Are you familiar with the term “Every CGI/Live-Action hybrid movie ever made?” this is a term I use to describe movies that combine live-action actors and cinematography with CGI creatures that cater more to families but are littered with juvenile humor, shameless product placement, and less than impressive storytelling. These movies are usually based on older cartoons, comic strips, or picture books that try to reinvent the source material, but in all the wrong ways. Growing up in the 2000s these kinds of movies were everywhere. While it's true that there are a few I consider guilty pleasures, the truth of the matter is that most of these types of movies, unfortunately, don’t hold up at all and are dated timepieces that most of the time don’t respect their original source material. This is unfortunately the case with a movie I have admittedly watched a dozen times as a kid known as “Garfield The Movie” based on the comic strips by Jim Davis. It may have been good to me as a mindless child, but this is sadly a case where the nostalgia goggles are coming off to reveal how bad this movie really is.
Garfield (Bill Murray) is a fat and lazy cat who lives with his owner Jon (Breckin Meyer) and spends most of his days eating Lassana and causing mischief. However, when Jon’s crush Liz (Jennifer Love Hewitt) gives him a dog named Odie, Garfield finds his world turned upside down as Odie seems to be getting more attention from Jon which makes him jealous. One night Garfield locks Odie outside and he runs away which leads him to be found by a greedy television host named Happy Chapman (Steven Tobolowsky). After seeing him on tv and realizing his mistake, Garfield takes it within himself to leave the comfort of his home and head to the city to find Odie before he and Happy Chapman leave for New York City.
After gaining more experience Of reading the Garfield comics I can safely say the movie is far from a perfect representation of Jim Davis's beloved creation. The story is very cliched and is not even executed very well. This movie’s narrative is clearly trying to be like Toy Story, but where that movie actually added more depth and great characterizations, this movie is more concerned with shoving product placement down your throat and hastily skipping over Garfield's character progression in favor of sarcastic one-liners from Bill Murray as Garfield. I was hoping that maybe the 2000s product placement and Bill Murray’s portrayal as the fat lazy cat would bring back nostalgic memories, but most of the time it left me feeling like I was watching a dated timepiece that felt more corporate than it did charming. Most of the jokes are very subpar and the story tries to be interesting by creating some over-the-top moments but they sadly don’t in any way distract by how lazily written this movie really is.
The Characters are all wrong with the exception of Bill Murray as Garfield as they fail to understand their comic strip counterparts and feel very miscast in the roles they are in despite their given talents. The main star of the movie is Bill Murray as Garfield who despite giving it his best, his charisma can’t save the lazy dialogue and bad writing. I honestly feel bad for him though, because Murray admits that he regretted doing this role seeing as he misses taking on of the writers of the movie to be of the critically acclaimed Coen brothers when it was really Joel Cohen instead of Coen who was most well known for writing for the critically paned “Cheaper by a Dozen”. I don’t blame Bill Murray as he clearly is trying to make the unfunny dialogue feel funny but it seems the movie restricts Murray’s talent from going all the way. The other characters like John and Liz are totally miscast and do not feel like their comic counterparts as John is supposed to be a doofus and Liz is a stick in the mud vet. Then there is Happy Chapman who is played by the late Steven Tobolowsky who despite giving an over-the-top villainous performance, unfortunately, he doesn’t make the movie any better to sit through. Aside from Garfield and maybe Odie these characters are not as entertaining here as they are in the comics.
The cinematography is honestly not all that bad as it gets the job done even if it’s not entirely impressive. The real star of the show however is the CGI effects used to bring Garfield into existence. The intent was to bring a cartoony stylized cat into the real world by using real lighting techniques and expressive fluid animation. Although the intent is clear, the way Garfield moves is so fake looking and feels like it would have looked better if the whole movie was animated like in the comics or the Saturday morning Cartoon. Hard to believe there was a time when cartoons had to be translated into live-action to feel more creditable but it sadly makes them look even worse than before. Then there are the other effects such as adding CGI lip movements on the real animal actors which are fine even if they are a bit jarring sometimes. The film also likes to use a lot of wipes transitional which feels less stylistic and a bit lazier from a filmmaking perspective. I feel for the editing department for trying to bring Garfield into a live-action reality, but there should have been more time spent on how to bring Garfield into the cinematic limelight whether using live-action or animation because the effects could use some more work.
The music is done by talented composer Christopher Beck who is most well known for scoring the Frozen films for Disney, I have to admit that his music compositions are actually very charming and dare I even say somewhat memorable. Even the inserted copyrighted songs are not that bad even if they do take away from the storytelling of the movie. Songs like Holla by the Baha Men and Hey Mama from the Black Eyed Peas do bring back good memories. The music doesn’t entirely save the lousy storytelling but it does make the movie a little more enjoyable to sit through.
While Garfield the Movie is not the first movie to try the CGI/Live-Action idea out, it was one of the movies that brought that idea into popularity as it would make room for similar movies to follow such as 2007’s Alvin and the Chipmunks and 2011’s The Smurfs. Despite poor critical reviews the movie would go on to be a hit at the box office making 75,4 million nationwide. This movie used to make me smile as a kid. While some aspects of the film like the music and Bill Murray as Garfield did make sitting through the movie worth it, everything else from the storytelling to the side characters was all wrong for a movie trying to represent the Garfield name. This is an unfortunate case where the nostalgia goggles have come off my head and revealed to me how mediocre this movie really is.
(Final Grade D+)