"Everything about this movie feels so 10 years ago - so behind the times - even in terms of the animation. "
-- Rebecca Murray, ABOUT.COM
"“Garfield’s” problems start with its very concept. This film should never have been made, and those involved with its production likely know it."
-- Steven Snyder, ZERTINET MOVIES
"One of the year's cheesiest and most embarrassing movies."
-- Lawrence Toppman, CHARLOTTE OBSERVER
"Frantic but flat, a picture so neutered and declawed that even toddlers will find it too bland for their taste."
-- Frank Swietek, ONE GUY'S OPINION
"A motion picture so ungainly and awful that only an under-8 child could appreciate it."
-- James Berardinelli, REELVIEWS
"A lot like the comic strip, just blanded out beyond belief."
-- Randy Cordova, ARIZONA REPUBLIC
"The film is a veritable conga line of bad decisions whose guiding premise appears to be 'Never mind, kids will watch anything.'"
-- Colin Covert, MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE
"Feels like an 82-minute commercial for Garfield, The Brand rather than cinematic dumb fun."
-- Robert K. Elder, CHICAGO TRIBUNE
"It's enough to make you long for the wit and wisdom of Mike Myers' Cat in the Hat."
-- Owen Gleiberman, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY
"Garfield: The Movie is like Stuart Little: For Dummies."
-- Bruce Newman, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
"This one's strictly for the kiddies."
-- Michael Rechtshaffen, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
"You are likely to leave this one feeling as grouchy and put-upon as the title character."
-- A.O. Scott, NEW YORK TIMES
"A calculatingly fluffy version of Jim Davis' strip."
-- Gene Seymour, NEWSDAY
"The poorly penned plot is derivative even by Hollywood standards."
-- Philip Wuntch, DALLAS MORNING NEWS
-- Josh Larsen, SUN PUBLICATIONS (CHICAGO, IL)
-- Wade Major, BOXOFFICE MAGAZINE
-- Danny Minton, BEAUMONT JOURNAL
-- Scott Nash, THREE MOVIE BUFFS
-- Eric D. Snider, ERICDSNIDER.COM
-- Rob Vaux, FLIPSIDE MOVIE EMPORIUM
-- Ed Gonzalez, SLANT MAGAZINE
-- Jeffrey Lyles, GAZETTE (MD)
-- Nell Minow, MOVIE MOM AT YAHOO! MOVIES
-- Dustin Putman, THEMOVIEBOY.COM
-- Peter Sobczynski, CRITIC DOCTOR
Thanks for the reviews...
A bit obsessive...I prefer to make up my own mind.
THANKS!
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
You, Harvey, are an unmannered and ill-bred organism.
I have absolutely no desire to see this movie. This movie should not be...
Nah, all I did was copy and paste the Rotten Tomatoes review page. It took about a minute.
How rude!
I paste in a movie review page and some nasty person tries to start a fight. I do this for every animated movie. Please don't try to start a fight with me when I post reviews for Shark Tale. C YA :rolleyes:
lets be fair...
-- Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
-- Nicolas Lacroix, ENPRIMEUR.CA
-- David Nusair, REEL FILM REVIEWS
-- Luke Y. Thompson, NEW TIMES
-- Fred Topel, ABOUT.COM
-- Willie Waffle, WAFFLEMOVIES.COM
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com
www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]
hey dakar, larry...
we all know how harvey is, i'm sure he was waiting for this. Ofcourse the reviews for this are going to be terrible. There is nothing ground breaking about the story. And a movie like this is just too easy to rip apart. But seeing as my part was the animation, i have no say in anything story wise or filmmaking, so these reviews come down on fox, not us. I will stand by with what i have said about the cat though. Alot of the reviews crack me up, because they say how great the cat looks, but how bad the movie is. Thats fine by me. (o:
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com
www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]
Hey Matt, Ebert gave it a very good review btw.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-garfield11f.html
I rather talk about the animation part of the movie, specially when we have somebody who worked on it right here. Like I said, the animation was great. That's why it would have been awesome to have Odie and maybe the mouse (forget his name) be CG animated too, I would have loved to see what you guys did with those characters.
Only bad comment I've seen on the animation from some reviewer, is what I put on the other thread about humans holding Garfield (be interesting to see your reply on that), but I don't think that's the animators fault as the live action people did it in a way that I don't think any of you guys could have fixed.
this is from the other thread
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com
www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]
All I know is that a lot of people worked their arses off on this movie (including Matt) and to them, I give them a big *smooch*. Same with every movie that comes out...takes a lot of work and effort. Go Matt!:D
Visit My Online Portfolio!
Again, I post the reviews for EVERY animated movie, so don't get all paranoid on me. Let's all remember that none of the reviews were actually written by me.
