The recent release of another Garfield movie leaves many questioning the need for its existence. The film seems to echo the sentiment about the comic strip “Nancy” - it might take more energy to avoid it than to simply partake in it, especially under the relentless requests of young children. It's not terrible, and it may provide children with a sense of entertainment, but parents and guardians may feel let down by the uninspiring content and the blatant attempt to capitalize on a beloved franchise they once knew.
Garfield, the iconic comic strip created by Jim Davis nearly half a century ago, is known for its simplistic nature and a limited array of characters. In the strip, Garfield is a cat who rules his human, Jon, and a pooch named Odie. His character traits are not directly translated to the big screen, perhaps to adjust to a full-length movie format. In the animated film version, Garfield, voiced by Chris Pratt, maintains his love for food but is considerably mellowed down in his obnoxiousness.
The story unfolds predictably, as a kitten Garfield finds a home with Jon after a run-in at a restaurant. Fast forward to present day, Garfield enjoys a comfy life of drone food deliveries and watching Catflix, and a bond forms between him and Odie. Their easy life takes a turn when Garfield’s dad reappears, triggering feelings of abandonment. Eventually, the trio gets kidnapped by Jinx which redirects the narrative to a heist story to escape.
Despite its complex storyline, the movie does not necessarily captivate the audience. Several elements appear unsuitable for children, failed to provide comedic value for adults, and some were outright unsettling. The theme of abandonment, aggressive female villains, poorly chosen jokes, and a convoluted subplot about farm acquisition are a few areas of concern. To put it plainly, the new Garfield movie might not be really worth the watch.
