Film Review - "The Garfield Movie"

I don't write a review for every film I see, clearly. Sometimes life and time just get in the way, but regardless of wether I enjoyed the film or not, sometimes I just feel like I don't have enough to say about it to warrant a written piece.

However, oddly enough, I feel like I have enough about this one...

The Garfield Movie

Directed by Mark Dindal

Starring Chris Pratt, Samuel L. Jackson, Hannah Waddingham, etc.

I low-key enjoy the character of Garfield, and frankly as I grow older, crankier, and more cynical I relate to him a lot more. Who doesn't hate Mondays? I haven't touched those live-action films with Bill Murray in ages but I saw them in theaters. The DVD's are around here somewhere. It's a little surprising that it took until 2024 for Garfield to get a fully-animated, theatrical film. I was probably going to see it no matter what, or no matter who voiced the titular character (I think we all thought it was a prank since it was announced not too long after the Mario casting.)

The Garfield Movie came to theaters on Memorial Day weekend, and was met with less than favorable reviews. Many viewers, myself included, expected this film to be laughably bad. After having seen it for myself though, I think it's a flawed but enjoyable animated adventure.

The film finds Garfield (Pratt) reunited with his long-lost father Vic (Jackson) and roped into his life of crime. One of Vic's former partners, Jinx (Waddingham) wants revenge after he left her to rot in prison after a heist went south. Jinx will let bygones be bygones if Vic, Garfield, and Odie (Harvey Gullièn, but don't worry, Odie doesn't talk) can steal a large quantity of milk from the same dairy farm where she was caught all those years ago. Obviously, during all this Garfield is very reluctant to help and reconnect with his father.

So yeah. The Garfield Movie is a heist film. Not exactly the kind of caper you would expect a lazy, lasagna obsessed cat to be involved with. Honestly, maybe they just had a script about a generic father and son cat reuniting on some adventure, but were afraid it wouldn't have much draw without it being attached to a well-known IP, so they went "...Make it Garfield." That's at least the sense I get.

It's fun, though. There were a few moments I genuinely laughed out loud, and surprisingly there were also a lot of heartfelt moments that damnit, got me right in the feels. However, despite being just under two hours, there were times where the film dragged. Also there's a weird bit of product placement. I'm not saying there's a lot of it, but when it's there, there's no effort put into hiding it. It was almost like it was an afterthought, and they just went back and edited the PNG file of the product logo somewhere into the scene.

The animation is very charming, and the Jim Davis style translates to CGI seamlessly. The new characters lik Vic, Jinx and others also feel like they could've fit into one those classic animated television specials or the Garfield & Friends series. The voice acting is fine. No one really stands among the cast, except for Ving Rhames as Otto the Bull. He is the true MVP of the film. Hannah Waddingham is clearly having fun playing Jinx. Brett Goldstein and Bowen Yang have some funny moments as her henchman. I really want to know what the thought process was in getting Nicholas Hoult to show up and do his best American accent for the less than ten minutes Jon Arbuckle is in this film. There wasn't a thousand other white boys stateside that could've sufficied? It's not as egregious as getting Snoop Dogg to show up as a cat for literally five seconds I suppose...

Okay let's talk about Chris Pratt now. He's not putting as much effort (and I use the word "effort" lightly) into disguising his voice as he did in The Super Mario Bros but it works, but it would only work for this specific version of Garfield. He was casted because of his star-power, not because he was the best for the part. Everything I say about Pratt could also be said about Samuel L. Jackson as Vic, Garfield's father. A fine performance...but it just doesn't fit Garfield. For a portion of the film I was listing all the actors in my head who would've been a better fit, not just for Garfield, but Garfield's father (Nick Offerman, H. Jon Benjamin, Beck Bennett, maybe we could've convinced Bill Murray to come back for a third round? Actually that would be pretty clever if he was the dad in this film. I digress.)

Pratt (and Jackson's) performance is pretty symbolic of the film as a whole. It's fine, but it's just not Garfield. I loved the original animated series and the television specials, and the hijinks Garfield got into there are not the same here. I know it's weird to get critical about a Garfield movie but when you slap that name on it, that comes with a certain set of expectations. I do think if the filmmakers actually were more concerned with the father-son relationship, exploring Garfield's origins, and what makes Garfield who he is, this could've reached the same heights as say, The Peanuts Movie. I'm not saying Garfield can't go on crazy adventures, but those adventures should at least make some sense. 