Some of you are quit to denounce reviews right off, but you neglect to study the many positive aspects of these writers' critiques.
For example, many of the reviews claim that this movie, Garfield, will appeal to some toddlers. That's a very good thing. You can be sure - I guess - that Garfield will be raking in those much-envied toddler bucks.
Also, many many reviewers believe that - while the other actors, the story, character design, and the animation are simply awful - Bill Murray's voice is very appealing.
So you see, you have to accentuate the positive, and every cloud has a silver lining, etc.
I think most reviews have no problem with the animation to be quite honest. I thought it was great, while I didn't much like the movie itself.
The problem is not you posting negative reviews, it seems like you're trying to rub it in somebody's nose. If that's not the case, your replies sure make it sound more like that.
You're absolutely right, Augusto. I could have been more diplomatic about it.
I guess I'll have to be more sensitive to Matt's feelings from now on, just as I'm sure he's pledged to do the same for me.
If I had this thread to do over, I'd title it "Garfield reviews" and I'd introduce the list with a disclaimer, of sorts, that said something like "well, here are the Garfield reviews. Most of them aren't very happy with the movie overall, but I'm sure the animation is great, nonetheless."
you ever think about actually forming your own opinion? Feel free to pass on how bad the animation is (without ever seeing it) But there are animators on this show that can animate circles around most people. It always funny to me, people will say how bad the animation is in one movie, but then complain how bad it is in another, and it has the exact same people animating on it. Could it be perhaps people don't understand what they are looking at? I have a feeling most people can't judge the animation itself, they are too blinded by what the story or design is. generally, when a movie has a bad story, then the animation sucks, but when it has a good story, whooo, the animation rocks.
oh well, I say, form your own opinion. If you still hate the animation after actually seeing the movie. Then fine.
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com
www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]
I've never given the forming of my own opinion about Garfield much thought since the movie has absolutely no appeal to me. After all, Garfield is a terrible comic strip. How good could the movie be?
Do YOU see every awful-looking movie that comes out just so you can form an opinion about it?
ofcourse not, but i don't spread how bad it is either with out seeing it for myself.
so why do you feel you need to post on this movie, this harmless kids movie?
If you're not intrested, why post on it. Is it just to make me and the other 200 people i worked with feel like we didn't do a good job? For someone that cares little about this movie, you sure spent a long time going through the reviews...
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com
www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]
:( :( i was thinking it was going to be a great movie.. and ppls are talking so down about garfield :( it's sad..
Please join my new websites :D
www.EvanIslam.com
Matt, it would seem as you are being bated (on more than one thread!) by Mr. Human. What shocks me is that you continue to respond to him at all. It's obviously NOT worth your time.
Artists in this industry give the client what they want. The stories and all else that comes with it is something completely out of your hands.
Since you are working for a major studio, I "have" to assume you are an above-average animator. Seeing what's on your site, I know you are. Hearing what movies you've worked on is an inspiration. Gives us little guys (girls) hope!
Don't let one (or two) opinions, disqualify your tremendous skills. You rock! Who cares what happens to the movie, you know you did good.
Erin ;)
------------------------
The only thing that is truly yours - that no one can take from you - is your attitude. So if you can take care of that, everything else in life becomes easier. ~unknown
you're right Dream...
thanks for the compliments, and understanding the studio/client relationship! Like the movie or not, i really enjoyed animating on it. it was a great learning experience, and i really got some nice shots for my reel.
evand- Its the nature of the film. Scooby 2 got killed by critics, but i thought it was a fun movie. go see it for the animation, its a simple kids movie, and thats exactly what it delivers.
[b][size=3]Matt Shumway
Character Animator
Rhythm and Hues Studios
www.mattshumway.com
www.enigmathemovie.com
[/b][/size]
i agree with dream..
and yes i'll go see that movie..
Please join my new websites :D
www.EvanIslam.com
So you don't think a person should post movie reviews until they see the movie themselves? I don't know about that. So if the critics had praised Garfield and I'd posted THOSE reviews you'd be just as upset?
I always post the reviews of animated movies, whether they are good or bad. I may not care about Garfield in particular, but I care about animation and I care about animators.
That's a good attitude to have. I've worked on lots of gargage too, but it was fun and exciting work. Often the projects that turn out the worst are the funnest to work on. :)
How bitter are you (hu)man?!!
I'm sure if anyone wants to know the reviews, they'll go find them. Just like you did. But when a forum like this is used to insult others, between the lines or not, YOU lose credibility.
"It doesn't take a lot to get a bad rep, but it sure does take a miracle to get a good one back." - by "me"
Erin ;)
------------------------
The only thing that is truly yours - that no one can take from you - is your attitude. So if you can take care of that, everything else in life becomes easier. ~unknown
Prepare yourselves: in a few months I'll be posting the reviews for Shark Tale as well. Hopefully the PDI/Dreamworks crew that inhabits this forum will be a little bit more adult about any negative reviews there may be.
