Garfield the Movie – Nostalgia Critic

I think now’s a good time to remind you to have your pet spayed or neutered. The Nostalgia Critic reviews 2004’s Garfield the Movie.

Get some AWESOME Channel Awesome T-Shirts HERE

About Doug Walker

Creator of 5 Second Movies, Nostalgia Critic, Bum Reviews and more.


  1. ThatManWithTheHeadband12

    Ahem, it’s “spayed”

  2. OMG Doug!

    I have been waiting so long for you to get to this movie and I’m a huge Garfield fan. We were even born in the same year! (’78)

    • Great review like always Doug. Seeing Uncle Yo and Orlando made it feel like a reunion of some sorts since I haven’t seen Uncle Yo since Demo Reel and Dragonbored and Orlando since the Daredevil review.

      I’ve been a HUGE fan of Garfield since I was a kid and even take pride we were both born in ’78. I constantly collected the books as a kid and the Garfield and Friends cartoon was the absolute best adaptation of the comics that literally brought the characters to life.

      However, when this movie was announced, I was skeptical because I thought the CG Garfield looked awful and had no idea what kind of plot a Garfield movie would actually be. I know Garfield had those one hour specials which were well done (Garfield on the Town which is the special where he meets his mother is still my favorite hands down), but a full 90 minute movie?

      Yeah, the movie disappointed me on every level. Bill Murray wasn’t a bad choice for Garfield’s voice since Lorenzo Music was already long gone, but he didn’t deliver any of the lines with Lorenzo Music’s charm and laidbackness. Garfield is a loveable asshole, but Bill Murray and the bad script just make Garfield an asshole.

      Jon and Liz are probably the worst offenders in the movie by far. Jon was always this naive doofus, but none of that was shown in this movie. I felt that Garfield literally had a different owner if he wasn’t named after Jon.

      And WTF were they thinking with Liz? In the comics, Liz was always this funny sarcastic vet who always brushed off Jon’s advances, but her character was completely rewritten into the typical awkward love interest who was actually NICE in the movie as opposed to being sarcastic in the comics.

      I was really really really hoping this line from the comics would have made it in:

      Jon: “Is Liz short for Elizabeth?”
      Liz: “No, it’s short for Lizard”

      I know Jon and Liz got together in the comics a while back, but it’s funny lines like that which show how funny their relationship was before they got together.

      I’ve ranted long enough, but I really love Garfield and hated hated HATED this movie so much that I refuse to believe a sequel exists. Thank you Doug and co. for ripping this piece of shit apart.

  3. …I had no idea what you were satiring in the intro there.

    • Bill Murray said the only reason he agreed to do this was he thought it was a Coen Brothers movie. Kind of far to go for a joke most people won’t get.

    • Which, I’m pretty sure Murray was kidding when he said that Anyway, it was a slightly missed opportunity to not have Rob play the other Coen brother. I get it’d slightly ruin the joke made with Doug playing both of then but I’d think Rob could have pulled-off playing off Doug with them both being a Coen.

      As well as playing off the infamous Murray claim, I guess it was also an opportunity to slightly mock to Coens and their style considering it’s not likely any of their movies are worthy of being featured on TNC since none of them are really that “bad.”

  4. Wow, you reviewed one Bill Murray movie a couple weeks ago, so why not review another one for the next review, AND one that Bill Murray said he regrets.

    • I’ve actually saw the Garfield movie in theatres with my sister, and all I remember about it in the end was that Bill Murray played the voice of a CGI Garfield, Jennifer Love Hewitt being hot as always, and actual dog playing Odie, a plot with a TV host being the villain, and that’s about it. I haven’t see the sequel that came out two years later, because I was more interested in waiting to see Superman Returns that summer.

      I think The Cinema Snob would find your opening sketch a better adaptation of Garfield, because it’s as pretentious as fuck.

      At least Lloyd the Cat went on to be owned by The Cinema Snob’s after playing Nermal in this film.

      13:57- CORRECTION: Odie made it on the front page of the Dog Show News, not the regular newspaper.

