GARFIELD

[thompsoncory]

"This summer, get ready for some frisky business"

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/garfield/rearwindow.jpg

Plot Summary: When a dog named Odie is brought home, Garfield is forced to compete with him for the affection and attention of their perpetually single owner, Jon Arbuckle--much to Garfield's disgust. However, when Odie is kidnapped by a mean dog trainer, Garfield feels responsible, so he gets off his favorite spot and gets into action to rescue his fellow pet in crisis.

Directed by: Peter Hewitt (The Borrowers)

Starring: Bill Murray (Lost In Translation), Breckin Meyer (Road Trip), Jennifer Love Hewitt (Heartbreakers), Debra Messing (Along Came Polly), Brad Garrett (TV's "Everybody Loves Raymond"), Nick Cannon (Love Don't Cost A Thing), Stephen Tobolowsky (Freaky Friday)

Written by: Alec Sokolow (Cheaper By The Dozen), Joel Cohen (Toy Story)

Rated: PG (for brief mild language)

Running Time: 1 hour 31 minutes

Release Date: June 11th, 2004

-------------

Call me crazy, but this looks pretty entertaining. Nothing great, but it looks like a fun summer movie. I like Jennifer Love Hewitt and Breckin Meyer and have found the trailers rather amusing. I'll see this in theaters.

[t3h Qster]

I will be seeing this, if nothing else to draw up some comparisons to Roger Rabbit and Scooby Doo

[Strider]

Garfield rocks. I grew up loving Garfield and the cartoons. I
remember I used to wake up at 5:00 am every Saturday morning, to see the first shows. Garfield was a part of my childhood, and I'm afraid this movie adaptation will ruin it all for me. From what I've seen in the trailer and television spots, Garfield looks pretty damn bad. The only saving grace of the movie may be Bill Murray lending his voice to Garfield. I'll see Garfield in theaters, but I have a feeling it may be worse than those dreaded Stuart Little films.

Strider

[JCR]

Originally posted by Strider
Garfield rocks. I grew up loving Garfield and the cartoons. I
remember I used to wake up at 5:00 am every Saturday morning, to see the first shows. Garfield was a part of my childhood, and I'm afraid this movie adaptation will ruin it all for me. From what I've seen in the trailer and television spots, Garfield looks pretty damn bad. The only saving grace of the movie may be Bill Murray lending his voice to Garfield. I'll see Garfield in theaters, but I have a feeling it may be worse than those dreaded Stuart Little films.

Strider

I agree totally- I loved garfield as a kid and was willing to give this a chance, but then I saw the trailer before harry potter....oh, god it just looks horrible. :(

[DareDevil]

hey strider the 1st Stuart Little was not to bad


but this doesnt look to great, plus Harry Potter is tough competion, oh well maybe i'll see it?

[sharkstank]

i loved the 88 series in reruns after school, and i love murray, and i LOVE hewitt (some parts more than others), but this looks awful.

the trailer, tv spots, posters have all been groan inducing. not a laugh, just groans. id rather see stepford wives and riddick next weekend over this, maybe on dvd or for free i'll see it. and it'll bomb considering all of the heavy competiton and the fact that it looks orrid (BRECKIN MEYER?! ODIE'S A REAL DOG?!)

btw, berardinelli just posted his negative (one star) review.

WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[SkeletorMessiah]

I definately wont be seeing this in the theatres. I really like Garfield but what were they thinking! If they were gonna go with the CGI Garfield they shouldve gone with a CGI Odie as well. This move needs a huge CGI odie tounge!

[Cronos]

i love garfield, i always have and always will, ill definitely be seeing this, it looks like it will be a lot of fun

[m ali]

It defiantley looks like a lot of fun. I will be seeing this in the theaters.

[Fisting Ackbar]

Garfield had more physical exercise in the trailer than in 25 years of comics. This movie is going to suck hard.