I'm afraid I have to weigh in on this one, because I think the art/field/hobby of Criticism deserves it.
Yes, I belong to the camp that wants to know thoughtful, considered opinon that contributes to the bigger vocabulary and opinion that's just passed on - good or bad - really does slowly leech away the vitality, if only because it promotes a kind of laziness.
There IS a correlation between lazy opinion and lazy product. The loveliest compliments become a lot less meaningful when they come from someone who demonstrates meager ability to discriminate between bad and good. I'm sorry, but when you (when anyone) offers criticism and expects it to be read or heard as legitimate, you incur an obligation to use critical skills. And while you/anyone COULD reply with 'I can say that, it's my opinion' - well, THAT of course, begs the question of the value of the opinion that is badly informed. The good news is that FAR better thinkers than us (we? you'll have to fix the grammar yourself - I'll leave it at 'me') have done all the 'figuring it out for us.' See Humes' essay, "On Opinion."
I trust we're not forgetting that I NEVER CRITICIZED THE GARFIELD MOVIE. And it seems pretty insane to me that people should be expected to restrain themselves from reporting about the critiques of others. Let me know if the following dialog makes sense.
PERSON 1: I haven't seen that movie yet, but most of the reviews say that it's wonderful.
PERSON 2: How dare you! Don't you know that you're required to see the movie and form your own opinion before you're allowed to relay the opinions of others? A friend of mine told me that he likes Hawaii, but I wouldn't DARE tell others that he said that until I've seen Hawaii for myself.
Cmon!Its certainly no Boondooks (pure CRAP!) or Doonesbury!But I think the longevity speaks for itself.What; 20 something years in syndication?Ive enjoyed Garfield for years as have many of my younger and older relatives.Its really easy to criticize something that an artist spends years refining to make the work appear effortless such as Peanuts or the Far Side?(thus the beauty of it!)My only beef with the movie would be why didnt they do a cg Odie!I'll check it out and Im sure, find some enjoyment out of it.Im a bit biased though, I actually like Garfield and have a cat that looks just like him (just not as fat!) and I happen to be a big Bill Murray fan as well.His best role was still Carl from Caddyshak as far as Im concerned...with a close second being Groundhog day!(Genius!)
swankaman
Okay. I'll work with your dialogue, Harvey.
I wasn't talking about getting indignant, melodramatic or ... but if Person 1 said that, (as Person 1's so often do), I'm pretty sure I'd just nod. Because, fair enough, if someone wants to pass that on, but ... it's not really useful to ME because I don't know what the criteria for judging it were (was?). Even in casual conversation, I prefer people to know something about what they're talking about, to be as close to the source as possible.
And, yah, but as someone who does reviews, I don't think it's insane - I think it's a requirement of criticism to show restraint. No, no question you didn't criticize Garfield but criticizing and criticism are different things and just the nature of posting reviews on a site like this is a gesture of criticism. Criticism asks for a little precision, a little accountability - not so folks can attack the critic's opinion (necessarily), but because (sigh. I hate to use this expression, but I can't think of another one) there are critical standards and they depend on people considering things carefully and thinking independently. It's why this site is SO fantastic for comments on actual animation - people offer the best critical judgment. Well, criticism is a skill, too, and deserves the same.
Have you worked on any movies or projects we'd be familiar with?
As for Garfield, that's why I limited my comments on the animation, this is after all an animation message board. The reviews are ok, but seing as to how we have somebody who worked on the animation of this movie, talking about that is much more interesting ... at least to me.
Garfield does well despite crappy reviews.
Garfield came in 5th in its openning weekend at $21.7 million, following The Stepford Wives, Shrek 2 (in its 4th week), Riddick, and Harry Potter (in its 2nd week); but inching ahead of The Day After Tomorrow (3rd week).
Swankaman, I have to agree with the comment made about Garfield being a TERRIBLE comic strip. I admit, it used to be funny, 2 years ago, but it lost its appeal over the last 15 years. It is now about as funny as "for better or worse" or "Cathy". There is very rarely a JOKE in the comic strip any more.
Admittedly, I was a big fan of Garfield when I was younger. Actually, I learned how to draw by copying the comic strip poses when I was a lad.
As for the longevity of it being published... I think they were banking on the Jim Davis name after the first 5 years. It WAS a big hit, and they just kept them coming, regardless of the content. I mean, what does it compete against? What comic strips in the paper ARE funny nowadays? Very few...
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
boondocks.
