perfect for the whole family. They should make more movies like this instead of those typical slasher/violent movies and also the ones with so much sexual content. When this movie comes out for purchase, I will most probably buy it because I could watch it over and over again. I'm really glad that they made this movie, I would've never thought that they would've done this movie but I am truly glad and happy that they did because I love cats and I love "Garfield". He's my favorite comic strip and read him every single day and will continue to do so for as long as the strip runs in the newspaper.
Well...Not as bad as I feared it was going to be.
Nyteraven11 June 2004
I was a bit scared to see my favorite feline in this new movie. Mostly because I didn't see ONE trailer for the movie - that's usually a bad sign in the movie business. I didn't even know that Garfield was the only CGI character in the movie until just a few weeks ago when my son bought a Garfield book based on the movie. That really shocked me. I grew up with Odie, Nermal and Arlenne looking the way they did in the comic strips and in the cartoons. At least Pooky looked the same!
There was a recycled animated short from 'Ice Age' called 'Gone Nutty' before the movie - the same one that is on disc two of 'Ice Age'. Using an older short from a two year old DVD release that, if you have kids younger than ten, has been seen countless times already was, to me, another bad sign.
However, as far as the storyline went, it had the flavor of the Garfield I know and love, but needed some extra seasoning. I heard a lot of laughs throughout the movie, but I just felt that it could have been better. Bill Murray was really good as Garfield. A great choice for the role the late Lorenzo Music had perfected throughout the course of the animated Garfield specials and TV series.
If the movie studio would have made the decision to spend more money so that all of Garfield's buddies were CGI too, that would have helped out a lot. Definitely a lesson here for a movie company that wants to make a movie about an cultural icon, but doesn't want to spend the cash to make it look good. Details are important to the loyal fans. 6/10
There was a recycled animated short from 'Ice Age' called 'Gone Nutty' before the movie - the same one that is on disc two of 'Ice Age'. Using an older short from a two year old DVD release that, if you have kids younger than ten, has been seen countless times already was, to me, another bad sign.
However, as far as the storyline went, it had the flavor of the Garfield I know and love, but needed some extra seasoning. I heard a lot of laughs throughout the movie, but I just felt that it could have been better. Bill Murray was really good as Garfield. A great choice for the role the late Lorenzo Music had perfected throughout the course of the animated Garfield specials and TV series.
If the movie studio would have made the decision to spend more money so that all of Garfield's buddies were CGI too, that would have helped out a lot. Definitely a lesson here for a movie company that wants to make a movie about an cultural icon, but doesn't want to spend the cash to make it look good. Details are important to the loyal fans. 6/10
Not too bad
stevenfallonnyc29 June 2004
Honestly, "Garfield" wasn't quite as bad as I thought it would be. Of course, Garfield himself is a pretty bad computer-animation of the cat and looks not much like him at all. And Odie the dog isn't "Garfield-ish" looking as in the strip, he's a real dog (except when he's doing silly things that need more crappy computer animation).
There are actually some decent funny moments, nothing earth-shattering but pleasant enough. Garfield's buddies are pretty funny, especially the mouse, he's hilarious. It seemed as if the movie was repeating the same animations of the mouse which made it even funnier because it looked so cheesy.
The guy who played Jon did well enough with what he was given, and while he was afraid to go after his dream girl, he was in no way the loser that Jon is in the comic strip. And of course there is Jennifer Love Hewitt, who is totally gorgeous and hot in a weird way, her great body giving the guys in the crowd something to admire if they were forced to bring their wife and kids to the show.
A few other things I noticed is that Garfield has a LOT of lines. He never seems to shut up. He sure speaks a lot more than in the strip! He's also a lot mellower than the original Garfield when the strip first appeared in 1978. Back then, Garfield used to do things like knock furniture over just to make Jon angry, and go after Odie with a baseball bat. Of course he's mellow in the strip nowadays and that's the Garfield we see on the big screen, although the old one would have been a lot more fun to watch.
The nastiest thing about this film is the electric torture dog collar, which is nothing any true lover of animals would ever use or condone the use of (unless a pit bull is ripping your kid's face apart).
Also, there aren't many humans who have speaking lines, which is a shame because you want Jennifer Love Hewitt on screen as much as possible. Except for an old lady, she's the only female in the film I believe. But Garfield is the star here of course, and he knows it too.
Being such a big cat person, I was laughing when Garfield was referring to Odie (and dogs in general) as dumb and smelly, because love or hate them, that's what dogs are. But as a true trooper, Garfield shows you must love all animals, even dumb and smelly ones like Odie. Heck, even the rats came through for the cause.
So if you like anti-dog jokes and crappy computer animation, along with a funny little story and Jennifer Love Hewitt's body, this is the film for you.
There are actually some decent funny moments, nothing earth-shattering but pleasant enough. Garfield's buddies are pretty funny, especially the mouse, he's hilarious. It seemed as if the movie was repeating the same animations of the mouse which made it even funnier because it looked so cheesy.
The guy who played Jon did well enough with what he was given, and while he was afraid to go after his dream girl, he was in no way the loser that Jon is in the comic strip. And of course there is Jennifer Love Hewitt, who is totally gorgeous and hot in a weird way, her great body giving the guys in the crowd something to admire if they were forced to bring their wife and kids to the show.