Despite its flaws, The Garfield Movie is an enjoyable film with some heart, laughs, and quality animation. There's clear effort on the screen, albeit effort that's a bit misguided. Families will enjoy it, die-hard Garfield fans (??) maybe not so much. But I would happily revisit this one again.

The question now remains...which obscure character will Chris Pratt voice next? My vote? Ziggy.

Film Review - "Venom"

Venom
Directed by Ruben Fleischer
Starring Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, and Riz Ahmed

Hey all you 21+ readers out there. You ever been at a party, and see someone completely plastered, making a total, trashy spectacle of themselves? You ever get the feeling to step in and put a stop to it, but you can't because what you're watching is somewhat entertaining? That's Venom.

The first film in an Anti-Marvel Cinematic Universe from Sony, Venom tells the origin of one of Spider-Man's most infamous foes (Just without Spider-Man, because of the whole shared custody thing. That's okay, you know Venom's origin is only like, totally linked to Spider-Man..).

Genius-but-sinister millionaire Carlton Drake (Ahmed) is searching for new habitable planets for humanity out in space. One of his rockets returns to Earth in a fiery wreck, with alien symbiotes for testing. Drake begins less than humane-tests to merge symbiotes with humans. Meanwhile, disgraced journalist Eddie Brock (Hardy) investigates Drake and his company. While breaking into Drake's laboratory with concerned scientist Dora Skirth (Jenny Slate), Eddie merges with one of the symbiotes.

The symbiote begins to manipulate Eddie, but soon they realize they will both need each other to get what they want, and to survive. Together, they will become Venom.

Venom is hot trash. There's no disputing that. The script is rushed and as flimsy as the paper it was probably printed on. The film blows through key plot points in the beginning to get Eddie to hit rock bottom and into a position where he will break into the lab to expose Carlton Drake and bond with Venom. But at the same time, the actual Venom doesn't show up until halfway through the film. So pacing's a bit of an issue.

There's no emotional investment to have in what any of the characters are doing, because there's no time left for real plot or character development. We don't fret about what Carlton Drake is doing because we don't really know him or his motivations. We don't worry over Eddie and Anne (Michelle Williams)'s relationship because we hardly see them together as a couple.

If you're a character in this film and your name is not Eddie Brock or Venom you're pretty much a plot device and nothing more. Michelle Williams gives a nice performance, but it's undeserving of a generic "concerned ex-girlfriend" role. Riz Ahmed, also a very talented actor, is just playing the bland, CEO villain. Poor Jenny Slate is all but wasted in her small and insignificant role.

The saving grace of Venom…is Venom. Tom Hardy gives an amazing performance both as Eddie Brock and Venom. The relationship dynamic between human and symbiote characters is truly a delight to watch, and the CGI on Venom is great (Not so much on his nemesis Riot, but that's beside the point). It probably wasn't the intention of the filmmakers, but Eddie & Venom's relationship provide a lot of laugh out loud moments. It turns the film into a very awkward buddy-comedy. Again, probably not what they wanted, but I'd be more than willing to see Hardy reprise this role in a much better film.

Venom houses a truly great performance from its lead actor. Unfortunately it's trapped within the center of a poorly made and poorly written film. Sort of like Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad, I'd like to see Hardy's Venom back in a film more worthy of his time and effort. The box office returns suggests a Venom 2 will happen, but with Sony at the wheel, the quality is in question.

Then there's the whole question of "Is this connected to the MCU?" The answer changes depends on who you ask, and wether it's a question of film quality or profit. Then you also have to wonder if the success of Venom will give Sony the hubris to say to Marvel, "You know what? We don't need you to make Spider-Man films anymore."…

…Hey let's review A Star Is Born next!

Yeah...About Spider-Man Joining The MCU

If I may quote John C. Reilly in Guardians of The Galaxy, "This may not be the best idea…"

There was a time when Spider-Man was one of the most popular superhero characters brought to film. Back then though, we had nowhere near as many superhero film franchises on the screen that we do now. Back then, we probably only had Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman with a few failed attempts at The Hulk and Fantastic Four scattered in between.

Let's focus on the mid-to-late 2000's. In 2005, Christopher Nolan began his Batman series with Batman Begins, but the world had yet to see how much this series would shake up the system. They would have to wait until 2008 for that, with the very successful sequel The Dark Knight.

In 2006, Superman made a mediocre to return to the screen with Superman Returns. The film failed to get the franchise going again, and fans would have to wait until 2013 for sadly another mediocre, successful reboot of the character in the form of Man of Steel. 