The strip debuted on June 19, 1978 in 41 U.S. newspapers. Several months after the launch, the Chicago Sun-Times cancelled GARFIELD. Over 1300 angry readers demanded that GARFIELD be reinstated. It was, and the rest, as they say, is history. Today, GARFIELD is read in 2570 newspapers by 263,000,000 readers around the globe. Recently, Guinness World Records‘, named GARFIELD "The Most Widely Syndicated Comic Strip in the World."--I guess I should dismiss that and believe two or three people who think its bad.Im sure Jim is crying all the way to the bank.Ok! you guys are right; it sucks.....
swankaman
I never said it wasn't popular... I just said that "I THINK" it is dumb now. I THINK it is not funny any more. I THINK it has nothing going for it self any more. I THINK it was good at one time, and now it is just riding a wave it made for itself years ago, and people will still read the dribble because they got hooked on it when it actually WAS good, and they can't let go.
I am not trying to sway your opinion, or anyone else's Swankaman. Just sharing what I think about the Garfield strip. If you think it is actually funny, and fun to read every day, then all the best to you. I would be very surprised if you were not HEAVILY outnumbered though in that opinion, but that does not concern me.
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
True enough. Mostly mindless schlock - Garfield included.
However, I was shocked and pleased to find that Berkeley Breathed IS BACK!! His new strip is called Opus. Now I really have a reason to steal my neighbor's paper. :)
I THINK i struck a nerve swade!The fact that 260 something million people still enjoy the strip is interesting?Ive never had a problem with anything YOU say swade.I respect your opinion a lot.I totally agree with you, there are times to "give it up".In a sports anology let me just say--I think Troy Aikman is GREATNESS!The last couple of years he sucked..period!I think I can overlook those last couple of years for the 3 super bowls!--In my opinion, Garfield is slacking but if (as you say) its been only a couple of years outta 20+ that sucked; its "NOT TERRIBLE" ;MAYBE LOST A BIT OF SHINE BUT WORTHWHILE!I think its funny that such a meaningless kids movie (based on the original comicstrip) generates such attention.I also think its extremely RUDE and obnoxious to insult something that a member of this board (who even posts under his OWN NAME) worked hard to help produce?!I read onetime that someone said "well Matt may be the expert in animating Garfield but thats irrelevant to the matter" Excuse me?In an animation forum?Cmon!I take much more credence in professional opinions and "real world" animation experience than people who do nothing but incite arguements no matter what the subject seems to be!
swankaman
In today's local paper I read 2 Garfield reviews that actually matter-they were by a 12 year old girl and a 15 year old boy. Both were very positive! The boy even said it was the best cartoon translation into live action that he had seen. To me, these reviews are more important than those by some pompous film school drop out. So on that note I can say "Well done Matt!"
I haven't seen the Garfield movie, so no comment there, but here's a link that might help explain why some of us who adore good comic strips have always hated the Garfield strip:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102299/
Sad to say, the only strip I really care about these days is Mutts.
Great read Kevin :) Interesting stuff.
Why do critics, when proclaiming a film is bad, say stuff like "only under 8's will enjoy it" or "strictly for the kiddies"? Especially when the film IS a kid's film. Ergo, if these reviews are accurate, the film has done EXACTLY what it set out to do and therefore is good. I just don't understand, confound it!! Critics: must try harder. :mad:
o boy for the horrors of capitalism
what a story
only one remedy... boycot garfield for he has no soul
Peter Wassink - Digital 2D Animator
i guess they were disappointed that the storyline wasn't geared towards 'grownups'....?
i think we all need to lighten up and appreciate this movie for its animation...isnt that why we're here? to support our fellow animators? :D
if we keep dismissing films like this, the odds of finding an animation job will be a lot tougher than it is now, so in essence, it affects everyone here.
It's the kind of movie I'd like to see when it comes out on dvd. I was hesitant at first but i think the character design for Garfield is really great. I'm just appalled that they didn't animate Odie as well. He's such an important counterpart to Garfield and no live-action dog is going to balance an animated cat.
And let's not forget...
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=garfield_sucks
No worries, Swanks. You have your opinion, which I respect, and I have mine. I do want to just make one thing clear though, as it seemed that one of your comments was directed to me in your last post (not that I want to argue or anything). I not once insult the Garfield movie, or Mr. Shumway (Matt S). While I will not be running out to see the film, I still do think the CGI stuff looked pretty good (more or less). The only main problem I had he little bit I did see was Bill Murray doing one of those song sequences... and singing it himself!!! :eek:
At any rate... I do like Jim Davis' drawing ability, and his style... Just not really fond of his comic strip any more. I used to be very fond of it, as I had mentioned (it is what got me into this business in the first place), but it lost its luster with me many years ago, as it has with many other people.
Cheers
Oh... And Wade is my real name too...
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon