Sometimes, an animated film will come out, and when it’s not received well by audiences or unanimously enjoyed by all who see it, the defence automatically shifts towards, “but it was made for kids.”
I couldn’t tell you who The Garfield Movie was made for, because the film isn’t really about Garfield, and I couldn’t hear children laughing or enjoying the film during the screening.
The origin story of a young, abandoned, orange kitten opens The Garfield Movie to establish a beautiful, emotional connection between a young Garfield (voiced by Chris Pratt) and Jon (voiced by Nicolas Hoult). Jon’s bleeding heart upon seeing the big-eyed, cute little cat soon leads to the hijinks and shenanigans that the iconic character is known for: eating lasagna, hating Monday’s, and borderline being an emotional abusive counterpart to their owner and dog-sibling, Odie.
After the first 10 minutes, The Garfield Movie forgoes everything that should make it a “Garfield” movie, and becomes a generic, colour-filled, manic, muddled, non-sensical… heist movie?
When Garfield’s long-lost father, Vic (voiced by Samuel L. Jackson) reemerges into Garfield’s life, the two become entangled in a psycho, villainous cat, Jinx’s (voice by Hannah Waddingham), plan to steal an ungodly amount of milk from Lactose Farm’s, a plan previously foiled by Vic’s actions which landed Jinx in the pound.
The glaring issue with The Garfield Movie is that it feels like it’s been created, written, produced, and directed by out-of-touch creatives who think they have a handle on what modern, young audiences enjoy, and they miss the mark completely.
Jokes about Daniel Day Lewis and Tom Cruise will fly over the heads of the kids watching, and they aren’t funny enough to get a chuckle out of the adults. Dating apps, drone delivery, and dysfunctional dynamics give an almost mean-spirited outlook on the world. And there’s an abnormal amount of animal cruelty played of as slapstick.
Sure, the film is full of fantastic looking animation that feels larger than life and cartoonish in the right ways, and it’s colourfully vibrant. But that’s not enough to keep an audience, especially the intended young demographic, interested and engaged for 100 minutes.
The chaotic structure and nature of The Garfield Movie often plays more like a fever dream broken up with attempts a few witter one-liners. No scene flows into each other to give an semblance of a story to follow, creating more confusion than engagement.
The voice cast is stacked with an A-list group of actors who all have fantastic credits to their names, and no-one really stands out, with performances tonally clashing as if they were all given different directions to the others when recording.
Chris Pratt is Chris Pratt, which is a charming schtick in real-life, or when we can see his face in films like Guardians of the Galaxy. But without seeing him the facial context to the tone of voice, Garfield never has any moments where he is more than a “wise cracking” cat.
Samuel L. Jackson seemingly attempts to disguise his distinct voice early in the film, but then just lets the Jackson-isms fly. And despite the best efforts to fully commit to the unhinged villain, Hannah Waddingham just comes out as someone in a completely different film to every other character, despite her energy matching the unintentional chaos that is on display.
The Garfield Movie might work for those audiences who are just happy to sit down for 100 minutes and watch some colourful, ridiculous shenanigans, with no story, fleshed out characters, dead on arrival jokes, or any reason to justify its existence. And if that’s what floats your boat, maybe it’s best to wait for streaming.
The Garfield Movie is in cinemas May 30.