Then in 2007, came Spider-Man 3, making the web-slinger the first of the three to complete a…ahem, successful, trilogy of films at the time (By the way, we're ignoring the Christopher Reeve Superman films, and any pre-Nolan Batman right now).

Now we all know what became of Spider-Man 3, and frankly all of Sam Raimi's original trilogy hasn't aged too well. So while the world would wait for a Spider-Man 4 (and never get it), Superman would return to film-development purgatory, and Batman would continue to soar under the direction of Nolan.

The very same year The Dark Knight came out, Robert Downey Jr. walked up to a podium and said "I am Iron Man", and something truly special began. Of course I'm referring to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. A franchise of films produced by Marvel Studios themselves. These films soon gained a huge fan base, and gave heroes like Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor who weren't well known by the general public, a chance to shine.

After Phase One of the MCU came to a ground-breaking conclusion with The Avengers, the franchise continued to grow. Phase Two would give Iron Man, Capt, and Thor more to do, while taking a gamble with Guardians of The Galaxy. A gamble that turned into one of the most successful films of the year. Marvel was at a point where it seemed like they could do no wrong. The MCU is poised to raise the bar again this summer with Avengers: Age of Ultron, and end Phase Two with an introduction to another lesser known hero in Ant Man.

"Okay what about Spider-Man?" you ask? Well, in 2012 the franchise was rebooted with The Amazing Spider-Man. I myself have often heard mixed reactions to the film, but personally I find it better than the entirety of Sam Raimi's trilogy. Last year, its sequel was released. You'll remember I gave my own review of it, but the general consensus was The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was no good.

Sony Pictures began trying to fix their mistakes. The Amazing Spider-Man 3 was thrown into limbo, and the Sinister Six spinoff was pushed up a year. There was talk of another spinoff featuring all of Spidey's lady friends (Black Cat, Spiderwoman..), and another spinoff about…Aunt May??

Meanwhile, Marvel Studios showed their hand, and revealed the entirety of Phase Three. All of it. A third film for Captain America and Thor. Introductions to more lesser knowns like Doctor Strange, Captain Marvel, and Black Panther. And a culmination of everything that has come before, with a two-part event, Avengers: Infinity War. The world went nuts, while a certain Spider-Man, a character that was once one of the most popular superheroes out there, was taking a backseat to the likes of Rocket Raccoon and Hawkeye, and becoming as big a joke as a George Clooney Batman.

It was clear, Kevin Feige and Marvel were very confident in this plan that had been laid out, and couldn't wait any longer to reveal it to their fans. One has to imagine a plan like this had been years in the making, and carefully thought out.

(Alright. History lesson over.)

Then, a few days ago, what was only a pipe-dream for many fans became a reality. Sony agreed to play nice with Marvel, and Spider-Man was announced to be joining the MCU. After the initial shock, and letting more information get released, I've decided to voice my thoughts on all of this.

First off, I don't have a problem with Spider-Man joining the MCU. I want to make that clear. He's one of Marvel's most popular characters and he deserves to be back home, and under their supervision. My problem is how they're bringing him in. A new Spider-Man solo film has been announced for July 2017. The hardcore-nerds will remember that is when Thor: Ragnarok was supposed to come out. As a circumstance of the new Spider-Man film, the back two-thirds of Phase Three have been shuffled around.

Here's Phase Three pre-Spidey:

• Captain America: Civil War
• Doctor Strange
• Guardians of The Galaxy 2
• Thor: Ragnarok
• Black Panther
• Avengers: Infinity War Part 1
• Captain Marvel
• Inhumans
• Avengers: Infinity War Part 2

and here's Phase Three with Spidey:

• Captain America: Civil War
• Doctor Strange
• Guardians of The Galaxy 2
• New Spider-Man Film
• Thor: Ragnarok
• Avengers: Infinity War Part 1
• Black Panther
• Captain Marvel
• Avengers: Infinity War Part 2
• Inhumans

I've spared the release dates, but as you can see, everything after Guardians 2, with the exception of Infinity War Part 1 and 2, has been pushed back a slot to make room for Spider-Man. This seems really confusing. Why was everything pushed back but Infinity War? The supposed grand crescendo of the MCU (Assuming whatever Phase Four is, if it even is). Black Panther, which was our last film before Infinity War began is now sandwiched between the two parts, and Inhumans has gone from being in-between the Infinity War's to now becoming the official(?) end to Phase Three, much like how Ant-Man  and Age of Ultron swapped spots in Phase Two.

