acid reflects

GARFIELD

This is an easy watch. Or is it? It’s illogical and chaotic – totally Garfield! Or is it? Judging by the special screening, it is audience-approved.

Garfield, the world’s most infatamous tabby cat (yup I’m inventing words) is back on the big screen to deal with unresolved daddy issues (and hunger pangs.) Chris Pratt voices another IP that does not involve religion as the indoor feline with the insatiable appetite for Italian.

This somewhat reintroduction of Garfield and friends to the Alpha generation shows how the orange tabby got separated from papa tabby Vic (Samuel L. Jackson) and eventually adopted his hooman Jon (voiced by Nicholas Hoult.)

Vic reappears in adult Garfield’s pampered life out of nowhere but inadvertently drags Junior tabby (that’s Garfield) into Vic’s messy entanglement with Jinx (Hannah Waddingham.) Somehow, a crime involving stealing thousands of gallons of milk from a dairy farm becomes the main plot of the story, with the side quest of saving cattle couple Otto (Ving Rhames) and Olivia (Janella James.) Yes. this movie is intended for children. The basic message is covered: family first, parents love your children, friends and family make for a happy life – yadda yadda Holllywood.

Frenetic is the key word, although that would make this version of Garfield a lot less nonchalant than the jazz-singing late ’80s to mid ’90s TV cartoon variety. A lot less sarcastic, too, this one is. A full song number from Jinx in the end credits makes me believe that songs were considered for Garfield at some point – but maybe the makers decided that the new Garfield is more keen on using Spotify than randomly bursting out in a jazz song. Maybe Jazz is too Boomer for the new market.

Illogical narrative and questionable parenting aside, Pinoys love kittens – so this is almost a no-brainer to bring kids to the cineplex to see Garfield (if your family can, of course.)

#GarfieldMovie opened in Philippine cinemas May 29 from @columbiapicph

Images and links from Columbia Pictures

—-

IF

For a movie about the wonders of the Imagination, IF had a fairly limited stretch. Where’s the Thin Old Man With A Hat imaginary friend, iykwim? How about a rainbow-farting pink baby pig unicorn with a Jamaican accent? Or how about a green little person with bug eyes – the type that looks like an alien? You know, the types conjured by WILD children’s imagination without abandon. Maybe the Ice Cube in a Cup character fits here, but really?

But also: in Asia, if you have an imaginary friend, nae-engkanto ka na (You’re being bewitched by nature spirits.)

Idk how this film would resonate, it’s emotionally flat (music worked overtime to compensate but ugh.) How would places that don’t usually have imaginary friends in their culture feel about this, I don’t know. Do Vampire friends also go to an imaginary theme park for retirement? Are all imaginary friends cute and cuddly?

Felt like the original child character was written male, then changed into female. The “adventures” skew to the blue spectrum of gender assignment.

Also, felt like a studio attempt at starting an IP with theme park characters – merch here, merch there. Sequel means more merch.

In fairness, Ryan Reynolds tried to sell this show. He ain’t Wonka though. Character felt more Pied Piper.

Looks great though, cinematography by one of Spielberg’s regulars, Janusz Kaminski.

IF was released through Paramount Pictures.