[Sad man]

I saw the trailer yesterday before Harry Potter started. This looks terrible! Garfield looks even worse than Scooby-Doo, he's nothing like the comic book or the cartoon. I loved Garfield, I used to watch it every single day. I am not seeing this in theatres for sure. I might rent it out of curiosity. There are two reasons I could see this: Nostalgia and Bill Murray. But the movie itself looks like shit.

[FerrellFan911]

Garfield is my favorite comic strip character of all time. I can't wait to see it. I know Garfield had a little workout in the trailer and that seemed out of line for his character. But people, it's GARFIELD! Bill Murray voicing him... come on.

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by FerrellFan911
But people, it's GARFIELD! Bill Murray voicing him... come on.

Well lets BLAME creator Jim Davis who worked alongside w/ FOX in creating the movie. And whats WRONG with BILL?!?!? I think he is the second best actor to voice the feline since the orignal voice of Garfield has passed on. :(

[FerrellFan911]

Originally posted by BorderEevilIII
Well lets BLAME creator Jim Davis who worked alongside w/ FOX in creating the movie. And whats WRONG with BILL?!?!? I think he is the second best actor to voice the feline since the orignal voice of Garfield has passed on. :(

You miss understood me. I can't wait to hear Bill Murray voice the feline. I think it's wonderful.

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by FerrellFan911
You miss understood me. I can't wait to hear Bill Murray voice the feline. I think it's wonderful.

When you attatched "COME ON" I found questionable to jump in on that... :D

[TheDeadWalk]

I didn't know Lorenzo Music died!!

Damn... I still hear his commercials on the radio now and again, I just thought that Hollywood had something up its ass not to cast him.


WEIRD FACTOID:

Murray is doing the movie version of Garfield, which was voiced in the television series by Lorenzo Music.

Lorenzo Music did the voicing for Peter Venkman on "The Real Ghostbusters". Bill Murray played Peter Venkman in the Ghost Busters movie.

Eeeesh. Creepy.

[DareDevil]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk

WEIRD FACTOID:

Murray is doing the movie version of Garfield, which was voiced in the television series by Lorenzo Music.

Lorenzo Music did the voicing for Peter Venkman on "The Real Ghostbusters". Bill Murray played Peter Venkman in the Ghost Busters movie.

Eeeesh. Creepy.

Well i wont be able to sleep tonight :eek: not but for that reason for more sexual reasons

[Moviefan1234]

Horrible is too positive of a word to describe how this looks to me.

[ralph_wiggum]

he does not look anything like Garfield.

[SkyNet]

well i saw it tonight (Won tickets to a sneak previeew)

its.... ok.. i guess.... id rank it along the lines with Cat In The Hat... excellent for kids... stupid as shit for adults. And its short as shit also. AND the plot is like 100% the same as fucking Toy Story... when you see it, you'll know what im saying!

See it if you have kids and wanna get some sleep in... dont see it as a date movie or anything else, other than having kids.

edit: i just saw that this was cowritten by a dude who was a writer on Toy Story... it seems as though this man only knows one fucking story line!

[Schatten]

This looks dreadful. I really liked Garfield when I was younger and this will probably ruin his image to me forever. It's just dumb how they're trying to make him all cool and shit...

I agree with Maddox on this subject:

Garfield Sucks (http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=garfield_sucks)

[Benny]

Lame.

Bill Murray follows Lost in Translation with THIS?

[LoomisFan]

Originally posted by Benny
Lame.

Bill Murray follows Lost in Translation with THIS?
I said the EXACT same thing (I love Lost in Translation...10/10)! My dad's reasoning is that it's a high-profile film (okay...) and that it will probably make a lot of money.
My response?
"Hey, if millions of families liked Finding Nemo (which I hated...1/10), then ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE!"

[e_lateralus]

Yeah Ill definitely see it. Garfield has always been my favorite comic strip so a movie with one of my favorites, Bill Murray, seals the deal: Ill be there.

