Change Your Image
SilverScreenQueen
Reviews
The Care Bears (1986)
Cute, Cuddly, and Lovable (Minus Core Characters!)
By far, the Nelvana series from the late '80s is one of the best-animated, most relevant TV cartoon series I've ever watched. I'm not just saying that from a collector's viewpoint, or because I have a soft spot for the bears. The morals hold up, it is cute and aesthetically appealing to young children, and is one of the rare "timeless classics" rumored to circulate out there somewhere.
While My Little Pony will always be my favorite vintage show, Care Bears Nelvana surpasses it in many ways, namely quality, continuity, and storyline. I'm a 15-year-old frequent watcher of both shows, mature enough to compare the two but still childish enough to appreciate them. Care Bears has virtually never had glaring mistakes like My Little Pony, and the animation is uniform and does not obviously change from episode to episode.
My very favorite Nelvana episodes were the earliest ones. These featured a diverse cast of characters and focused on what the Care Bears did best-helping young children in need. With a pastel color palate to die for and everyone's favorite bears getting at least a supporting role, these episodes are appealing for "collector-types"-those who like to see as many characters as possible, rather than just a few favorites.
The later episodes are not up on my favorites list. They feature a very limited cast of about 10 characters (including Brave Heart Lion, Bright Heart Raccoon, Cheer Bear, Grumpy Bear, Champ Bear, Grams Bear, Hugs 'n Tugs, and the dubiously-placed Treat Heart Pig, unreleased in the '80s and nonexistent today). The other bears and cousins were relegated to supporting roles and were most often not seen at all for several episodes in a role. The same thing is happening today with the Oopsy Bear cast, but I guess in the late '80s the call for core characters and rehauls was sweeping the toy industry in the same way as it is today. Why else would almost every major toy line redesign and narrow all at once? It happens about every 20 years...
Anyway, I digress. The most appealing parts of the later series were the more complex plots, dealing with parodies of existing adult stories such as Frankenstein and Star Trek. In addition, most of the characters got their own unique style, such as jackets, hats, a ponytail for Cheer Bear etc...that make them stand out. Not appealing to me, but probably for most it is considered cute.
I highly recommend the earlier shows, and somewhat suggest the later shows, but mainly for older kids. You have to appreciate core characters to see the true beauty in the later seasons. As for the earlier DIC series, not so much. Simple, poor animation, lame voices, derived plots and horrible sound effects...go with the Canadians on this one.
Garfield's Fun Fest (2008)
This is a Sin!
I could not stand this movie. It is easily the worst Garfield movie of all time. I wouldn't have even starred it, if not for Garfield. I absolutely hated the theme, the "surprise" was totally uncalled for, and the animation was worse than even "Gets Real". I won't reveal what the surprise was, but let's just say it's something that a 3-year-old would think of.
My 8-year-old sister hated Fun Fest. She said it missed what Garfield was all about, and she's the target audience! And since I, a teenager, dared to watch it, I have much more to say.
Where's the philosophy of being lazy? Gone. In its place is a dumb talent show. Garfield in love with Arlene? The buck-toothed beauty always had a love-hate relationship with the fat cat. Although I enjoyed finally seeing a real female lead in Garfield, she was a far cry from the sarcastic and smart Arlene-in fact, more like Penelope from "Garfield 'n Friends", also a love interest of Garfield's.
Garfield competing in a talent show? Garfield thinking he's not funny enough and going on a mystical journey to find "funny water"? Ramon?! Definitely something for a true Garfield fan to skip, unless you're REALLY devoted. It departs too far from what Garfield is really about, and it may shake your belief in PAWS.
And if you're still planning to watch Pet Force, the upcoming special, I ask you to go to your local Blockbuster and check out "Here Comes Garfield". Still going to watch it now? Then you must be like me-really bored and looking for something to pass the time while the library gets your latest copies of MST3000.
Garfield Gets Real (2007)
This Cannot Be Garfield
Garfield is a philosophical, furry fat man originally intended by our disgruntled, coffee-slugging adults. But this is not Garfield. This is a fantasy show with a Garfield lookalike. It's watered down, badly animated, and contains horrible new characters such as Shecky, Sheila, Billy Bear, and that intolerable Bonita.
Garfield is supposed to take place in a real-life setting in Muncie. This is a fake world with pseudo-physical properties that is home to the comic strip. It is an alternate reality to our own. I always preferred to think that Garfield lived right across my state border, not in a parallel universe.