A few other things I noticed is that Garfield has a LOT of lines. He never seems to shut up. He sure speaks a lot more than in the strip! He's also a lot mellower than the original Garfield when the strip first appeared in 1978. Back then, Garfield used to do things like knock furniture over just to make Jon angry, and go after Odie with a baseball bat. Of course he's mellow in the strip nowadays and that's the Garfield we see on the big screen, although the old one would have been a lot more fun to watch.
The nastiest thing about this film is the electric torture dog collar, which is nothing any true lover of animals would ever use or condone the use of (unless a pit bull is ripping your kid's face apart).
Also, there aren't many humans who have speaking lines, which is a shame because you want Jennifer Love Hewitt on screen as much as possible. Except for an old lady, she's the only female in the film I believe. But Garfield is the star here of course, and he knows it too.
Being such a big cat person, I was laughing when Garfield was referring to Odie (and dogs in general) as dumb and smelly, because love or hate them, that's what dogs are. But as a true trooper, Garfield shows you must love all animals, even dumb and smelly ones like Odie. Heck, even the rats came through for the cause.
So if you like anti-dog jokes and crappy computer animation, along with a funny little story and Jennifer Love Hewitt's body, this is the film for you.
I hated it and i didn't even pay for it!
lockelymarkets14 July 2006
I hated this movie so much. It bought shame to Garfield and I cannot believe Jim Davis let them make it. Jennifer Love Hewitt is too good an actor to be wasted on this piece of garbage. The only reason I saw it was because I won free tickets to it from a competition run by my local newspaper. It is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. For one, the characters in the movie do not in anyway match the characters in the comic. Garfield himself is a terrible copy of the comic, plus let's face it, he's as ugly as sin. I am refusing to comment on Odie because he is a real shame! Plus this movie is 20 years too late. It should have been made in the 1980's, where the lame jokes and bad acting wouldn't have been noticed, but by the standards from other great movies like A Bug's Life & Harry Potter it was a real shoddy piece of lasagne. I rated this movie 1/10, and it comes to the 2nd worst movie i have ever seen (my least favourite movie of all time is the remake of the Cat in the Hat).
Jim Davis would be rolling in his grave, if he was dead
3-D26 February 2006
You would think that Hollywood would learn from such wastes of film as Scooby Doo that attempting to turn cartoon franchises into live action movies is a very bad idea. Apparently, they haven't learned yet, and thus, Garfield has been released.
Every single actor's performance in this movie was god awful, to begin with. I realize they weren't working with a golden script, but it was very blatant that nobody was even trying. Now, I expect half-assed acting from Jennifer Love Hewitt, who's only in Hollywood because of her looks, but Bill Murray's poor performance as the voice of Garfield was pitiful. It was sad, too, because Murray is usually a very funny guy.
As well, it was pretty dumb to have a CGI Garfield but have a normal dog for Odie. Instead of computer animation, they used some measly mutt that looks nothing like the cartoon dog and had it dancing on it's hind legs while listening to the Black Eyed Peas. I really wish I was making that up, folks, but I'm not. That part is actually in the movie, and lasts for the entire duration of the song.
Towards the end of the movie, Garfield dances to another song that's been used in about eighty seven billion other movies. Yeah, you guessed right; James Brown's stupid song that's like "I feeeeeel good!" I think it was trying to be funny, but it just wasn't. The same goes for every other joke in the movie. Not funny. Just not funny.
I guess you could understand why somebody who's been reading the comic strip for over a decade would be disappointed with this movie, but it would be just as bad for anyone who's never seen it once. Pathetic CGI animation, such as hands going through Garfield when people go to pick him up, ensures that this movie doesn't even get any visual eye candy. There are absolutely no pros to watch this movie, but so many cons that an educated mathematician would lose count if he tried to keep track of them all. Avoid this movie at all costs.
Every single actor's performance in this movie was god awful, to begin with. I realize they weren't working with a golden script, but it was very blatant that nobody was even trying. Now, I expect half-assed acting from Jennifer Love Hewitt, who's only in Hollywood because of her looks, but Bill Murray's poor performance as the voice of Garfield was pitiful. It was sad, too, because Murray is usually a very funny guy.
As well, it was pretty dumb to have a CGI Garfield but have a normal dog for Odie. Instead of computer animation, they used some measly mutt that looks nothing like the cartoon dog and had it dancing on it's hind legs while listening to the Black Eyed Peas. I really wish I was making that up, folks, but I'm not. That part is actually in the movie, and lasts for the entire duration of the song.
Towards the end of the movie, Garfield dances to another song that's been used in about eighty seven billion other movies. Yeah, you guessed right; James Brown's stupid song that's like "I feeeeeel good!" I think it was trying to be funny, but it just wasn't. The same goes for every other joke in the movie. Not funny. Just not funny.
I guess you could understand why somebody who's been reading the comic strip for over a decade would be disappointed with this movie, but it would be just as bad for anyone who's never seen it once. Pathetic CGI animation, such as hands going through Garfield when people go to pick him up, ensures that this movie doesn't even get any visual eye candy. There are absolutely no pros to watch this movie, but so many cons that an educated mathematician would lose count if he tried to keep track of them all. Avoid this movie at all costs.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
