Discover Top Posts Tagged with #here comes garfield

Here Comes Garfield: The Garfield Movie Review!: Colossal, Stupdendous one might go as far to say.. Mediocre (Patreon Review for Emma Fici)

Hello all you happy people and welcome back to here comes garfield, my look at all the garfield specials and now his film career. Which I realize now means I probably have to do Garfield The Movie At Some Point... and... Tale of Two Kittles.. and Pet Force...

That exesntial horror aside, today that means we're looking at the recently released Garfield Movie. The Garfield Movie comes to us from Columbia Pictures, which Sony will never let you forget is 100 years old and they own every year of that now with the 100 years logo they plopped in front of this and Ghostbusters: It Was Meh.

The film has gotten the predictably mixed reactions from a less ambitious kids film: Kids clearly love it, my own niece and nephew included, Critics loathe it and a lot of people who saw it ironically gave it one star on Letterboxd. In other words it'll likely get at least one more sequel and possibly a streaming spinoff on whoever pulls the biggest dumptruck of money up to sony's house.

So let's dig into this film: Why it's such an easy target, how good it really is, what dosen't work, and what delicoius layers it has.

The Chris Pratt Problem

Before we get into the movie, let's get into WHY it became such an easy target. And the first and biggest reason is the simplist: who they choose to play the fat cat the cool cat the nobody's fool cat: Mr Chris Pratt

Chris Pratt's casting became a meme quickly and it's understandable why: Not only was this on the heels of his questionable (if ultimately decent enough) casting in Mario but both castings felt.. Lazy. Like an exec googled "Celebreity Man" and went with the most afforadable option. Pratt isn't a bad actor. As a person... I didn't have the bandwith to full research that and shift out the genuinely douchey actions from the internet herasy. Seems like he might be bit of a dick, can't prove it. But as an actor he can be good: he was great on parks and rec, in the lego movie and in the guardians trilogy. The probelm is like a lot of actors, once he got famous, he started becoming the best imintation of himself: most of his parts like jurassic world tend to just be him doing what people now expect to be Chris Pratt TM performances. For instance Star Lord.. is a fleshed out hot mess of a character, with some depth and some genuinely emotional moments despite often being the butt of a joke. The Guy From Jurassic World.. is just that without the depth or any real character beyond "Raptor Pal who wants to bang Bryce Dallas Howard". It's not all his parts, the bullk is still good, but he's sliding very comfortably into not giving a shit if he dosen't have to and it's not a good look. I love Ryan Renolds but he can also be like that, and his better roles are when he dosen't like Deadpool. For as big a thing as it's become and as much money as he's making you can tell he's making the third one not because it'll make him even richer, but because he loves the part.

With both of these rolls it feels like Chris signed on because

He DOES give it a decent try, being pretty good as mario and alright as Garfield, but it's easy to see why there isn't a ton of enthusasim. When Ben Schwartz got Sonic the Hedgehog he was fukcing pumped, brought it and really sunk into the role. He's easily one of the Blue Blur's best voice actors and you can tell he loves the franchise. I'm not saying you have to love a franchise going into a part.. but it dosen't feel like Chris Pratt really put his soul into it and as corprate as Mario and Garfield are, these are characters with life to them. I'm not saying you can't do a good roll for a paycheck, see Orson Wells as Unicron, but fans aren't going to give you a lot of room if you don't seem to give a shit you got such a big part that is important to them.

I don't think Pratt sinks the film.. but he was far from the best choice. The best choice, in my opinon.. would've been nick offerman. He's a big comedy name, has a lot of talent, has done plenty of voice acting, currently headlining fox's best show The Great North, and has that low sarcastic voice that can be used for a bunch of diffrent moods. Jason Mantzokus is a close second choice as his gravly ness fits garfield and he can both be earnestly sarcastic AND energetic, both things garfield needs. I know the latter is ironic but the guy is emotive when necessary. But putting aside my choices he just feels like he's doing "Chris Pratt". He's good ENOUGH, but the film could've found better and has such a standout cast, including another possible choice in Brett Goldstein, that he sticks out as the guy whose just kinda.. there.. and he's in the lead roll. he's not bad and gets some great deliveries in places, but he's servicable. It's a hard roll to nail, for me only Lorenzo Music and Bill Murray have truly got it, with Frank Welker trying his best but just not quite nailing it. There's a reason there was a bit of a gap before Welker took up the roll: Music is a hard mountain to climb, Murray happens to just exude slacker energy it's not easy. But they could've tried HARDER instead of going with "well generic hollywood guy will sell tickets"

