Garfield, the fat, lazy, lasagna lover, has everything a cat could want. But when Jon, in an effort to impress the Liz - the vet and an old high-school crush - adopts a dog named Odie and brings him home, Garfield gets the one thing he doesn't want. Competition.
Yeah, I said it! This is another bad movie adaptation of a classic cartoon along with the ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNK franchise. How this ''movie'' has an overall rating of 5,0 is beyond me! Is BAD beyond words, even for animal lovers. At least the two FLINTSTONES live action movies look like THE GODFATHER compared to this abomination!All the characters are obnoxious, and in the way you want to kill 'em all rather than watching them, and what about Garfield? He is the most obnoxious character you can ever put in a 90 minute movie. He is fat, lazy, a trouble-maker, and a cat that doesn't eat mice? REALLY? YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THIS? Plus I hoped the dogs at the dog show would have eaten him, he is so unbearable! I respect Bill Murray, and loved his movies, but I'll never forgive him for THIS! (same goes with Christopher Lloyd for his appearence in THE OOGIELOVES IN THE BIG BALLOON ADVENTURE).Seriously, who taught that Breckin Meyer could act? I would have picked even a trained chimpanzee from a circus or a parrot instead of Breckin Meyer. He is not funny in the slightest, and every time Garfield does something he just stands around like a bumbling idiot! Seriously, who can stand a guy like him?This is another movie that belongs to the level of s**t, along with SON OF THE MASK, the two BABY GENIUSES, EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC, SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS and MANOS THE HANDS OF FATE. Every time you look at them you want to burn the TV (or the computer) with fire after trowing gasoline at them!I rate this pile of garbage one because IMDB doesn't allow the zero rating.All parents around the world: DON'T LET YOUR KIDS WATCH THIS PAINFUL DISASTER OF A MOVIE! IT IS THAT BAD! Instead let your kids watch something better like FINDING NEMO, THE GODFATHER or even TWELVE ANGRY MEN! Or better take your kids out for a stroll on the beach or even let them play videogames! It's better than watch this movie that deserves to be in the Bottom 100!!
The adventures of Garfield the cat were at a premium throughout the 80s and the mid 90s. Jim Davis's wry cartoon strips about the lazy, lasagne-loving couch potato hold a fond place in my childhood. What astonishes is how the character grew to such a phenomenon. How often does it happen that three panels about a fat, flabby tabby cat becomes not just a widely successful comic strip, but also grew to several animated specials, mass-produced merchandise, and Garfield dolls staring out the back windows of cars all over America?Which is why there seems something decidedly odd about a Garfield movie being made about ten years after the hype had died down - it feels like its come too late in the day (although it still grossed a blockbusting 200 million at the box-office). One suspects it wanted to compete with all of the other CGI talking animal movies that were greenlit following the mega-success of Babe, but unfortunately, judging from the finished product, it has more in common with the similarly misjudged Scooby-Doo rather than the delightful Babe.I must admit to not being a fan of the CGI talking animal genre. Babe may have been the one that got the ball rolling, but all the ones that followed in its wake studied its technology but not its thinking. While on the one hand Babe was wowing us with its effects, at the same time the filmmakers crafted a strong story being enacted by a cast of delightful animal characters. But all of its imitators are far more concerned with animals referencing things they couldn't possibly know about, e.g. the latest films and celebrities as well as anachronistic pop songs that only date the film that much quicker, etc. In some sense, Garfield could get away with that, since one of his favourite things to do is watch TV, when he's not sleeping the day away or eating his owner Jon Arbuckle out of house and home (and lasagne). But for a film about such a beloved character, it still emerges as a big disappointment.To its credit, Garfield doesn't come off as cringeworthy as most talking animal movies (just look to Bill Murray's fellow Ghostbuster Dan Aykroyd's Yogi Bear to see how bad Garfield could have been). The requisite film references and animal flatulence that have become sad staples of the genre are kept to a merciful minimum, and all of the characters are here, e.g. Garfield, Jon, Odie, Liz the vet, Nermal, even Pookie, Garfield's beloved teddy bear, etc. And when it comes to Garfield's lazy sarcasm, who better to play that than Bill Murray?But one wishes the lip-service had been worth it, because the story is nothing to get worked up about, only because we've seen it in so many other talking animal movies. Talking animals going on a big adventure is just Homeward Bound, while the villain of the film wanting Odie for nefarious purposes is 101 Dalmations. Even Garfield softening up is something Bill Murray has done before in Scrooged to Groundhog Day (the connection is more overt with GD's Stephen Tobolowsky cast as the villain Happy Chapman).If the plot seems slight, that's because of a fundamental flaw at the heart of the film. How do you turn a three-panel comic strip into a treatment worthy of a feature film? I'm not sure you can, and the film we get is evidence of that. The characters we know are there, but the plot is too threadbare for us to care for any of it. Breckin Meyer's Jon and Jennifer Love Hewitt's Liz bring nothing to the film, even though Liz is an unfeasibly sexy vet. The movie is just as idle as Garfield is.Also, where Garfield should have been the triumph of the film, the special effects are not. Although the other talking animals are done with conviction, the film's biggest special effect, Garfield himself, is a failure on all levels. Just like the then recent Scooby-Doo, he looks too cartoony. He never seems integrated with everyone else, which makes me wonder why he couldn't have been animated just like the other cats in the movie.The film does have an ace in the hole in Bill Murray. Although the script isn't worthy of a comedic actor of Murray's calibre, his dry, wry, laconic voice is perfectly suited to the character. This is hardly one of Murray's funniest performances but he can enliven any film just by showing up. Although he's reduced to a voice, his instantly recognisable sarcasm is the one true success of the movie.The talking animal movie is an extremely difficult thing to pull off. And while I would argue that there are worse, there are better ones too. Garfield falls into neither the former, nor the latter, and certainly without the presence of Bill Murray, Garfield would be a completely throwaway movie. And he's a character who deserves far better than that.
First of all i thought it was display of modern brilliance on the big screen.I am grateful for the big screen to aptly cater for Garfield's witty one liners and lightning lasagna themed puns.My kids thoroughly enjoyed this film and having grown up with the cartoons i feel it was loyal to them in the humor. The main brilliance was the acting by the characters Jon and Happy Chapman and the animation of Garfield WAS truly the bees knees.Despite its low budget and short running time,approximately 12 minutes, Garfield and the crew never fail to disappoint. We see when Garfield loses Odie to Chapman that he is regretful of his actions and desires to get him back, with the help of Nermel, a rat that has an unfortunate history in substance abuse, namely cookies. And of course, Jon and Liz do their utmost by putting up posters. This humorous, hilarious film is absolutely magnificent and you would be crazy not to like it. Highly recommended - 10/10.
Garfield himself is not a likable character in this film. Since he's the main character, that's a problem. This movie gets 3 points from me because it made my child laugh twice. That's worth something. We will never watch it again, and I can't believe there is a sequel. Sequels are usually reserved for movies which were actually good.Let's summarize: This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I am stunned that there was even a sequel. The only reason this film made any money at all is that parents are always willing to try any film out if their kids might like it. As soon as a child is old enough to understand the plot, they will not like it.