I don't know how Jim Davis ever allowed it (and its sequels) to ever come into production. This would be the worst Garfield film of all, if not for the Fun Fest. Awful. But then, that gives insight to my mind as well: I watched them, and I'm planning to see the Pet Force, just for the heck of it. Do we humans ever learn? I'm giving this one 2 stars, because I love Garfield. I don't think I can be that lenient on Fun Fest, though. Even my 8-year-old Garfield-loving sister couldn't stand this stuff. Give me "Babes and Bullets" any day, and leave "Gets Real" for your younger siblings and children.
Garfield: The Movie (2004)
It Was Okay, But...
First of all, I am an obsessive collector of Garfield memorabilia. I have loved Garfield since I was 4. So, you can imagine that I was very interested in seeing Garfield: The Movie as a 10-year-old. I waited in anticipation until the library got it on DVD. I remember liking the plot generally, and my then-4-year-old sister loved it.
Now, as a teenager who appreciates the true meaning in Garfield, I realize how wrong this movie is.
1. Garfield in an action movie? NO WAY!!! As we all know, action is not on Garfield's menu. The plot itself is quite childish and not befitting of the Garfield name. It lacks the philosophical side that most adults enjoy, leaving only mere slapstick humor for the kiddies.
2. The characters were-well-out of character. Garfield just doesn't look right in a 3-D format. He seems out of place in a live-action world. I especially disliked the differences between characters. Odie looks very little like his comic-strip self. He doesn't talk, sure, but he also doesn't dance or run away from home whenever he feels unloved. Odie will scare Garfield into smashing his face into the food bowl. He will get kicked off the table. He will be a general nuisance and a stupid, no-talent dopey dog. That's the way we love him! Breckin Meyer and JLH do not fit as Jon or Liz. There is supposed to be a love-hate relationship between the two (love on Jon's side, hate on Liz's), not a dopey schoolboy crush. Jon does not seem dorky or geeky, and lacks the stupid cluelessness that makes him so endearing. Liz in turn does not seem as sharply cutting or sensible as she is in the comic strip. Most importantly, neither of them bear much resemblance to their 2-D characters, either! Nermal is no longer the self-professed "world's cutest kitten", but instead an annoyingly irritating Siamese. Arlene, Garfield's pink, buck-toothed pseudo-love interest, is now a slinky Prussian blue who does not even feign romantic interest in Garfield! She does, if memory serves me right, keep a catty, sarcastic air about her, but otherwise can't hold out a candle to the real Arlene.
3. Garfield is past his heyday. Almost all of his specials, movies and shows are set in the '80s and '90s. I enjoyed (and still do!) the Garfield 'n Friends Show, the specials (including Here Comes Garfield, which I would NOT recommend showing to a little boy or girl), and all the old books and strips. But Garfield is definitely on the way out. My newspaper stopped syndicating him entirely 4 years ago. This movie doesn't seem right-it's live-action (because no one will want to see an animated movie anymore!), and it's too different from the strip in general. Not really Garfield.
But then, these were not the final nails in the franchise's coffin. To me, those are the cheesy, awful computer-animated 2008 movies that were, obviously, direct to DVD. I couldn't stand watching them, and I would much rather sit through both live-action movies than watch the Fun Fest and co. again!
La battaglia di Maratona (1959)
Uninspiring "Action" Wannabe
Honestly, I am a fan of Sword and Sandle films. Unfortunately, this did nothing for me. Although the DVD I picked up promised "breathtaking action scenes", the lovey-dovey romance took over most of the film, and the most exciting battle scenes were relegated to the the tail end of the whole movie.
Phillipedes is a good example of a "perfect hero". He has very few character flaws, other than being seemingly obsessed with a woman supposedly not meant for him. The main women all swoon or fight over him. His acting was unimpressive, and he is much too perfect to really be an enjoyable character.
Theocrates is the classic villain. He quite plainly spends most of his time trying to stir up evil feelings against Phillipedes and abusing others. He was obviously engaged to Andromeda at the beginning, thus setting up 2 different love triangles. He dies a horrible death at the end of this movie, like every villain at the time.
Andromeda, I'll give her, is very beautiful, but is just the classic blonde. Obsessed with Phillipedes, she shows no real strength of character. She is simply an attractive goddess with few other attributes. Her name, as in the Ethiopian princess, is meant to give an air of extreme beauty, which is her only outstanding trait.
Characters like Karis took away from the plot. She was just there to prolong the movie and draw out the story, making it more difficult to follow. The dark-haired, cold hearted beauty, she obviously could never compare to the sunny-haired, bright-eyed blonde she is competing with.
Worst of all was the filmography. The whole movie was in a terrible state. The version I watched was dark, grainy, and in poor shape in general. The colors seemed very fake and out of place, even for a late '50s film.
Predictable plot, standardized characters, and fake sets? This was clearly not an action movie. It should instead have been labeled as a love story in the simpler days of our world.