Garfield Sells Out

The next issue is one I can cover pretty quickly:

The Garfield Movie has gotten flack for it's various bits of product placement: Garfield eats POPChips, there's Olive Garden leftovers in the fridge, and his dad orders things from Wall Mart. There's also possible FexEx and Tinder advertisment I missed I found looking at articles or two and credit to the daily best for the first and reddit for the second. There are adds for big corportaions in this film and while that's not NEW , until a discussion with my friend Emma I hadn't realized how much the MCU advertizes (And just for clarity I love a lot of the mcu and Emma is neutral), it is wince inducing in a film primarily aimed at kids. It works decently for adults (raises hand), but I get the target demo and while they get advertised to plenty, it's still scummy to cram this into the movie itself.

I have nothing against the food tie ins: Stouffers doing one for their lasanga is too sensical not to do, as is having olive garden make a cameo in the film itself, Tastykae's garfield cake was adorablea nd delicious, and popchips, while certainly not the kind of greasy snack garfield would gravitate too, are the kind of casual snack food I could see him at least trying... or more accurately Jon buys them, Garfield eats everything else because he assumes like many boomers "Healthy=bad" and finds out he was wrong and orders more. It's still mildly manipulative, but it's nothing new: Kids get sold food to them all the time.

That being said.. it's still fucked up how much product placement is in the film, even if it's spread out well and while I do wish we'd stop getting SO MANY ARTICLES on it included Cracked claming the drones in the film are Sony trying to get kids to accept drones more

I get the impulse: We want to protect children and while I was originally going to be more critical of this, the more I thought about it the more scummy it felt. The Product Placement isn't to say add a layer of authentiity by using a real brand or because it's fun, it's just.. so cheap and blatant. It's just whatever brand wanted that garfield money. The film does HAVE food at the center: Garfield meets John in an itallian restraunt and has to pull a milk heist and neither place is a real life brand.. which begs the question why all the others were flavor blasted in there. There's no real need to shill and the movie would've been fine doing tie ins out of universe. I get we live in a corprate hellscape but you don't HAVE to advertise to chidlren and their parents and to sad middle aged men like me. You can just.. make a movie. Let that be the "product" if your that cynical. All you did to the brands involved is remind people "Oh yeah they sold out in that one movie". Well with Olive Garden if your sonic you also make me go to it .. or this film... but Olive Garden is delicious.

So onto the third major problem had with the film

We've Been Here Before

The third is something I can agree with: the plot is stock as hell. While the film has good points i'll get to, the basic plot is one seen in dozens of other animated films. A hero is thrown out of a lot in life their either happy with or tell themselves they are, but are thrown into a CRAZY adventure by circumstance that they must go on to get that life back while learning something along the way. To prove HOW common this is I decided to go through my film list on Letterboxd and put all of the animated ones I found that adhere to this formula into one image. It wasn't nearly as many as I expected.. but I still found about 40 diffrent films with this formula in some way

And please note this formula in of itself.. isn't a bad one. A lot of great films are made on this premise. To prove this let me take out the films I don't like from this grid

Your still left with a ton of stone cold classics. You'll also notice the breakdown for the original is 1/8th garfield. The first three specials, the first bill murray film and the second dtv film really do all fall into this formula somehow.

The key is that the formula isn't inherently bad: All these films start with the protagonists comfortable or about ot be and whisked into danger but they all go in such diffrent directions. Heartwarming child bonding comedies, a meditation on jealousy and our own realities, betting a black man's freedom in a way that the producers had to know was fucked up, space dolphin played by matt berry, everyone has their own way.

This film... dosen't do anything NEW with it: The film just stacks other animation tropes and cliches on top: you have our hero whose spoiled by what he has, has issues with his parents, has to go on an adventure adressing those issues, deals with a theatrical yet intimidating main villian and their two dumb and sympathetic henchman, gets training from a mentor with a tragic backstory to do a heist, the heist goes bad, the relatoinship that got built up over th efilm is semeingly shattered but OH NO IT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING and the climax happens cumulating in everyone being one big happy family.

