The Garfield Movie (2024)

“The Garfield Movie” stars Chris Pratt, Samuel L. Jackson, Hannah Waddingham, Ving Rhames, Nicholas Hoult, Cecily Strong, Harvey Guillén, Brett Goldstein, Bowen Yang, and Snoop Dogg. Released on May 24, 2024, the film has Garfield on an outdoor adventure after reuniting with his long-lost father.

The film is directed by Mark Dindal, who also directed “Cats Don’t Dance”, “The Emperor’s New Groove”, and “Chicken Little”. It is based on the comic strip by Jim Davis. There’s no doubt that cats are easy to handle as pets, at least for some people. They’re fluffy, snuggly, and lazy, mostly the latter, which is enough to compensate for their lack of personal space. However, none of the cats’ laziness can compare to the well-known orange tabby cat himself, Garfield. Jim Davis’ iconic feline has been making his mark in film and television for years, similar to what he did in the comics. Not literally, though. He has even been making recent appearances in the Nickelodeon crossover video games, mainly due to the studio behind Garfield, Paws Inc., being purchased by Viacom. However, the lasagna-loving cat hasn’t had a big-screen adventure since his last live-action appearance in 2006, the sequel to the 2004 adaptation, “A Tail of Two Kitties”. Regarding people’s reactions to the live-action films, I can understand why. That changes today, as the orange cat finally makes his long-awaited return to the big screen in animation form just in time for Memorial Day weekend, brought to life by the actor who recently voiced a popular video game plumber. With a new approach to the format and concept, does it offer enough humorous antics and heart to reinvigorate the source material’s appeal? Let’s find out.

The story centers on Garfield (Pratt), an abandoned tabby kitten who was found and raised by a young man named Jon Arbuckle (Hoult). Now grown as the Monday-hating, food-loving indoor cat, Garfield is living the best life in his new home with Jon and Odie (Guillén), his dim-witted beagle companion. However, Garfield's life takes a sudden turn when he and Odie are captured, leading him to reunite with his estranged father, Vic (Jackson), who’s responsible for abandoning him. Their estranged family reunion resulted in Garfield stepping out of his comfort zone for the first time to help Vic perform a high-stakes heist for an unhinged Persian cat named Jinx (Waddingham).

“Garfield” is another piece of media I loved watching during my childhood. I used to watch “Garfield and Friends” on television almost every week when I was young, which was my first exposure to the source material. It’s enough to get me to watch the live-action adaptations, which I didn’t think were as bad as most people thought. Twenty years later, I still consider them harmless yet bare-bones family movies carried by Bill Murray’s vocal performance as the title character. I understand it was one of Murray’s regrets due to a misunderstanding, but I also believe he’s been beating himself up over something that turned out decently well. The last time I watched anything related to “Garfield” was a series of direct-to-DVD CGI films and “The Garfield Show” less than a decade ago, and that’s about it. Afterward, I hadn’t reunited with the orange cat until this film, which promised a new take on the beloved comic strip.

This was something I was looking forward to seeing this summer, mainly because it’s animated, and I have a soft spot for “Garfield”, both in movies and television. However, my curiosity heightened when I heard about Chris Pratt voicing the lazy feline and the direction they’re going with its synopsis. Man, Pratt must be going all out with voicing our favorite childhood characters lately. Next thing you know, he’ll be providing the voice of Jak in a “Jak and Daxter” movie in the next few years. So, after watching the latest big-screen adventure with the tabby cat, does it offer enough enjoyment to carry its legacy? Well, for younger kids, it might. But for regular moviegoers and probably die-hard fans of the comic strip, it’s surprisingly lackluster. Maybe I’m at that point in adulthood where I have grown out of my “laughing at the silly lazy cat” phase. Even if that were the case, I would still feel baffled by how many missed opportunities were left on the cutting room floor.  

When it comes to harmless family entertainment, “The Garfield Movie” should satisfy plenty of younger kids in the mood for zany, in-your-face content. Of course, when I say “zany”, I mean it moves along quickly regarding its pacing. How quickly are we talking? Try “Garfield eating an entire pizza in one sitting” quickly. The film jumps from one point to the next in a flash, especially in its first act, never giving a moment to breathe. On one hand, it helps prevent kids with short attention spans from getting bored, especially with the slapstick and eye-popping visuals. On the other hand, it rarely gives those outside its target audience a pause to feel invested in a plot we’ve seen a dozen times in other animated features. This is another family film that checks the boxes left and right in its storytelling list yet doesn’t do anything unique or compelling about it. It does have a message about the importance of trust and family, mainly for Garfield’s relationship with Vic. Sadly, the script lacked some opportunities to deliver more depth in its simplistic story, including Garfield’s lack of experience with the outside world.