[Sigur509]

This movie looks bad. But 1) I love Bill Murray 2)I am a huge fan of the comic strip. I might check this out on video.

[FerrellFan911]

Has anyone seen it yet? Anybody?

[ilovemovies]

Ebert gave it 3 stars! :eek:

[Sigur509]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Ebert gave it 3 stars! :eek:

This comming from the guy who loved Never Die Alone. I always go with Roeper.

[Mikey2Dope]

Did anyone see The Daily Show last night with Jennifer Love Hewitt?

She was trying to promote the movie but it was nothing but Jon Stewart making fun of the movie.

Stewart: And hey Bill Murray is in it.
Hewitt: OH MY GOD I mean like yeah how cool is th...
Stewart: Man Bill Murray must be a real whore for money right now.

:D

Ah it was so priceless.

[FerrellFan911]

I've seen it. It's........okay. It's way to stupid and kiddie for people like us. I really thought Bill Murray's voicework was brilliant though, I'm sorry. I would say go see it just for that.

**1/2 rating

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by Mikey2Dope
Did anyone see The Daily Show last night with Jennifer Love Hewitt?

She was trying to promote the movie but it was nothing but Jon Stewart making fun of the movie.

Stewart: And hey Bill Murray is in it.
Hewitt: OH MY GOD I mean like yeah how cool is th...
Stewart: Man Bill Murray must be a real whore for money right now.

:D

Ah it was so priceless.


Money Whore? :D

I hate to see Jon get caught ALONE w/ him.... ;)

[LittleFoot]

so why is odie a real dog and garfield is animated... that's retarded. They should've used a real cat it would've been soo much better. same w/scobby doo

[Duke Nukem]

There's a good reason for making Garfield CGI and Odie real. Garfield actually talks (in his mind, for the readers and viewers in the comic strips and this movie to read and listen), and Odie doesn't and never has. It would look silly to have a real cat and having a narrator for it.

However, I'll say this. Remember that movie, "Cats & Dogs" from 3 years ago? It's a very silly movie going over the rivalry between cats and dogs, but the effects they used for the talking cats and dogs were pretty good. It was a combination of animalatrophic/puppets or something and CGI. I wonder if such technology could have been tried with Garfield instead.

I actually have yet to see "Garfield." I hope I'll enjoy seeing it tomorrow and hopefully will report it as underrated, as I suspect it will be.

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
There's a good reason for making Garfield CGI and Odie real. Garfield actually talks (in his mind, for the readers and viewers in the comic strips and this movie to read and listen), and Odie doesn't and never has.


Very True on Odie never spoke but always got even w/ Garfield now and then. :D

[LoomisFan]

Originally posted by Sigur509
I always go with Roeper.
You mean the guy that HATED The Fellowship of the Ring and LOVED Attack of the Clones?...

[Backstabba]

I just went through the ultamite torture, seeing this movie. MY little bro wanted to see it so I was dragged there, and so was his friend.

My rating: 2/10

His friends rating 0/10

My brothers rating 7/10

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH MY BROTHER!?!

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by LoomisFan
You mean the guy that HATED The Fellowship of the Ring and LOVED Attack of the Clones?...

While he gave it thumbs down I don't think he hated it. He didn't get into. Atleast not right away. I'd like to know what he thinks of it now though since he gave The Two Towers and Return of the King thumbs up!

And for the record, I also loved Attack of the Clones!

[Duke Nukem]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

..."Garfield" is not such a bad movie. It's not great or as good as it likely could have been, either. It's a decent and enjoyable movie, that as long as you come with an OPEN mind, you're likely going to realize it is not so bad.

First of all...Garfield. He is a CGI effect, and he sort of sticks out from the real-life human/dog/cat/mice/rat characters...but in a way, he flows with all of them and film pretty well. Not as realistic as Gollom from LOTR, but much better than the shoddy werewolves and vampires in "Van Helsing."

