Related articles and links |  1 of 4

Jim Davis' Garfield comic strip has entertained people in daily newspapers for decades. But there's a big difference between a three-panel comic strip and a full-length feature film. Critics are saying that this feline probably should have stayed on the funny pages.

Family media watchdogs agree that this lazy self-absorbed cartoon character feline and his slobbering sidekick Odie are funny enough on the big screen to be entertaining for kids and parents alike. But is there anything truly excellent and worthy of praise here? Those who give Garfield a passing grade seem merely relieved to find a movie that doesn't offend them; they don't have much to say about what it does do.

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, "The trailer leaves us with the strong and unmistakable impression that the film is going to be a boring, unfaithful, and unfunny bastardization of the popular comic strip. That's exactly what we get." He says the mix of live-action and animated characters "does not work. We are never drawn into this hybrid world, and are instead reminded as to how false and forced it is."

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "Despite some funny moments … [director Peter] Hewitt coughs up a hairball." He describes the cat's antics as "staler than three-day-old Purina Cat Chow."

But Stefan Ulstein (Christianity Today Movies) says, "Parents and kids will find a lot to like in this charming film adaptation. [The movie] is not terribly sophisticated, but there is enough to keep parents from squirming in their seats with boredom. There is nothing … to cause parents to shudder."

"Garfield: The Movie isn't bad," says Adam Holz (Plugged In). "But a three-panel comic does not an 85-minute movie make. The movie does a reasonably good job of capturing the spirit of [the] cartoon. But it would be a disservice not to say that its positive elements have been dealt with better in countless other movies."

Mainstream critics are rating it as one of the year's worst, inclined toward remarks about litter boxes and words like "cat-astrophe." Sean Axmaker (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) remarks, "This isn't a movie. It's a marketing ploy."

In 2000, a low-budget sci-fi adventure film called Pitch Black delivered enough enthusiasm and creativity to win a crowd of fans, largely due to one of its central characters. We were introduced to Riddick (Vin Diesel), a murderer in shackles who is freed when his spaceship crashes. His talent for killing comes in handy when he and the other stranded survivors are forced to contend with a deadly race of aliens that only come out during a rare solar eclipse. The character made enough of an impression that his creator, David Twohy (Below), decided to expand his story in a big-budget trilogy.

And so we now have The Chronicles of Riddick. You would think that a bigger budget, a cast that includes Dame Judi Dench (Iris, Shakespeare in Love), and a heavily publicized video game tie-in would get things off to a good start.

You would think so …

"Perhaps they should have called it The Chronicles of Riddick-ulous," writes Michael Elliott (Movie Parables). "The story and dialogue is beyond laughable. How else should we receive lines such as 'It's been a long time since I smelled beautiful' if not with incredulity? The names given to places and people would be more fitting in a Mad Magazine spoof of the film than in the film itself."

Gerri Pare (Catholic News Service) says, "It's not the kind of sequel where you need to have seen the first to comprehend the second; it's just that the better choice is to see the first and maybe skip the second. For all its density of plot and frequent shootouts … Twohy's script lags, with the necessary sense of urgency distinctly lacking. The characters … are left underdeveloped and end up being dull."

next page... |  1 of 4

share this page

June (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48