This film is disappointing, riddled with issues, and fails to capture the charm and essence of the original Garfield cartoon character. I’ve been fond of Garfield for years, especially his animated adaptations from my childhood, which I greatly enjoyed. While I've seen more recent digital versions, I still believe the classic material offers better stories. Comparing this 2004 film to those earlier iterations is a real challenge because it falls short, even with some positive aspects worth noting. The movie was directed by someone named Joel Cohen—not the Joel from the Coen Brothers; it’s another person entirely whom I wasn't familiar with. It doesn't seem like he excelled in film school…the editing is clumsy and uneven, dragging on with unnecessary scenes before rushing through the ending. Beyond the pacing problems, the soundtrack isn’t memorable, and the movie lacks a certain spark that would give it life. Although sarcasm functions well and remains a defining characteristic of Garfield, even he seems less funny and charismatic than this version in the film, and most jokes feel empty, particularly for adult viewers. The script doesn't capitalize on the rich source material from the comics and cartoons, instead presenting a story that’s dull, uninspired, poorly written, and full of tired tropes. It feels as though those involved didn’t understand or appreciate the character; the plot focuses solely on the friendship between Garfield and Oddie, a cat and dog who must learn to share their owner's attention. There’s an attempt to add more with a villain reminiscent of Cruella De Vil, exploiting animals for personal gain. Ultimately, he comes across like Mufasa in “The Lion King,” with strikingly similar scenes that reveal a lack of originality on the part of the production team. Despite these significant flaws, the film does have some redeeming qualities, notably the CGI and digital animation seamlessly integrated into live-action footage—a technical achievement even for the early 2000s. However, one glaring inconsistency stands out: Garfield himself. Since it’s a “live action” movie where all characters appear realistic, why wasn't the orange cat treated the same way? He remains distinctly animated and clashes jarringly with everything else onscreen. For example, he looks out of place compared to Oddie or even Nermal; those characters are more convincingly rendered. The casting appears to have been safe—competent actors were chosen to ensure a baseline level of quality. Jennifer Love Hewitt delivers an adequate performance, but the film is beyond her ability to save, as her role is too minor. Bill Murray, though only providing voice work, is perfectly suited for the part; his tone and comedic timing are exceptional. Even he seems aware of the movie’s shortcomings, despite receiving substantial payment. Stephen Tobolowsky portrays a weak and unthreatening villain lacking any real personality, while Brekin Meyer fails to give Jon a character worthy of respect, instead portraying him as a hapless figure.

Source on TMDB