Yes, Garfield talks, Odie doesn't, and the rest of the animal characters do talk. That's how it was with the comic strip. Thing is, Jim Davis crafted Garfield in such a way, I don't think there's any real cats in reality that would look like him. He gave Garfield facial expressions and a shapely figure that no real cats can look like and pull. The other dogs/cats/mice/rats, etc., were more basic, so the filmmakers used real animals and used little "talking mouth" effects that have been used before in films like this.

Next, the differences between the comic strip and this movie. Any die hard Garfield fans will be likely disappointed that a lot of the elements from the comics have been switched around:

1) Jon Arbuckle, Garfield's owner, is not not such a nerdy/dorky/hopelss loser as he once was. He's still your average Joe, well acted by Breckin Meyer, but he seems to have a little more confidence in himself and doesn't feel sorry and pity himself as Jon was in comics. For example, Jon always had zero luck with women. He was a hopeless loser to them and women were turned off by him. Than again, the movie never shows Jon trying to woo women/the women turning away, but there's a different vibe about him in the movie.

2) The relationship between Jon and Liz. In the comic, Jon liked Garfield's vetrenarian, but was very shy. Same with movie. However, Liz, well acted by Jennifer Love-Hewitt, doesn't turn away from him make snide comments about him. In fact, she actually is more liking towards him here. In comics, Liz, turning him away so many times, eventually did date Jon and it seemed to get along with him. The film, however, doesn't show any differences between her and Jon. It's sort of romance thing right from the beginning. Personally, I would have preferred that Liz did ignore him at first, but eventually does get to like towards the end of the movie, but that doesn't happen. This irked me a bit.

3) Garfield and Nermal. Nermal was another cat. A real cat here, Nermal was sort of a Seinfeld/Newman nemisis in the comics. Nermal was female cat that re-occured and had a way of begging for attention. Garfield would show jealousy and get back at her in funny ways. Not here though. In the movie, Nermal is male cat that is just one of the neighborhood cats. Garfield doesn't even have a hatred for her/him either. They actually get along. This irked me a bit.

4) Garfield! Garfield is great charismic character and is well voiced by Bill Murray, but he felt a little bit watered down. He's lazy, he's mean towards Odie, and he's ignorant towards Jon...but he seems to have a little less edge in the movie. He shows more effection here. Sure, he showed a nicer side of himself in the comics at times, but it felt like a bit too much here. His appreciation for Jon, him getting along with Odie...felt a little out of place.

Now, should this be a reason to not see this movie? Absolutely not. This movie is not as close to the comics as it ought to be, but I don't think the comic strip could have been completely been movie material. Garfield always shoving Odie off the counter, Garfield always putting Odie down, Garfield always making snide comments about Jon...some of this stuff couldn't have been usable for a motion picture. It couldn't have carried a real plot.

Which begs the question: why even do a movie about Garfield? Sure, I was against the idea last year, when it was reported that it would made. Seeing the movie now...it good, but its not as good as it could have been. Some of the stuff I said above (Garfield always...), cancels out the film's differences with the comic. However, some of those differences, Jon and Liz, Garfield and Odie, should have been kept the same. It would have required a different plot for this movie, which is a good thing.

The movie's plot is this: start off by setting up Jon's situation with Garfield, Jon's situation with Liz, Jon getting Odie, Garfield ridiculing Odie, Odie being dog-napped by a sleazy TV guy, Garfield feeling guilty and saving him...you cannot say that his movie has no plot, that's for sure. It works, but it gets silly. The Odie gets dognapped plot, I've seen one similar with him getting captured by the dogcatcher in comics, so it makes sense. It just gets silly (especially with the sleazy TV guy).

When it comes down to it..."Garfield" is not a terrible movie. It is decent and pretty enjoyable, but it could have been better. Problem is, the filmmakers took the comic strip and switched some of the elements around for a typical Hollywood formula for a family film. Garfield doesn't sell all his soul to Hollywood though. There are a share of familiar elements to go around, and when it comes down to it, the movie is all about Garfield. Die hard readers...open up your mind, and you should realize this isn't a terrible movie. Give it a chance. I did.

My rating for "Garfield":

**1/2 (out of 4 stars)

[FerrellFan911]

**1/2

Bill Murray has saved this movie. Without have lending his voice to Garfield, this movie would have just been too boring, stupid, and pointless to carry out. And it still is. Kind of. You see, Garfield has been my favorite comic character forever. His comic strips do not tell a story. They merely provide one-liners for a laugh. The movie version of Garfield must have been difficult to make, for Jim Davis' classic is funny doing what he does most of the time, absolutely nothing. The only funny parts of this movie is Garfield's dialogue, if its only him talking to his animal friends or us (humans can't hear him). I say Bill Murray saved the movie, because he did. To hear Garfield's sarcasm and wit is refreshing and makes you wonder what he'll say next. You forget what is happening. After a while, little kids will probably not care what happens.

Garfield (voiced by Bill Murray) is a fat, orange cat who lives with his master, Jon (Breckin Meyer), or servant if you see him from Garfield's point of view. Garfield is happy enough, having a television and the occasional bite of lasagna to himself. It's when Jon adopts a dog named Odie to come live with him in order to impress the vet, Liz (Jennifer Love Hewitt), that Garfield reacts. Through a series of events, Garfield causes Odie to run away, and oddly enough, later feels bad about it and leaps to the rescue. Actually, he just kind of drags to the rescue. The movie then concentrates on the rescue mission to get Odie back from Happy Chapman (Stephen Tobolowsky), a mean, TV show host who steals Odie for his own personal agenda.

Now, I say: Who cares? Some of the plot devices are amusing, yes. Like when Garfield teaches Odie to dance while they watch television. Or when Garfield grabs a dinner tray to slide down the stairs with. Garfield also associates with some other animals, the funniest being Nermal (voiced by David Eigenberg) who doesn't have a clue. But the movie needs more of that amusement to keep kids interested. The movie, like I said, is brilliant in its voicework by Bill Murray, who finds Garfield just like nearly all the characters he plays onscreen. Hearing Garfield just talk, stopping the action and plot, give him cool points.

Alas, who will go see this movie? Adults will think it's to childish. Teenagers have better things to see. Children may get bored. I encourage everyone who appreciates the art of voicework to go see this film. That's its saving grace. Yes, the best scenes are the ones where Garfield just talks. That's all he does in the comics, for the most part. But making a full-length picture with a story to tell and characters to build upon was just too hard. Take a nap when something happens, wake up when Garfield speaks.

[Addi88]

I just saw it and I'd have to say it was fairly good.

My rating: 6/10

[chilli pepper]

Overall, I got what I expected when I saw Garfield on saturday, a mildly entertaining movie of an enjoyable animated cat. The parts were Garfield is off somewere doing something else and the action is just focused in on the humans is damn boring and thats were the movie lags. Also: you know what I found really fucking cool? the fact that they included Garfield's bear..cool!

Rating 6/10.

[Mahab]

Garfield wasn’t as disappointing as I was expecting, but then again those expectations were a piecemeal plot, terrible animation, corny jokes, and a forced romance. Heck, I probably would have never seen it if my ticket weren’t free. However, against those lowest of low expectations, Garfield managed to be a decently average movie. By average, I of course mean that there’s just as much to like as there is to hate. Shall we start with the good?

The casting was a lot better than one might have expected. Now, don’t get me wrong – the acting was atrocious at best – but the cast itself is well put together. Breckin Meyer makes for a great Jon, and Jennifer Love Hewitt makes a great Liz. As far as their performances? Well, I’ll get to that in a second. Bill Murray (as the voice of Garfield) manages to bring a whole other level of comedy to the film. The jokes would be rather bland if it weren’t for Murray’s delivery and timing, which makes him this movie’s saving grace in many ways. As far as the jokes go, I enjoyed the subtle humor more than the outright jokes – including the ventilation worker’s gleeful “Wheee.”

