I don't believe it... Everyone loves Garfield, but is this movie really that bad? I've seen it, and I think it was good and fun. I'm surprised that this film has a rotten tomato of 15%! 3% lower than than Alpha and Omega! I've heard that criss prat is going to be voicing Garfield sometime this or next year. I just hope that his movie will be successful... But I still like this one.
- Flag inappropriate
- Show review history
Alright. Here's the big surprise: I have never read any of the comic strips, and I have never seen the classic cartoon from the eighties. I don't know if it's a bad thing or not. But, I have learned what the original voice of Garfield by Frank Welker sounded like. I have no idea why someone would hire Bill Murray to do the voice of Garfield for this live-action adaptation of the comics, but the prosody and tone sounded similar to Frank Welker's Garfield; he sounds lazy, tired, and kind of grumpy. I never knew that Bill Murray's normal voice can sound like Frank Welker doing a different voice. I was quite impressed. Bill Murray as Garfield has his funny moments because there are times where his voice is nicely directed. It is irresistible to hear what Garfield has to say here when he gives out comments at any situation and how he reacts, thanks to the clever script and lines of dialogue. There is also some well-executed slapstick that is also funny because it was structured quite well and the tone is pitch-perfect. There are other actors who did a good job with their voice performances, and they contribute to the irresistible amusement; Brad Garrett has a deep, resonant, growly voice for Luca, a notorious Doberman Pinscher who is one intimidating guard dog. Debra Messing did a great job as Arlene as she makes her a serious character who can be sympathetic, and at different times, angry. The CGI effects are not cheap here; they were implemented in the film surprisingly well, and there is some noticeable detailed fur on Garfield. Now as for the human characters, the main protagonists are just partners that make the story move with nothing to surprise me. The main antagonist is Happy Chapman (Stephen Tobolowsky) is a humiliated and inhuman television star who is allergic to cats and has the desire to have a talented dog so he will be in showbiz. Chapman's sidekick has a surprisingly soft side to him that is sympathetic sometimes. The entire movie has a simple plot that has hardly anything special. But, there is nothing unpleasant or insulting for anyone. Sure, even though the film has it's rude humor and silliness, the film's primary moral is about acceptance; anyone has their flaws that are a pain in the neck for anyone else who is jealous and irritated about it, but deep down, they are friends who provides some good company and some nice support. It has been an agreeable experience to see Garfield rescuing Odie (John's new dog). In conclusion: I actually like this film for what it is, It is a decent family-friendly film to watch; "Garfield" is a simplistic yet amusing, harmless kiddie (or should I say "Kitty") flick that even adults might find it quite worthwhile for children ages seven and up. Recommended.
14 people found this review helpful
Now I remember watching Garfield as a cartoon and I loved every minute of it but then I heard they were having a movie of it and I wasn't excited because you know the way Scooby Doo (it was awful) the movie turned out so I thought Garfield the movie would be the same but when I saw how the movie turned out I was wrong Garfield the movie is really funny and Garfield looks good in his movie this would have been 4 stars if it wasn't that Garfield is computer but his friends aren't
37 people found this review helpful