It’s quite a shame since Mark Dindal directed two animated classics from our childhoods, including “Emperor’s New Groove”. On the other hand, he also did “Chicken Little”, so this movie could’ve gone in either direction. “The Garfield Movie” certainly has that familiar flair Dindal is known for, including the zany animation, the fourth-wall-breaking moments, and even some heartwarming sequences. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the screenplay, which was co-written by Dindal’s collaborator David Reynolds, struggled to capitalize on these energetic and emotional vibes. Even the movie’s comedy didn’t leave me hungry for more, and I was eating a large tub of popcorn throughout the entire runtime. The humor includes several pop culture references and some product placement, including “Top Gun” and Olive Garden. What’s with cartoon animals and their obsession with Olive Garden? First, Sonic the Hedgehog, and now Garfield? I mean, their food is delicious, but still. The problem with those jokes is not just because they’re as stale as expired cat litter. It’s also due to them lacking the impact of its creativity, mainly relying on cheap modern-day tropes over clever ones that are actually funny. There were also a couple of jokes that dragged out a bit too long, adding insult to injury. I had a few chuckles from its slapstick and references to the source material, but that’s about it.  

Fortunately, “The Garfield Movie” periodically compensates for its feline fiascos with some of its entertaining moments. One of them is the voice cast, who did their part in voicing its lively characters. Chris Pratt seemed like an odd choice to voice Garfield at first, but after watching the trailers a few times, I was willing to give him a chance to show me his take on the orange-colored feline. For the most part, I thought Pratt didn’t do too bad. Similar to his role as Mario, there were times when Chris Pratt sounded like Chris Pratt, but at other times, he matched the character’s mannerisms quite well. When he’s not trying to compete with Bill Murray, Pratt manifests the titular character with suitable results. Samual L. Jackson also provided some decent moments regarding his performance as Vic, Garfield’s estranged father. Seriously, you can put Jackson in anything, and he’ll always find a way to keep me glued to the screen, even if it’s an underwhelming cartoon about a lazy cat. I also thought Hannah Waddingham from “Ted Lasso” was competent as the film’s antagonist, Jinx, adding to the list of unhinged characters Dindal is known for. She’s far from “best villain” material, but man, is she one nasty kitty cat? Nicholas Hoult also did well as Jon. However, his lack of screen time was very disappointing, only resorting to being the comic relief.

Another element I thought was diverting was its animation. As I mentioned, “The Garfield Movie” is a zany and energetic cartoon filled with slapstick and eye-catching visuals, and the presentation by DNEG Animation fully embraced that tone with its style. More importantly, it effectively resembled the cartoony designs of the source material’s characters and backgrounds but in CGI form. It evoked the feeling of seeing the “Garfield” comic strip coming to life for long-time fans of the source material, especially for specific scenes involving Garfield’s sarcasm, the framework, and the breaking of the fourth wall. Understandably, it’s not designed to be a game-changing experience when it comes to animation. Instead, the film desired to deliver a style that honors the source material’s look for fans and newcomers unfamiliar with the title character. If that’s the case, I would gladly say it did the job well.

Overall, “The Garfield Movie” is as lazy and ridiculed as the title character, but not in a way that’s amusing or memorable. It’s harmless enough for young kids to endure, especially regarding its energetic animation. Plus, the voice cast made the most of their efforts to make their formulaic characters mildly entertaining, including Chris Pratt as Garfield. Unfortunately, they weren’t enough to inject more interest and fun into its underwhelming and simplistic story that’s as painful as getting scratched by an actual cat. In short, it’s another bare-bones, low-level animated feature that happens to have “Garfield” characters in it. Before watching the film, I read most of the reviews from critics saying that the film is unfaithful to the source material. While that may be the case occasionally, the real issue is that the movie had a much better one hidden underneath its cheap pop culture gags and by-the-numbers cliches that overshadow its heartfelt message. With its predictable screenplay, kinetic pacing, subpar characters, and weak humor, the latest iteration of “Garfield” is a disappointing attempt at revitalizing the franchise that manages to be just as dreadful as Mondays.

D+