I could do the grid thing with practically every trope in this movie and it just kinda plays the hits. It reminds me of the Super Mario Movie last year: I liked that one too, but it's mostly carried by the visual spectacle, seeing the creators meticuously turn mario's patchwork world into a living breathing place, to see a giant version of dk island, to see Bowser's Kingdom in all it's glory. It's still a decent film, but it uses a pretty stock framework to do it because either the execs wanted that or the creators didn't feel they had the room to really push it. I could see the same problem here as you have Sony, Viacom and various sponsors Sony wants shoved in all wanting a say. This dosen't feel like say Across the Spider-Verse (Same parent companY) or Nimona (Same production company) where they had more freedom, so they just went with a formula that worked for other movies and worked for garfield before. The question is does that formula ruin the movie? Is there enough to still make it enjoyable despite being stock as hell?

Yes

The film is still pretty damn fun and feels like a welcome return to the character after being gone in other media for almost a decade. As Quinton Reviews pointed out in his review of this film, the Garfield Show ended in 2016. It's been a WHILE since the orange tabby's been animated, with his only apperances otherwise being in video games, showing up in Lasanga Party, Garfield Kart and being a guest racer in Nicktoons Kart Racers 3 and a fighter in both all star brawl games, all welcome as it's just.. fun to play as garfield. Does he have any real connection to nickelodeon besides them owning the property now? Nope. Is it fun to have him anyways? hell yeah. Have him hit the avatar with a pie, either one!

The strip still exists but like many aging comic strips it's clamped to it's formula. I've been reading it daily for a few months now and while there are occasional gems

It's mostly the same stuff. You can find better jokes by buying the first few three in ones. It's not nearly as bad as some other legacy strips, seriously why is Blondie still around, but it sticks out in an age where more cartoons like Heart of the City or Nancy are allowing someone to flat out reboot the strip and try something different.

With a movie you have that blank slate to do whatever and while it does a standard animated movie TM with it to a point, the film does try some neat stuff I can't help but admire.

The biggest point is the animation. DNEG did the animation here and went above and beyond the call. I love their designs, combinging modern garfield with some of the classic garfield heft and proportions: his limbs are still super skinny, but they aren't as gangly as they are in the strip, feeling more in line with his body and the head resembles the one from the early 80's more. The eyes are also without a line, which seems like a small detail but ups the expressivness, something key to garfield as "funny facial expressions" are one of Garfield's best bits.

Slapstick is where this franchise thrives and the film mostly does this well. I wish there were more, but it has some fun visual gags: while it was trailered to hell and back, the fluffy fur gag is pretty funny. All the gags with Roland, big bad Jinx's muscle played by Roy Bloody Kent himself Brett Goldstein has a lot of fun gags: How this wall of folds and muscle just.. will show up any time Garfield tries to leave, disappearing behind a sign and pulling a cell phone out of his folds his boss refuses to touch. It's not a ton, but it's a lot of fun and while he must've been a nightmare to animate, so, many, FOLDS, it results in a character that's just inherently funny to see walk around and Goldstein's gruff voice just adds to it.

There's other great btis like Garfield and Vic stuck to a tree and using the vines to beat the hell out of each other, garfield getting smacked into a car windsheild and more.

The animation is just gorgeously expressive: the non garfield cast may be somewhat stock but damn are they fun to watch and the main trio (and Liz and Nermal in very brief cameos) are at their best. IT's fun to look at, visually gorgeous and easily the best part of the film: the film may not remotely stack up to some of the masterpieces we've gotten, nor does it try to, but it does look great while having a lot of fun doing it.

Since we're talking character let's look at our cast and starting at the top Billing we have Garfield himself. Like I said Chris Pratt does.. fine. Would've preferred Nick Offerman, gold star to whoever brought that up, but he dosen't ruin the character and is still dryly sarcastic enough.

Characterization wise he's a tad diffrent: He's not nearly as much of a dick to Jon and Odie, something CellSpex pointed out in their own review might be corprate not wanting Garfield to be as dickish and thus less markketable. While I do think that's the case, I also think they threaded the needle well: Garfield is still a massive douchey orange blob to them, but it's in less over the top ways: him pummeling john or punting Odie siimply dosen't play as well, so instead he maxes out John's credit cards and Odie is essentially his butler. The former isn't super funny, but is fitting enough, and it's telling Jon, pushover he's always been, dosen't really push back against it, while having Odie instead be his hyper compentetn sidekick works. It could've backfired, turning Odie into something like say the minons that say s"please merchandise me", but instead it gives Garfield a foil, someone to make passive agressive dog noises or leave him tied to his dad on a tree. Odie is still dumb, but having him be garfield's slightly more emotoinally sasvy and competient sidekick still works well and gives him more than just "ain't he dumb" as a joke for a 90 minute runtime.

