The Garfield Movie

But maybe it will help if I clarify WHY I didn't like it.

I am not this huge Garfield fan that was let down by the film. I like Garfield well enough. The strip is cute (if mundane) and his old Saturday Morning TV show was actually clever. I don't view this film's failings through the lens that they shit all over an unimpeachably great comic strip and character.

I will say this about the film failing the strip. The level it bothers me on is not as a fan who demands my franchise to be told in the correct way, because Garfield is a very vanilla strip, which makes its premise pretty malleable depending on the creator. Look at the controversial book Garfield: His Nine Lives and tell me this specific premise HAS to be boring. People were shocked and offended by that book because Jim Davis decided to prove that it didn't (with fucking receipts).

If a movie based on such a light premise can't even get THAT right, that's a problem. I'm not going to say this film did not lean into the strip's strengths, because I don't find it a strong strip to begin with. But the movie is going through the motions on Garfield's catchphrases and routines, and it feels like this story is attached to Garfield not because it's the best Garfield story. But because using Garfield as the IP is the thing that got the movie greenlit. Again, I will never confuse Garfield the daily strip for high art. But it does have a look and feel that is 100% of its era, and not something that you find in modern cartoons.

Maybe it's something I notice because Gilda And Meek's character designs are also very old-school comic strip, as opposed to the Cal Tech designs or anime designs. Or bland CGI characters of which this movie turns those distinctive 80's comic strip characters into. Garfield certainly didn't break any artwork barriers in the 1970's and 80's. But that strip, and the old cartoon back then, certainly LOOKED like no modern cartoon today. The closest in style to Garfield these days is The Simpsons, which has been on the air for over 30 years, and has still evolved FAR beyond the crude 80's comic strip style Matt Groening and Jim Davis built their careers on.

Garfield looks distinctive compared to modern day stuff. This movie decides to make all the character designs boring and like every other current animated CGI movie.

I loved The Super Mario Bros. Movie. Like Garfield, that is a VERY thin premise that a director has license to go nuts with. And yet it felt like a movie exploring Mario's world instead of an unrelated adventure using the IP characters simply to get made by the studio.

Chris Pratt voiced the lead in both, and was criticized for both. For Mario I think that criticism was misplaced. The most iconic Mario voices were Charles Martinet and Captain Lou Albano. And you couldn't listen Martinet's annoying voice for an entire fucking movie. The beginning and ends of videogame levels were enough. And Albano's old cartoons were trash, and he was hardly an actor so tied to the role that Pratt doing it was a slap in the face to him. They had far more license to hire a name like Pratt for Mario than this movie did for Pratt as Garfield.

The two main problems with the casting are insurmountable in my mind. One of them is not the movie's fault, and one of them kind of is.

Anyone who has read my reviews knows I strongly disapprove of retiring cartoon characters when a voice artist dies. With very few exceptions I believe cartoon characters should live beyond their voice actors. And that is technically true of Garfield too.

But let's be real. There IS no other voice for Garfield than Lorenzo Music. Bill Murray voicing that character in a live-action film made a lot of sense (even if those movies, which I have not seen, were widely panned) and in recent cartoons Voiceover Superstar Frank Welker does the voice, while trying to match's Music's performance as best he can. Pratt sounding NOTHING like Music, and not even bothering with his slow inflections, just doesn't work. Garfield is NOT a character with rapid-fire jokes and snappy patter. Maybe he could have been in animation if somebody besides Music voiced him initially.

But the truth is Music's voice was always right because the slow deepness of it hinted at the character's laziness, and yes, WEIGHT, in a way Chis Pratt's high-pitched, fast-paced wisecracking simply does not. It's the wrong voice coming out of that character, not just based on the design, and the movie's crappy version of it, but based on how Garfield is perceived by the public at large.

Making Odie clever in the film is also wrong.

Here is a big problem. You put this movie next to the similarly themed special "Garfield On The Town" (which dealt with Garfield's long-lost mother) there is just NO comparison in quality. Not even 40 fucking years later. The second admittedly clunky thing Garfield ever did on television has more real heartwarming moments and pathos than an actual friggin big-budget movie. It's also much funnier.

Garfield's Mom: "You've gotten fat."

Garfield: "Hey!"

Was there s SINGLE moment in the film as pure as that? And the thing about that exchange in the special is it's low-hanging comedy fruit, and kind of an obvious joke. But the love and affection beneath it make it funny and wonderful instead. There is nothing like that in this film.

Garfield is a VERY Old-School traditional comic strip. So the film engaging in modern tropes, cliches, and razzle-dazzle grates. And the sad truth is despite the fact that the movie attempts a more naturalistic speaking style in line with other current animated kids movies, like many other current animated kids movies, this didn't make me laugh once. Now the comic strip was RARELY genuinely funny, but the Primetime specials and Saturday Morning series routinely WERE, and it strikes me as a step backwards that the film is using a bunch of modern tropes and scenarios, and not coming up with a single funny joke in doing so. That's odd. And that should not be the case. But the truth is MUCH of modern animated CGI kids comedies simply AREN'T funny, if only because they all wind up repeating each other. If CGI family toons ever WERE funny, they aren't after having the same jokes run into the ground film after film for decades on end.

I'm not annoyed this film failed Garfield the character and comic strip as a fan. I'm annoyed because it's a pretty pedestrian premise, and you have to be a pretty crappy filmmaker to go and botch it. And yet, this film did, and completely. Yes, that annoys me. 2 stars.

Gag Reel

Somehow Outtakes in a recording booth are not as funny as seeing actors making mistakes in character and busting out laughing.

You get some audio outtakes from a master improvisor like Albert Brooks, you will hear some good comedy. You do 'em with Chris Pratt, he accidentally burps. 1 star.

Deleted Scene "I'm Back" Animatic Featuring Hannah Waddington

First off, this is a great musical number. Even by the standards of an animated film. If it had been in the film it would have been the best scene. It's so good, they essentially couldn't bear to waste it, and played it over the end credits.

All that being said, I'm glad it was cut. I have some major problems with the musical genre as far as plot and dialogue goes. I think that specific genre always manages to weaken both in any films where characters burst into song. But you can KIND of excuse it if you shut off your brain. What drives me nuts if when there's only a SINGLE musical number in the entire film. Talk about breaking my reality and me questioning how the song exists in the first place! You do an entire film with songs, I'll shut off my brain. You do only ONE, and I can't stop nitpicking it.

Better safe than sorry, and I'm glad this amazing scene, the best scene in the film, wasn't actually IN the film. It doesn't fit. 4 stars.