By this point in our cinematic culture, an existing property that has not been wrangled into becoming yet another entry into the growing canon of reboots, remakes and revivals can consider itself lucky, since it seems like just about every original piece of media has been subjected to the incessant need to reinterpret classic works. For many of us, the character of Garfield, as created by the ingenious Jim Davis, has been a constant presence in our lives – whether the daily comic strip, the animated series that has seemingly taken on an evergreen position on television, or the occasional attempts to bring the character to life on film, the lovably grouchy orange tabby cat is never too far out of reach, being one of the rare characters that is as loved by adults as he is children, something that the industry has noticed and used as the reasoning for the constant attempts to once again launch a new production featuring the character. The most recent offering comes in the form of the appropriate but profoundly unimaginative title of The Garfield Movie, yet another opportunity to make a film based on the character, following the ill-fated and critically-reviled pairing of films from the mid-2000s, which have been seen as notorious failures. Mercifully, this film is an improvement in just about every way – the writing is sharper, the direction more precise and it features a few terrific performances that feel like major upgrades from the existing films, and something far more in line with the exceptional Garfield and Friends, an animated series that is perhaps the best use of Davis’ creation outside of his bespoke work. Far from perfect, and indeed featuring several elements that make us wonder whether this beloved character will ever get the film treatment he deserves, The Garfield Movie is at the very least genuinely quite solid, if not slightly unremarkable, which seems to be about as good as it gets with a beloved creation that doesn’t always lend itself to the cinematic form.

If we are to attribute the success of The Garfield Movie to anyone, it would have to start with Mark Dindal, a veteran animator who was brought out to helm this film after nearly two decades away from the director’s chair. Considering his first two directorial efforts were the wonderful Cats Don’t Dance and the extraordinary The Emperor’s New Groove (a major contender for the best-animated film of the decade), it’s clear that we were in good hands, with only Chicken Little being his sole critical failure, albeit one that has steadily been amassing a growing body of supporters who appreciate its more offbeat vision. This film has a few of the memorable qualities that we find commonly in Dindal’s work – primarily, it is genuinely a beautifully made film, with the animation being quite strong. The mistake many films tend to make when adapting beloved characters to film (particularly in a medium that crosses between techniques, such as going from two-dimensional animation to live-action) is that not enough effort is put into the design – it’s the main reason why the aforementioned attempts to bring this character to live on film failed since there was something truly uncanny and off-putting about the blend of live-action and CGI animation. The Garfield Movie puts a lot of effort into recreating the style of Davis’ comic strips, using cutting-edge technology to create a very close approximation of the source. There is a lot of slapstick and physical humour in this film, which is very helpful in keeping us entertained, especially with a story that is sometimes lacking in depth, and Dindal makes sure there is something worth seeing in absolutely every frame. He is often considered an animator long before a filmmaker, and it is clear that the work he does with The Garfield Movie prioritizes the visual spectacle as far as possible, which is in some ways the only appropriate way to make a film with this iconic character at its centre.

As lovely as the animation may be, there is the realization that, despite being a beloved character that has been a mainstay in the global culture for decades, Garfield is not a character that lends himself to longform storytelling, a fact that becomes increasingly more obvious the more time we spend with this film. It’s not badly written (unlike other attempts to explore this character on a larger scale), but there’s simply not enough material to justify the film’s existence. The entire concept behind The Garfield Movie was based on the introduction of a new character, Garfield’s long-lost father, as well as a range of supporting characters brought to the film to justify an entire feature-length film based around the titular creation. The results are subpar at best since the story as a whole is quite lacking – there’s a shortage of genuine dramatic tension, and it all becomes very predictable, often to the point where we begin to grow weary of the same repetitive jokes that are constantly revisited, not getting any funnier and starting to grate on our nerves, since they aren’t done in a way that amplifies the humour, but rather just to pad the already very thin narrative that only has a finite number of jokes that it can use before it becomes tiring. It isn’t even enough to lay the blame on the writers – the screenwriting team (which included David Reynolds, who worked on the screenplays for films such as Finding Nemo and The Emperor’s New Groove, and thus has proven himself to be a solid writer) simply didn’t have enough space to expand on most of these ideas, and they seemed to constantly be grasping at the paltry material they were provided, tasked with writing a film that captured the spirit of Garfield but without veering too far off course that it becomes unrecognizable or feels like it is betraying the original work. There is a reason why Davis’ comic strips are so impressive, they convey an entire story in only three or six frames, whereas this film tried to do the same, just spread over a much longer span of time, but not doing enough to actually justify such a lengthy approach to what should have been a much more layered and interesting film, given the insistence on bringing the character to the screen yet again.

One would at least imagine, or at least hope, that there would be a strong cast behind The Garfield Movie, and mercifully that does seem to be the case. He’s a slightly controversial figure considering his tendency to constantly be hired to portray iconic characters, without putting in much effort, but Chris Pratt is a fine choice to play Garfield, at least in terms of capturing the wry, sarcastic spirit that Pratt has shown himself to be quite adept at conveying at the best of times. It’s not a particularly complex performance, but it’s one that is reliable and sets the tone for the film as a whole. He’s joined by an unexpectedly tender Samuel L. Jackson as Garfield’s father, and Nicholas Hoult as the most skittish and paranoid interpretation of Jon Arbuckle we’ve seen to date. Hannah Waddingham, one of our finest living performers, plays the film’s main antagonist and extracts every bit of life from a thinly written character that would have barely registered had it not been for her larger-than-life performance. The cast of The Garfield Movie is surprisingly good, and they all tend to deliver exceptional work, going beyond what the film actually warranted. Unfortunately, not even they are able to entirely elevate the material beyond being merely charming, despite their universally strong efforts to bring these characters to life in their own unique way. One element of The Garfield Movie that does deserve some credit is the fact that there is a concerted effort to make these characters more complex and multidimensional, which is reflected in the strong performances and the attempts to shade in the more ambigious aspects of both the existing and new characters – but ultimately, the film does fall short, which feels slightly disappointing but is mostly to be expected from a film that didn’t want to expend too much energy making the story denser than it needed to be based on its initial intentions.

Despite numerous efforts to interpret the character on a larger scale, we simply have to resign to the realization that as beloved a figure as Garfield may be, he is simply not a character that fares particularly well on film, which makes sense considering the greatest successes featuring him are comic strips and short, bite-sized animated vignettes that deliver the punchlines as required and don’t overstay their welcome. The novelty of this character, as well as the humour associated with him, wears thin midway through this 100-minute film, and it becomes slightly tedious after a while. It isn’t exhausting or frustrating enough to be lacking in merit as a whole, but it’s difficult to look at this film as the best possible version of what can be done with this character. It does put in some effort, but it is unfortunately not enough to draw our attention, and it eventually becomes quite weak in what it aims to achieve after a while, being merely passable at most, which is certainly far from poor, but also not necessarily what we would expect from what we can anticipate was aimed to be the start of a new franchise. It remains to be seen whether The Garfield Movie will be the first in a series of films, or be viewed as a standalone entry into the growing inventory of reinterpreted classics brought to life for the new generation. In either instance, it’s not nearly strong enough to justify our blind trust going forward, and if we are to see more of these films, we can at least hope that they will be able to deliver memorable, meaningful stories rather than resting on their laurels in such a way that can be quite disconcerting. It’s entertaining enough and contains a few wonderful moments, but for the most part, The Garfield Movie is not particularly special.