leplatypus
In other words, as an adult, i got bored quickly! However i like cats (over dogs) and there isn't much cats movies nevertheless this one is really bad: as he kept talking, after five minutes, i was fed up! His attitude is also not enjoyable and at the end, he is not funny! The story is dragging, already seen (toy story 2), with transparent characters really inspired from classic Disney (Crueala!). sure i maybe laughed a few times but at the end, i was rather happy that it was a quick movie (not even 80 minutes)! Finally, i found that the real dog was much more interesting, that this movie ranks very low for interacting characters (Roger Rabbit stays the best!) and indeed Hewitt was the bait to make wait dads!
anthony-rigoni
Bill Murray, what are you doing in this movie? You played one of the Ghostbusters, man! You should have known better! I loved Garfield and the comic strips, but why would you make a live action film featuring a CGI cat and a CGI dog! I got plenty of things that are wrong with this movie.First of all, Odie is a yellow beagle! That dog who's suppose to look like Odie doesn't actually look like him at all! Second, it's trying to rip-off the first Garfield TV Special: Here comes Garfield. The plot nearly resembles the 1980 TV special and tries to rip it off. Third, the actors. Why couldn't you get Frank Welker to voice Garfield or Greg Berger to voice Odie?! What the heck is wrong with you?! Finally, the entire movie should have been in animation! Whoever said that live-action with crappy CGI characters is a great idea was high on dope! This movie is an utter disgrace to the Garfield franchise and it should have never been made in the first place! Where is Jim Davis when you needed him?!!
colem11
Garfield himself is not a likable character in this film. Since he's the main character, that's a problem. This movie gets 3 points from me because it made my child laugh twice. That's worth something. We will never watch it again, and I can't believe there is a sequel. Sequels are usually reserved for movies which were actually good.Let's summarize: This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I am stunned that there was even a sequel. The only reason this film made any money at all is that parents are always willing to try any film out if their kids might like it. As soon as a child is old enough to understand the plot, they will not like it.
MartianOctocretr5
Annoying for adults; boring for children. This cat movie is a real dog.There's no story, and no plot. What works in the comic strip is torturous as a movie. Garfield spends 90 minutes or so of your time spewing mocking remarks about his companions, the hapless John Arbuckle and Odie the dimwitted dog. Odie and John stand there and take it, just making dopey looks amidst the poorly rendered animation. Odie is a real animal, while Garfield is animated; this is awkward, and makes no sense. They have one thing in common, though: neither of them is interesting or endearing in any way. Jennifer Love Hewitt (before she advised dead people in Ghost Whisperer), shows up every once in a while, also doing not much of anything. There's no identity with the characters, no fun, no involvement in whatever was going on (which wasn't much). Bill Murray impersonates the late Lorenzo Music as the jaded, apathetic, and sarcastic Garfield voice pretty well. But it was a much funnier routine when Music did Carlton the doorman, an offstage character that was never seen. We all would have been better off if Garfield had never been seen, either.
AD
