The Garfield Movie - Review: A Big Fat Hairy Deal

 

Somehow, the rotund orange tabby cat with a love of lasagna and a hatred of Mondays by the name of Garfield has managed to keep a stranglehold on the Sunday comics market for the better part of the last 45 years. After metric tons of merchandise, television specials, and two live-action films, the character finally has his first feature-length animated film released in theatres, the creatively titled “The Garfield Movie.” 

The film stars Chris Pratt (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Parks and Recreation”) as Garfield, the titular lazy fat cat, who gets cat-napped alongside his dimwitted dog pal Odie, voiced by Harvey Guillén (“What We Do In The Shadows (2019),” “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish”). They’re dragged out of the house by the villainous cat Jinx, voiced by Hannah Waddingham (“Ted Lasso,” “Sex Education”), who seeks revenge against Garfield’s father Vic, voiced by Samuel L. Jackson (“Pulp Fiction,” “Django Unchained”). She forces the trio on a heist, which quickly goes awry, leading Garfield and his father to butt heads and cause chaos, all while Garfield’s owner Jon, voiced by Nicholas Hoult (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “The Menu”), awaits their return. 

It’s quite an adventurous tale for such a lethargic cat, and the script, written by Paul A. Kaplan (“Spin City,” “Raising Hope”), Mark Torgove (“Spin City,” “Raising Hope”), and David Reynolds (“The Emperor’s New Groove,” “Finding Nemo”), goes to great lengths to get the tabby out of the house. Unfortunately, the adventure itself ends up as a mostly bland tale that recycles much of the same plotting and character beats seen in numerous other animated family films. The film’s sense of humor and the gags throughout are still amusing and maintain the wry, broad sense of silliness that the comic strip is known for, but the overall plot feels stitched together from other, better, family films. 

The vocal performances are a complete mixed bag. While none are really doing any difficult work, mostly residing in the realm of “celebrities doing their own voices”, some fit the characters far worse than others. The big stickler is Pratt, and his performance is fine enough but at no point ever gives the impression that it’s Garfield you’re listening to. Meanwhile Jackson is fine enough, with Hoult stealing the show in his minor appearances. Waddingham is also just fine, and Guillén does a lot of very amusing yipping and barking as Garfield’s technically mute canine companion. 

Visually, it's a somewhat bland film. It looks technically nice, with lots of painted looking backgrounds and warm autumnal colors to showcase a generalized picture of midwestern US landscapes. But it's a very serviceable look, with nothing standing out stylistically or visually. The film’s visual identity, or lack thereof, actually ends up speaking to the larger issues with the movie as a whole. 

Despite having an experienced director at the helm in Mark Dindal (“The Little Mermaid,” “Aladdin”), the film lacks anything memorable about it, existing more as an animated babysitter for the kids and a contractual obligation. You simply need more than a recognizable face or an experienced director to make something memorable, as those elements can get butts in seats, but do not guarantee a good or enjoyable product. Luckily, the film itself does manage to be amusing and silly enough to be a fun waste of 90 minutes, but it lacks any legitimate reason to exist. It’s made even worse given the numerous amounts of product placement in the film, which eventually borders on inane. Family films like this will always have some kind of tie-in or product placement, but there the small moments of real brands and restaurants being shown and then some that feel like short ads meant to be airing on TV that accidentally got spliced into the final film.

“The Garfield Movie” continues the orange tabby’s tradition of starring in serviceable but lackluster family films, and it's at least better than the previous live action works. It’s pretty to look at but bland overall, in both story and overall visual style. Its voice cast is mostly good, and the sense of humor is fun, but it’s hard to imagine anyone remembering anything about this film a year from now, beyond the bizarre casting of its title role. 2.5/5