So my question is, do Panther, Marvel, and Inhumans really have that little effect on Infinity War? I can't imagine so, except with maybe Inhumans. I see that one being like Guardians, off doing its own thing while The Avengers take care of everything on the other side of the universe. Safe money is on all of these characters getting in on the action in The Infinity Wars, just how and when has changed.

Now while I'm sure they already have a storyline/timeline planned for Phase Three, I think it's safe to say scripts for all of these films are still being written (or re-written if Spider-Man's really changing things up). Will what they had in mind for Captain Marvel or Black Panther back in October be completely different to what we'll see in a few years? Most likely. Was this plan for Phase Three not as concrete as originally perceived? Perhaps.

Ask for Spider-Man himself, well he will no longer be played by Andrew Garfield, which is sad. Garfield was a perfect Peter Parker, and unfortunately fell victim to a bad script and studio direction with The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It almost feels like unjust punishment to the poor guy, who was such a huge fan that he dressed up as Spider-Man at Comic Con many years ago, at The Amazing Spider-Man's panel. Reports say they're recasting someone younger, and looking to bring Spider-Man back into his high school days. One can deduce from that the continuity of The Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2 is being thrown out the window. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 wasn't flat-out terrible. It had its moments, and part of me wishes Sony would finish what they started, but que sera.

So where's the beef? Well, look at it like this. Imagine every year at Thanksgiving dinner, your cousin, let's call him Marvin, got the best seat and say grace. Then he went to go work in some other country, and so gradually you took his seat at the table, and you got the honor of saying grace. Then wham. One Thanksgiving, Marvin finally comes home, and you know what? He took back his seat, and is saying grace. The seat and privilege you earned after he just went and left it, and he just took it back. You're a punk Marvin…anyway…

That's kind of what bringing Spider-Man into the MCU is feeling like. A lot of fuss is being made over the return of this one character, and everything is being changed for him. Captain America, Thor, even Groot, characters that by all accounts weren't expected to have become this mainstream, and dare I say earn their popularity, seem to be getting the shaft because cool kid Spider-Man's back in town.

Then you have Panther and Captain Marvel, who fans have been demanding to see on film for years, poised to finally get their chance to shine, are now getting put on a back burner for Spider-Man. Black Panther is set to appear in Captain America: Civil War, and supposedly so is Spider-Man, set to make his debut appearance in the MCU. I can't bring up too much issue with this. Spider-Man is a key player in the Civil War storyline in the comics, and Black Panther really wasn't, so we'll be getting a more faithful adaptation. Panther's appearing in Civil War before his solo film, and I'm betting we'll get a glimpse of him in Age of Ultron, so it's not like this character is disappearing into Spider-Man's shadow. Let's just hope he doesn't fall to what I'm going to call now "The Thanos Effect", meaning we'll only see one or two glimpses of him for years until his own film comes out.

But back to the likes of Captain Marvel, which brings me to my final point. If you asked me if I wanted to see another Spider-Man film or a Captain Marvel film…I'd pick Captain Marvel. I honestly think we've seen enough Spider-Man for awhile. If it were up to me, I'd save him for Infinity War, ushering him in as a key player in Phase Four or whatever the MCU becomes once Phase Three ends. I like that Marvel keeps giving us new characters to fall in love with, new heroes to root for. Spider-Man…I think we need a break from him. It's like Batman. Not a few weeks after Nolan's trilogy had ended, rumors of another reboot of The Dark Knight was coming. Now it's pretty much here with Superman Vs Batman: Dawn of Justice next year (A new solo Batman film has yet to be announced). Then there's the show Gotham, but another topic for another day.

I am not a studio executive or Hollywood insider. To self-depreciate for a moment, this is nothing more than the ramblings of a cranky nerd. I'm well aware that everything is still in a stage of "what if". Scripts are probably still being written, actors are probably still being cast, and this deal was probably months in the making. Feige and Marvel probably had this as a Phase Three-Plan B if the deal with Sony ever went through. Call it the result of the North Korean/hacking of Sony awhile back, or the failure of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but this is now happening. Perhaps Spider-Man joining the MCU will have a barely noticeable change to Phase Three. I mean as of right now, the shifting of Ant-Man appears to have had no effect on Phase Two, so who knows. Only the people at Marvel and Sony know. For now, I remain cautiously optimistic.

One thing that can be certain, is we can expect to see a fresh and superior take on everyone's friendly neighborhood Spider-Man in a few years. Welcome Home, Spidey.