Surprisingly, the animation was also done fairly well. But before you dismiss me as a fool, allow me to break it down. Garfield’s movements, from simple walking and trotting to jumping from the countertop, are superbly animated. We have three cats in our house, so I pretty much know how one moves by now, and they nailed it to a tee. Unfortunately, Garfield looks out of place in almost every scene. Yes, his motions look excellent, but his body itself is easily recognized as CGI. There are a few exceptions in scenes where Garfield is by himself, but the fact of the matter is that Garfield is a special effect in a world otherwise full of actual animal characters (including Odie, no less). This stands as the movie’s most obvious flaw, right up there with…

… The acting! Perhaps they spent all of their special effects money making a CGI Jennifer Love Hewitt? Because that’s her body on screen, but her acting skills (as limited as they may have been) appear to have been thrown right out the window. I almost feel sorry for her. Breckin Meyer has the unfortunate duty of playing opposite a special effect, which makes him seem awkward in almost every scene he’s in. And when it’s him and Love Hewitt, things are even worse. Zero chemistry and sappy dialogue make for one lacking romance. Yikes.

As far as that goes, the performances are made even worse by an editing job that was probably went something like this: toss rolls of film into the air, randomly dash with a machete. If that wasn’t how it was done, I just don’t know what to say. I felt like I was watching a high-budget Power Point presentation, with enough horizontal and vertical wipes to get any third grader an A in History, but suck the flow right out of a Hollywood movie. Unfortunately, a history project this is not. And contrary to someone’s belief, Garfield’s awkward asides to the audience didn’t help matters, either.

Despite this, I can almost forgive the editor, because he seems to be just another victim of this movie’s central problem: a dumb plot. Yes, “dumb” is the best adjective to describe it. It’s actually quite nice of the filmmakers – they’ve made the plot identical to almost 1000 other movies – that way you can imagine Garfield and Odie applied to said plot, and save yourself eight bucks. What a nice gesture. Joking aside, though, the plot is as predictable as it is stale. Jon gets Odie, Garfield gets jealous, Odie gets lost, Garfield goes to find him and ends up loving him by the end of the movie. You’ve watched this movie with different characters a hundred times before. Even the “villain” of this movie – a TV personality with an ironic allergy – is completely forgettable.

Garfield is also a terribly short movie, which is good if you’re being forced to endure it with your kids, but not good at all against Hollywood standards. Your eight bucks will earn you a one hour and twelve minute return. The movie is passable, but never “good”, so in the end, it’s just not really worth it.

5/10

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=105121

[KingConan]

Dreadful garbage like this is what is wrong with Hollywood today.

[Shockwave]

I find myself strangely compelled to see this!

-shudder-

[Sigur509]

Not a good film. Place it under the DRAMA catagory. I did not laugh once.

4/10

[MisterTwister]

Wow...was i surprised. This was a fun movie to watch. It wasn't really funny-but i was entertained for 85 minutes and really dug all the charcthers and enjoyed Garfield's and Odies relationship. A solid 7/10.

[ilovemovies]

Well it took me a bit to get use to the really fake looking cgi of garfield and it also took me several minutes for me to get use to hearing Bill Murray's voice, but otherwise this was a major pleasant surprise to me. I really had a good time. Murray is great and I also liked Breckin Myer and I LOVED Jennifer Love Hewitt (GOD, please let that woman be MINE!). What a surprise this movie was!

*** (out of ****)

[FerrellFan911]

This thread started out bashing Garfield.

Now look, it wasn't that bad and as of today, it has grossed over $66 million.

[X-Nightcrawler]

I have a better idea: A CGI HOBBES! Absolutely bulletproof.