Jon is done incredibly well here but I wish there was more of him. This seems to be the sentiment across most reviews, and I can't blame my fellow critics on this one: Nicholas Hoult equals Thom Huge at the part, and like Garfield it's not easy. But it works by doing it a diffrent way: Thom had a dry sarcasm to his john that contrasted nicely with his manic dorky side, while Nicholas Hoult just leans into John as a loveable mess and it works. His panic as he tries to reign in a kitten garfield from eating an entire itallian restraunt, resignment as he washes the cat, and general bafflement at his pet fits the character like a glove.

Sadly the plot.. really dose't leave much room for Jon. It's understandable: Even if his mouth now moves, Jon can't undrestand garfield and the film outlines this, with an app specifically to translate animals being needed and only being known to exist by an unhinged security guard. It still would've been fun to give him more of a b plot looking for his pets, maybe rope in liz or irma from the diner as side characters.

What B-Plot we do get though.. is easily the best joke of the film. Jon is left on hold by a lost pet hotline for SEVERAL DAYS growing more hilariously deshevleed along the way. There is nothing more jon arbuckle than the world pantsing him while he's down and his deranged rant to the guard at the pound when he picks up the boys that "I'm done waiting! The Jon who is waiting is dead!" is fucking great, as is his bafflement when the boys run out on him after getting home to go save Garfield's dad, and his wondering if he triggered garfield when Garfield runs out to bring his dad home at the end. Hoult plays a perfectly pathetic jon, the relatable doofus we all know and love and I hope any future projects both bring him on board and give him more to do. The man is brillaint

Likewise Harvey Gullien is great as Odie. He has to commuincate using barely intellgible dog sounds, and of course great visuals from DNEG, but does so well. The man's voice acting career is a slow burn but man should he do more. He was great in Puss in Boots, is aces here and should be in most animated films from here on out. If Sony needs an Alan Tudyk, they've got one.

Onto supporting we have Garfield's Father, Vic, played by Samuel L Jackson. Vic is a big kitty who left garfield behind as a kitten and whose past crimes force his son into a heist wtih him. Look like Keith David I could listen to Sam Jack all day, easy. He has a talent for being awesome no matter the movie and no matter how much he's just in it for a paycheck. He's playing a fairly stock "ex con dad" type character who wonders into his child's life and tries to reconcile, but he has so much fun with it it's hard to really notice and the design, a big giant muscly blob, works well as a contrast to garfield: both are big soft boys, but Vic clearly lifts.

The plot between the two is cliche, I won't lie.. son is bitter his father left but DADDY HAD A GOOD REASON FOR ABANDONING YOU and if done wrong can have some bad implications. If a parent left you and is a dick, you have no obligation to them. Even if their not you don't really.

The twist that Vic didn't MEAN to abandon garfield was obvious from a mile away: even seeing the trailer it was clear he probably wasn't the asshole Garfield thought he was. But to the film's credit they don't hide that it's more complicated: from the get go Vic TRIES to explain he left, but Garfield's both understandably pissed he said he'd "be right back" and never came back and that Vic's old partner Jinx is forcing garfield into the film's heist simply to fuck with vic. It's also the right push to get Garfield into the plot: i've seen complaints about how "oh this big heist film isn't garfield he just lies around the house".. .but a key element of most of the specials and the other movies is garfield kinda gets.. shoved into adventure. Here Come Garfield happens because the next door neighbor has the pound come and Odie's too stupid to run for it. He tries to ignore his friend being lost, and tries to tell Jon who naturally dosen't get his charades, but ultimately goes to save him. The key to getting garfield into an adventure is to push him into it: either he has an emotoinal investment or , like in this case, he really has no choice, like that time he fought a panther to protect Jon. You CAN get plenty of good slice of life nonsense out of the boy but i get that for a specail or movie you have to kick it up a notch and having Garfield forced into a life of crime fits well.

It's a bit fucking weird, but again so is garfield. It's something people tend to forget or don't really care to look up and that came up in a lot of reviews, but the specials could get werid. Garfield was on a talent show, went through 9 very diffrent very fucking weird lives, was a private eye, had a whole spy pastiche adventure in his daydreams, went to hawaii to stop a volcano with the help of Fonzie's ghost.. or was it james dean's ghost? it was someone's ghost, and of course met ghost pirates. Not every adventure was fucking insane, but it bears repeating sometimes the strip or specials or especially the show got weird, and that's alright. Frankly the films could go weirder and less stock, but this really isn't out of his wheelhouse. Like with Scooby Doo maybe research a franchise before you bitch about it. not saying everything's gold, lord no, but I am saying the franchise is way more experimental than it gets credit for.