      PLEASE stop bitching about Man of Steel being a product placement whore. Also, at the county fair in my home town, there’s a train set which ALSO has a Pepsi build board.

      17:51- I think the President sketch would have work if you had Bush Jr. instead of Obama, because this movie was released in 2004.

      18:28- (Sarcastically) Yeah, more bitching about the effects in Jurassic World. That never gets old.
      BTW, ILM did NOT do the effects for this film. Also, I’m sure the effects guys had something with green screen material for the actors to hold on to so they can replace it with Garfield in post.

      20:59- Yeah, Mike J also used that clip from Zombieland in his review on the sequel.

      Looking back on this film, I can say that this adaptation of everyone’s favorite fat cat is as bland as frack.

      • The bitching part of Man of Steel you mentioned is all a joke =_= Everything he does in his videos are jokes =_= Don’t take things so seriously.

        But he is kind of correct when there’s too much product placement it becomes some what irritating. He isn’t the only one who says this in their videos.

      • Douchey McNitpick? Aren’t you supposed to be in the Plot Hole?

    • I wonder why Bill Murray even did the sequel in the first place. Must have wanted the paycheck.

  5. Charmander is a lizard pokemon, he doesn’t have hair, much less pubic hair.

  6. I predicted that you’d review this, just like the Fantastic Four! I guess I just know you too well. It was hard to stop laughing at this. I remember seeing this in theaters. I don’t remember it being THIS stupid! I used to like Garfield as a kid, now I just think he’s unentertaining.

  7. Doug, will you stop criticizing the product placement in Man of Steel?

  8. I liked this movie. I still do.

  9. I remember HATING this movie. The sequel on the other hand is a different story. I hope you review the sequel later down the road! Follow up comment to come after I’ve actually SEEN the video.

  10. The really disturbing thing about this movie is that none of the movie’s character look like the cartoon selves, but the villain looks disturbingly like Garfield creator Jim Davis.

    • Steve the Pocket

      Ha ha, he totally does. I actually had to check IMDB to make sure that wasn’t actually him, because most of the acting in this movie is bad enough that they may as well have grabbed someone who’s not a professional actor and told them to try to act.

  11. Glad I never saw the film!

  12. Doug’s face isn’t nearly as F’d up to believably pass for Buscemi.

  13. It’s gonna be great when he reviews the sequel in the future. Yes, there’s a sequel.

  14. Hilarious review Doug! I lost it at the Starfire joke. By the way, can you please review the movie Freddie As F.R.O.7? It’s a must!

  15. actually Garfield made his debut in newspaper comics 10 days before I was born., and I grew up watching
    Garfield & Friends and the tv specials like Garfield in the Rough., I even read all the books like Garfield weigh in., I’m an natural-born fan of this character., so I was pissed-off at what they did to my beloved fat-orange wisecracking feline in this movie., hell my nieces & nephew loved Garfield as much as I do., and FYI
    The Garfield Show is okay but it’s no Garfield & Friends., that was a part of my childhood like the other wonderful tv., movies., and other stuff as well.,,.

  16. Critic, is there a sequel month coming up?

    • I was thinking that too, what with him reviewing the first Fantastic Four not too long ago and now this both bad films known for making enough money to have pointless sequels with surprisingly a lot of good/big name actors brought into said sequels, almost as if the studios promised them a big pay check for these dumb movies

    • Steve the Pocket

      Didn’t he only do Sequel Month one year? And then every year after that, January was always something different because That’s The Joke?

  17. It’s about time that he reviewed this movie. It’s a long time coming.

  18. VillainousBlogger

    Yeah this works more as a cartoon and comic strip than a movie. The gags work better in short spurts rather than being stretched out. And the CG for Garfield was…really fake. But as bad as this was, it’s not as bad as the sequel which is just insane.

  19. I used to like Garfield, but I kind of got soured on it when I learned that Davis’s main interest was marketing, and when the Comic Strip Critic pointed out that a lot of the strips are lazy copy/paste jobs. Either way, good review.

  20. I used to like this movie as a child. Like, I watched it multiple times; you could call me obsessed with it.
    Coming back to it as an adult, I now really dislike it. The main reason is that our main character, Garfield, is an unlikeable jerk. He screws up Jon’s morning routine for his own selfishness AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MOVIE (great introduction there…), leaves Odie out in the cold when the poor dog tried to comfort him, and at the end, I just didn’t feel like he learned anything. And to me, the just desserts he eventually gets for all his douchebaggery wasn’t enough punishment.
    Also, the line “I know you don’t hear me, but can’t you just listen?” makes all the jokes centred around Jon being unable to hear Garfield’s English fall flat.

  21. The comparison to Man of Steel in terms of the product placement was not fair. The difference was that in Man of Steel, the characters didn’t even call attention to the logos or brands. They were just there. And if they don’t mention them, why should you? A better comparison would be to that scene in Eight Crazy Nights.

    • Exactly. The worse crime of product placement is being meta about it, not just placing it everywhere in the movie. And that’s also one of the reasons why Food Fight sucks harder than a dustbuster.

    • higuyswatchadoooin?

      That and I just plain find it harder to believe that Superman smashed a bunch of unaffiliated gas stations, stores and billboards than I do that he smashed through things owned by several major franchises. It’s way better than if he smashed up a McNerfal’s and a 5/9

    • …..”generic Man of Steel criticism”

      *looks around*

      Did that set your unmanned senses ablazin’? :>

      Man of Steel. Suckage. Balls.

  22. I don’t even like the fact that Garfield’s mouth is moving! In the comic, the only way he shows communications is through thought bubbles, that for some odd reason can be read by everyone.

    • Not usually. Take out the thought balloons, and most of the dialog still makes sense.

      • Joke in the story is that Garfild is real. Creator of comic have tendency to talk to his cat and imagine what he would reply to him. And he basically put that on pages. Obviously later he get more character but still joke was that Garfild didn’t really talk, and dialog have sense anyway even if dude talk basically to himself. So yeh, this movie is crap as it shouldn’t be “talking animal” movie.

  23. I don’t know why but Pookie the Bear in the intro made me laugh. I don’t understand the intro. I’ve never seen (or heard) the movie that they’re satirizing. Although, I kinda understand how it ties into Garfield IS kinda cute though in my opinion but I’m a sucker for cats (nearly ALL cats).

    Yeah, Shark Movies is great. It’s stupid but so funny and occasionally witty. It’s like SNL of Sharks. Also, that really DID look like a butt.

  24. So, it’s pretty much like the first two Scooby Doo movies, horrifying CG, dated pop culture, and kid pandering bullshit!

  25. I didn’t like this review… Can Critic be less of a jackass? I mean, this is a bad movie and all, but he was just so insufferable here. And with less wit than what he usually displays.

  26. Gotta love Uncle Yo.

  27. Funniest review in a long time. This movie also made me feel betrayed as a major Garfield fan. Just plain awful.

  28. That was 42 hours Doug went without mentioning the Star Wars prequels, Dark Knight Rises, or Man of Steel. Reset your clocks people.

    Just because a product is IN a movie doesn’t make it product placement. You have to be a special kind of cynical internet neckbeard to see a logo in the bottom corner of a screen and scream THAT’S IT MOVIE RUINED

    • Yeah! Go eat those Taco Bell tacos!!!!

    • Yes it does. Why would you give away product placement in a movie? If it’s not product placement, you either hide the logo or use a fake one.

      • Yeah, because fake brands and hidden logos are WAY less straining on the willing suspension of disbelief. Either it is obvious what they are standing in for and in fact drawing MORE attention to the product (“Gee, I wonder what McRonald’s is a stand-in for?”), or they’re absurdly creepy (“oh, they’re drinking unbranded cola… because Coca Cola is not sketchy enough as it is”).

        Sorry, but a cinematic world feels more believable if the world around the characters display recognizable brands.

        It IS product placement, however, when it is obvious the characters are spending way too much time universally consuming a single product (“why everyone only drink pepsi?”), when they draw attention to the brand (“Mac and Me” being the world’s most obvious example, since the product placement is in the GODDAMN TITLE) or the product is constantly center-and-front in establishing shots (“They sure like to show the character’s head right over Apple/VAIO’s logo in their notebooks!”).

        None are things that happened in Men of Steel, but Doug acts like Superman was flying around in Wendy’s uniform giving free Wendy burgers to people he saved when the movie quite explicitly shows that working at Wendy is Clark’s childhood bully SHITTY JOB!

  29. Oh stop acting like you had an argument with Jurassic World’s visual effects!!! They don’t suck and you’re just being an ass by trying to convince anyone they did.

    • He did two large videos complaining about the effects, and those weren’t his endgame?

      • Not sure what you meant by that. My beef is that he’s determined to maintain the Jurassic World FX were shit while taking all kinds of pot shots at it when they’re not and it just gets tiresome. He and I have both only seen it once and I came out of it with a positive assessment meaning he really should wait for the home video so he can a nice good look and maybe even back up his claims. His assertion of the I-Rex being a giant raptor is worse given the viral information that clearly debunked it.

        • Saw it 3 times, saw once in iMax… The effects are actually… well, there are some places where they’re not all that amazing (lets say around 2% looked like a bit of fakery) and the rest is some of the best effects I’ve seen.

          Also, the I-Rex uses Giganotosaur as the base and has combined part raptor. The skeletal structure looks a lot closer to G than it does to T-Rex so it looks really fitting. Doug is just an insufferable little prick about that movie because he’s too much a purist about computer effects.

          I personally LOVE the practical effects used in the original Jpark but wow… Jworld is nearly as good! I came away from that movie fully disappointed. I EXPECTED TO HATE IT! I came away disappointed with myself because I had for years expected JP4 to be SHIT.

          It could have been shit… the human-dino-hybrid idea was god-awful but what we got was another “don’t fuck with nature”, “don’t dick around with forces you don’t understand” and “don’t think you’re ever in control” movie like the first. The second TRIED to do that but failed. Jworld just succeeded!

          Anyway, yeah. Not going to say it’s without its flaws but the FX isn’t one of them. They’re top notch.

        • Adding on to what I said before. Would have been more fitting if Indominus was called G-Rex. Having in mind its base is the Giganotosaurus. While having a weaker bite force than a T-rex, it was bigger and had much more slicing capability with its teeth. Effectively they got it right with the final scenes where the Indominus is taken down by a Mosasaur after inflicting a lot of flesh wounds to old T.

          • Well “Indominus” they said was a marketing thing in the film itself so….

            But yeah, Doug is not as smart or clever as he thinks and is too lazy to do research. Hell, even in his arrogance he personified the people calling him out on his mistakes as “Douchey McNitpick” though most of the mistakes were minor -some were legit.

            That’s why I wish he had waited for a physical copy to use in his shitty review to go over and maybe even show clips that allowed the audience to see what he was seeing in regards to “bad” effects. Hell, even Rob rolls his eyes at Doug’s whining over the film.

        • “He and I have both only seen it once and I came out of it with a positive assessment meaning he has to shut up because I don’t like to listen to people whose opinions differ from mine!”

          Seems legit.

          • That was not in any way the quote nor was it in any way the point I was making. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SHARE MY OPINION OR ELSE THINGS YOU STUPID TROLL. I very clearly stated that he needs to watch it more than just once. If he’d seen it multiple times and came out of it with the opinion that it’s bad, it would be one thing. But he is tearing the FX apart with nothing to back it up but a single viewing while most other people with 1 (or more viewings) have said they were fine.

            MY PROBLEM is his assessment that his opinion is spot on and is acting like an ass about it.

            Next time pay attention to the conversation before you embarrass yourself with trolling that doesn’t match the situation and is no way, shape, or form “legit”.

  30. The audience reaction to Odie on his hind legs is like Americas reaction to puppies doing ANYTHING. Mirrored by movies, where characters jump into Tornados or huge explosions just to save their dumb dog who did nothing throughout the movie but drool, make noise and fart.

    I’m starting to think such scenes aren’t a clichĂ©, but a parody on how dumb society is.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.