The twist on WHY vic left though.. is heartbreaking. This ties back to the opening which you can see most of in a trailer: vic abandons his son, Jon finds baby garfield outside the window while he's having a sad single man meal at an itallian restraunt, Garfield eats everything in sight and Jon still adores his pet. The only part left out is Jon almost leaves Garfield behind, as his apparement dosen't allow pets.. but goes back. Why they added this.. I don't know.. but their origin is truly hearwarming and may be another reason why they toned down the asshole to Garfield being less of an abusive roomate and more Jon's spoiled teenage son.

Naturally though we didn't see VIC'S side: he went to steal some food for his son, had to wait for the worker's long as hell phone call becaues some dick won't feed a stray cat. I mean I get they come back but counter argument: who cares. As long as you don't invite a roving pack of cats, help the starving kitty you ass. At any rate by the time vic got back with half a fish, his son was gone and he watched the whole scene at the itallian restraunt.. and then watched Jon come back, realizing Jon gave his son a better life. He gave his son up so he could. As for why he never visted it's the painful but truthful worry of ruining his son's new life: vic's a career heist man, an alley cat and garfield was comfortable. The sad irony is garfield.. woudl've welcomed his dad in. Jon being Jon would've gladly adopted him. Garfield wanted both HIS dads. Vic instead watched from a nearbye tree, a revelation garfield only gets in the pound after Vic fakes a double cross... when really he knows Jinx will NEVER let garfield free of her grasp and thus returns the milk from the heist himself. Naturally garfield realizes this, gets a drone fleet to help him rescue his dad along with the bull they befriended earlier, and saves the day.. and Vic still plans to leave but ultiamtely garfield convinces him to stay. Is it a tad cliche? Sure. Did it still knock my fucking heart out? yes.

Outside of this emotoinal arc, Vic is a lot like his son, but more active, having more world skills... and it's not really played up. Vic's emotinal arc is well done but outside of it he dosen't have much charater. Only the fact he's played by sam Jack really lets him be a character. He's not BAD but I wish they'd fleshed him out more outside of his tragic backstory. It moves me.. but there's not much else to the guy.

Onto our bad guys, and Jinx, our main villian is a delight. She has a decent motive too: She was once a would be show cat, but choked on stage, genuinely found family with Vic.. and turned vengeful when he left her behind on a job, her hate twisting her into the operatic selfish tyrant we see today with her two henchman Roland, the foldy brett goldstein boy I mentioned before and Rupert, his twitchy partner played by SNL and Fire Island's Bowen Yang. Roland is great mostly due to the expressive animation and Goldstein's deadpan delivery. Youc an almost feel rupert about to threaten

Good times. yang.. gets less to do. Roland is just kinda there because they felt they HAD to have a pair of henchman and coudln't have just one big british foldy boy. It's also weird to me they didn't go with another ted lasso cast member. There's tons of options and if you already got the big bad and one of her henchman from there commit to the bit. The show's lined with talent.

Speaking of which Jinx is voiced by Hannah Waddingham, who like Goldstein was a dream on Ted Lasso. She also was recently in the fall guy which you should watch. Seriously .. go.. go do that. It's fucking incredible. At any rate she makes the most of the role hamming it up to all hell, giving Jinx a nice manical quality. Jinx isn't given a ton of layers outside of her backstory, but is hilarous enoguh with her big fluffy persian cat presensce, general evil dickery and awesome villian song that for some weird reason wasn't actually put in the film proper but makes the credits a joy to sit through, she's a LOT of fun and you can tell Waddingham is knawing on the scenery in the recording booth and loving it. I like her getting to flex her range post-ted lasso, already terrific as Rebecca but now getting to play a nice variety of parts. Jinx wouldn't be the same without Waddingham and the casting was perfect

Our penultimate major character is Otto. Otto is a bull and garfield's grumpy mentor with a tragic backstory because everyone has a tragic backstory in this movie except Odie and that's because they cut the scene of Lyman getting shot to death in the falkland's war. He's a bull who was part of the farm Garfield has to heist with is daddy guy, and was removed from it because the new owners are dicks, desperate to get back his one true love Ethel. He's played by Ving Rahmes, who does a great job and the character honestly isn't bad, it's just.. weridly sandwitched into this movie. A ways in and we suddenly get this guy who should be leading this whole other movie. The heist itself fits decently enough, but this whole tragic past, his history with the guard Margie, it feels like a whole other film that Garfield and Friends just wondered into.

Otto is fun to watch, his serious as hell tone contrasting with things like assinging Garfield roadkill or his deadpan assement that Garfield and Vic are going to die and are only ready because they'd need a month and have a day. He's not bad, he' sjust a bit undercooked> he does get his happy ending with Ethel back, so tha'ts nice, it just feels like another character in a cast that probably didn't need one more guy.

Finally we have Marge, the security guard played by Schmigadoon! star Cecily Strong. Strong fucking brings it to marge, who could easily just be this obstacle of a villian but instead is this super obessed guard who has a score to settle with vic, instantly recognizes that jinx calling to set vic up (And hilariously it just being Hannah Waddingham saying meow a lot), is a cat informing on someone, and has this unhinged energy the film needs and that fits garfield like a glove. Garfield is all about unhinged weirdos wondering into his life in other media. She provides a jolt of energy for the heist section and a nice way to payoff things later as she trades the truck for ethel and takes in Roland and Rupert while taking Jinx to the pound.. or to an unmarked grave. Marge.. is hard to read. I just love her though, having this werido who understand this elaborate animal plot somehow. Beauitful.

We also have a few smaller roll: Snoop Dogg plays a cat

Dev Joshi plays Liz for all of 5 seconds, and for some reason Jeff Foxworthy plays a bird for even less time.

The cast overall is decent, if a bit overstuffed, but iwth good enough performances to make you not care.

Before we move on a complaint i've seen here or there is that they don't really use garfield's supporting cast. I agree on Jon, Nicholas Hoult was too damn good to use that little, but for the rest of the cast.. I get it. None of them really fit into the narrative that well: Arlene, The Meanest Dog in the World, Nermal might of fit as members of the heist crew, it woudl've been intresting to see them gather one, but otherwise Jon's Parents, who I dearly love, don't quite fit (It'd be fucking werid to have garfield rob people he knows instead of a souless corperation0, Irma has no real place and Lyman got shot to death in the falkland islands. Other than their neighbors who used to show up, Garfield has no other recurring characters to use. it WOULD have been neat to use the US Acres cast for the heist, again could've gone full ocean's elven, but I get not adding even MORE characters to a crowded film, and possibly saving them for another movie down the line. Again Garfield dosen't have a big bench to pull from: if you have that full a cast that can stand on it's own and possibly anchor their own film, I can't blame the mfor saving them. Same for Arelen and Nermal Garfield falling in love or having to deal with his greatest enemy are both things that could anchor a sequel.

The Big Fat Hairy Conclusoin

So overall the Garfield Movie is.. fine. It's nothing exceptional, but it has a LOT of fun energy to it and out of the films i've seen i'ts easily the best.. and frankly I doubt Tale of Two Kitties or Pet Force is better. The film does have way too much advertising, a stock plot and way more characters than it needs.. but it compesates by mostly nailing the characters from the comic, having some of the guest characters be intresting, and when they aren't all parties involved are buffered by talented voice acting and gorgeous animation. This film is okay, and if you don't like Garfield, you probably won't like this film. If you like some goofy animation and some schmaltz though, you'll likely enjoy this one like I did. It's not perfect by a mile, but it adapts the strip's tone and style well, adds some florishes here and there, and leaves the door open for more. And frankly with it's success it gives me hope that other comic strips might get adaptations. After Paramount's treament of Phoebe and her Unicorn and Big Nate, we could use somre more comic strip movies with this level of animation, and maybe some more depth. I'd love to see films for more recent strips like Phoebe and her Unicorn, Wallace the Brave or Breaking Cat News that have both intresting casts to tap into and unique art styles that would look gorgeous on screen. I'd love to see some older strips get a new spin as well like Baldo or Zits, ones with a formula sure but a lot of visual flair. With this and the peanuts movie, we're hopefully seeing more comic strip adaptations and unlike last time this could be something good instead of CGI monsters from beyond the farthest star.

So I leave this film with an "I'ts alright you might like it" and the number two spot in my rankings of the specails i've covered

Next Time (Hopefully): It's Christmas in July so that Means it's time for us to get down on the farm with Jon's family for some musical numbers, home cooking and elaborate back scratcher b plots.

#here comes garfield

Trending Tags

Recently Viewed Tags

#here comes garfield